KneelingDrunkardsPlea

What should we look for?

2009-02-15T18:20:00.000-08:00

You are probably a friend of the family or a Republican if you are reading this blog. My deepest hope is that this series of essays starts a wider circulation and I can shape public opinion. But I will save those fevered dreams for my less modest moments. I said that I would discuss the qualities needed in a new conservative Senator from Texas. Make no mistake, I do not want a liberal Republican representing our state. To borrow a phrase from a former President, we do not want pastels. We need bold colors in the august chamber of the Senate.
I stated in a former post that we do not need to send politicians to the Senate. We must send leaders. The collegial atmosphere of the Senate is an invitation to sell one's ideals at an incremental rate. Unlike the volatile House, the Senate serves as a cooling dish to the heated rhetoric that typically escalates between the parties. If the senator is not on close guard, that genial style will be mistaken for bipartisanship, and compromise on core values will soon follow. We must send someone who knows what the typical constituent goes through on a daily basis. The Framers decided on a representative democracy, and we have forgotten the "representative" part. It is not just enough to speak on behalf of those they represent, they must also have been OF their constituency. How many millionaires can you count in the Senate? How long has it been since they have had a job other than the Senate? How many were House members or state legislators before? I do not mean to engage is class warfare, but why are wealthy government officials lecturing you on what "regular" Americans want?
The quality of the leader means nothing if that leader does not have good moral character. Living a good life and doing the right thing goes a long way in proving to people that they can ultimately trust you with their money and the lives of their children. And make no mistake about how much the Congress controls your life. They are constitutionally empowered to levy taxes and declare war. And in case you haven't seen the news lately, the Congress is now legislating morality. From taxes on cigarettes to welfare payments for the never-employed, they are spending your money according to their values. Do you want a senator that drives drunk, doesn't pay taxes, cheats on his wife? These are very important questions that should play a large factor in your selection.
I would also encourage you to vote for a candidate who has put service above self. One of the disappointing aspects of most of our representatives is that they have never served in the armed forces of the United States. I want you to think hard about the leadership and the moral character of those who have not served. They are the ones that are making the decisions that affect the men and women in the armed forces on a daily basis. And if our profession is so noble and our service so critical, why have they not chosen to serve? Do some research on the candidates. Did the candidate finish college, go to graduate school, and then immediately run for office? Or did the candidate first choose to serve the United States to become a more well-rounded citizen? I am not arguing that military service should be the defining character of a good candidate, but I do think that each candidate should explain why they chose not to serve.
Our senator must also have the ability to decide, communicate, and act. One hundred men and women are primarily responsible for all the legislation. Yes, the House does a lot of drafting, but the Senate gives the go-ahead to every bill. If our next senator cannot be decisive (and have the will to stand athwart the spending spree and yell "STOP") then we will have made a mistake. Our next senator must also have the ability to clearly articulate to us why the decision was made. It is not enough to read some boilerplate statement or to say "trust me." We must be looked in the eye and convinced that each choice was made to the betterment of the Republic and the people of Texas. That senator must also act to protect the liberty and freedom of the people. Those acts might not always be positive, and a spine of steel would be a welcome relief to me, at least.
Finally, our new senator must be anchored in the conservative ideology. I will spend more time in a following post arguing why this is a good thing, but I will leave you with this. I have heard a lot about the benefits of pragmatism in the last few weeks. Pundits say that people do not worry about ideology, but what works. I say this is dangerous. Fascism "worked." National Socialism (ie Nazi) "worked." These pragmatic approaches to government proved very effective in some instances. But in fact they were also fantastically destructive to life and liberty. We should not be ashamed to elect someone who is dedicated to limiting the federal government, maximizing personal liberty and individual rights, and protecting the lives of all citizens.
If you like what you are reading, send it to a friend. If you really like what you are reading, send it to the county GOP. Demand a good candidate, you deserve no less.

Growing Maturity

2009-02-13T19:55:00.000-08:00

For those of you reading the whole blog, I ask you to look for my arguments to mature. It has been several years since I wrote anything, and I think you will be pleased with the change of perspective.

A great opportunity

2009-02-13T19:45:00.000-08:00

The citizens of Texas can seize a grand opportunity in the following year. The gubernatorial ambitions of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson will open the possibility to install a new senator in Washington that could have immediate and long lasting impact on your daily lives. If you have any doubt about the old maxim that "elections have consequences," then you have no further to look than the $800 billion legislative bill that is about to be enacted into law. The momentum of the Republican party began to slide during the 2006 election cycle, and the momentum swung to the Democratic side during 2008. The next few years will prove to be crucial, and you must be completely aware of the character and voting preferences of the (possible) next representative in the senior house of Congress. I am writing a series of essays to make my case that the time has come for some revolutionary thinking when picking your next Senator.
I cannot begin to describe how important this possible senatorial election will be. The democratic party currently has a 59 vote majority caucus in the Senate. As you have seen, they are able to persuade certain republican senators to cross party lines and vote with them to enable a cloture vote. Some of you reading this piece may think that 59 is close enough to 60, so why bother? The answer is that to legislate is to compromise, and to compromise is to persuade. Like it or not, the majority party persuaded enough minority votes to enable the passage of an enormous bill. If the next senator from Texas decides to caucus with the current majority, then the majority will have 60 guaranteed votes. This will mean that every bill sponsored by the majority will be able to pass with no real opposition. Most of you will remember the news of the last several years (while the democrats were in the minority) filled with the minority party slowing, and even stopping, the passage of legislation and presidential appointments. When I was young and naive, I thought that the minority was blocking what the people wanted. As I have grown wiser, I understand that it is the responsibility of the majority to legislate, but to also consider the arguments of the minority. With a majority caucus of 60 in the Senate, the minority will not have the ability to debate, slow, and possibly filibuster legislation. It is critical that Texas not be the final vote to enable every cloture for the next several years.
The first question is, how do we slow the momentum of the democratic party? We must field a candidate that can defeat the current advantage of the democratic party. Although Texas was still red after the 2008 presidential election, it could possibly slip to a very deep purple if we do not field an exciting candidate for the special election. We must also not forget that the winner of this special election will be an incumbent in 2012. Barring a complete reformation of the Congress in 2010 during the mid-term elections, the Senate will really be in play at the same time as the presidential election. We must also retake the "change" theme from the democrats. This is best done with a certain amount of political judo. If change does not come from Washington, but to Washington, then perhaps we should strive to look outside of the traditional candidates. Republican party members will complain about a lack of experience of a fresh candidate. But the senate is not the executive branch; it is legislating and not governing. The Framers of the Constitution thought that a person that had reached 30 years had enough judgment to be a senator. Why do republicans and conservatives artificially confuse age with reliability and judgment?
Hopefully you agree with what I have written. I will be writing more in the coming weeks on other topics. Other themes that I will be addressing include: qualities you should look for in your next senator, being wary of pragmatism and embracing "evil" ideology, the compatibility of conservative ideology with populist results, hero worship of public servants as antithetical to the democratic republic, federal spending, and the necessary pain of paying taxes. Thanks for your time and consideration.

Tell me sweet little lies.

2006-05-31T04:35:00.000-07:00

Just got back from outside. I was finishing up a nice cigar and sipping some decent Johnnie Walker Red. It's been raining pretty hard for the last few days and decided to slack off a bit tonight. That being said, the Kneeling Drunkard has some more drinking left to do and needs to get this post out of the way.
My last post left off with a good question. Why do we accept such deplorable behavior from our politicians? The answer is easy. They give us money. Well, not exactly give us money, more like give us our money back. Money that is held from our paychecks. We will forgive anyone if they bribe us with enough money. And that is exactly what goes on with every district. Pork spending has had some renewed coverage of late. The electorate is outraged at spending lines that other congressmen put into budgetary bills. But when it gets to their district, well, that money is completely justified dammit.
This isn't my longest or strongest post, but I'm tired and angry, and let's face it, ready to get the hell off the Rock. Since the Big Kahuna guarantees a democratic republic, each citizen is granted the right to vote for a representative. You get the guy who gets the most votes, usually the guy who lies the best during his campaign. And then he is going to give you what you deserve; good and hard. The responsibility lies with the electorate to send the man with the most integrity to DC. Otherwise you will not get leadership. You will get pandering.
And if you give a damn about what the Kneeling Drunkard thinks here is what you need to look for in a pol:
1. Never vote for a guy who promises you ANYTHING on the campaign trail. He is just setting himself to break his word or buy you off with pork projects.
2. Look for the guy who says that he doesn't want to spend a career in office. 6-12 years is long enough to get something done and still remember where you came from.
3. Vote for Hemingway instead of Shakespeare. A man that can answer a yes or no question with a yes or no is rare.
4. Avoid voting for a politician for the House. 6-12 years up there will make him one.
5. Don't vote for someone who smiles too much.
6. Don't send politicians to the Senate. Send leaders. That job is too important to leave to amateurs.
7. Don't vote for anyone who is for tax cuts if they are not for spending cuts.
8. Don't vote for anyone who is for raising taxes if they are not for spending cuts.
9. Don't vote for anyone who is not for spending cuts.
10. Vote for the man that brings solutions and leadership that don't expand the size of the government.

Remember, those who control the money and the ability to raise money have the power. Guess where that authority resides?

Somebody go get the grownups...

2006-05-29T05:30:00.000-07:00

I've had the dubious pleasure of getting to watch the US Legislature from a foreign land these last few months. Barring a little side trip to the Republic of Korea, I've had ready access to the news. Here are a few things that I have noticed:
1. Since when did a criminal investigation become a Separation of Powers issue? Last time I read the Big Kahuna there was something else called "checks and balances." Something about pitting the powers of each branch against each other so that one branch could not be checked by another branch, but by a union of the other two. The FBI (an office of the Executive) having a warrant (administered by the Judiciary) seems to trump the privacy of a congressman's office space.
2. Something is only impossible to do when it is politically hard. Sending the Armed Forces halfway around the globe for months at a time (MULTIPLE TIMES) is difficult. When the strain of these deployments is brought up to the government, they get a pained look on their face and assure us that it is very difficult. "The deployments are causing many hardships to the Armed Services. But the job must be done. No we are not just using these personnel as if they are expendable. They have performed magnificently and continue to accomplish harder and harder missions that we assign them." Sounds good right? Why is it so hard to secure the border? Are we asking too much of the border patrol? The police and federal law enforcement agencies?
3. The remoteness of a politician is equal to the product of the level of office multiplied by the number of reelections, squared. Does anyone remember anyone having a problem with sleep driving? Not falling asleep at the wheel, which I can write another post about (but I digress), but going to bed and then waking up behind the wheel thinking that you are late for a vote on the Hill. I've heard of some strange stories to get out of a DWI before, but not one to top that. Should have just claimed he was Irish and a Kennedy. That would have at least lent some credibility to his story.
4. I have to get another drink, hold on...
5. I seem to have garnered a reputation around the workplace of being some sort of wild man. Several of my junior co-workers hang around just to see what happens next. Doesn't help when my boss brings me whiskey and cigars. That being said, I'm finishing off a fifth of Glenfiddich that he gave me. It's the first good scotch I've had on the Rock. God bless that man.
6. Where was I? Oh yes. I want to be elected to the House of Representatives because of all the power that I would have. I could behave like a cave man (which I do now and have become accustomed) and it would be my RIGHT. I would be above the law. I wouldn't have to stop at metal detectors like I do now. Nothing is better than returning home from Iraq and getting searched to make sure I'm not a terrorist. Nothing is better than having three tours in Iraq and getting singled out for a search every time I get on a plane. If I was in the House, NEVER AGAIN. And I could start drinking and driving and just have the Capital Police take me home. Because everyone would know who I am. I'm going to taper off now because I am starting to sound more shrill than logical.

So what is my point? Why do I keep asking rhetorical questions? I cannot remember the last time I looked at the House (and to a lesser degree, the Senate) and thought "Where do we get such learned and respectable people such as these?" It's really getting frustrating folks. When I was a child I was taught that being a man had great rewards and great responsibility. One had to be a man and put away childish things. Responsibility and accountability were drilled in my head (thanks mom and dad). The same were drilled in by the Marine Corps. Why do we accept behavior from our leaders that we would not accept from the police, the military, or our children? I'll tell you that one tomorrow, and you won't like it...

On a lighter note, here is a pic of me and one of my best friends, Kelvin Sherman. I'm the better looking one.

Hard Logic, Difficult Choices

2006-04-19T05:34:00.000-07:00

For those of you who are just starting to read this blog, I would ask that you read my Apostasy post before reading this one. Seems that Islamic Jihad has claimed responsibility for the bombing in Tel Aviv. The Hamas led government of the PLA has deemed this bombing as a legitimate act of resistance.
So let me start connecting the dots here for those of you who are a little skiddish:
1. The people of Palestine democratically elected a national government.
2. That government is comprised of a terrorist organization (Hamas) that is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.
3. Hamas has judged an act of terrorism to be a legitimate act of hostility.
4. A legitimate act of hostility implies government consent and support.
5. A legitimate act of hostility with government consent and support is an act of war.
6. Hamas, and the Palestinian people by their vote, have committed an act of war (not terrorism) against Israel.
Now this opens up some really interesting possibilities for the Israelis. All government officials are now belligerents. A state of war can now exist instead of some quasi counter-insurgency. The real question is directed towards the US. Do we continue to sit on the fence of the clash of civilizations? I say we pick a side and see it through to the bitter end. Israel represents the western promise of the Middle East. Palestine and Iran represent the Arab pathos that will use every opportunity to destroy the west. We must use every scrap of logic left to us to counter the threat from the east. They can westernize or isolate themselves from the rest of the world. They must not be allowed to make their claim for our destruction credible. The clash is coming. We can hide our heads in the sand and pretend that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is bringing moderation, or we can face it head on. They are willing to die for their way of life. We are willing to die for ours. But are we willing to kill in such quantities to defeat them?

Laffer Curve

2006-04-10T05:22:00.000-07:00

I'm a big fan of National Review and the online website. If any of you get the chance to go there and look around, you can see why I like it. They speak my language. Anyway, there was an article in the magazine a few issues back that had the Laffer Curve. The gist of it is that as the tax rate is lowered in proportion to the amount of income of the individual taxpayer and business then the total amount of tax revenues increases. Taxing a man at a lesser percentage makes him more productive, and increases the total amount of money he contributes. That baffles liberals (and I mean the tax and spend kind, not "the government can have my money when they pry it out of my cold dead hands" types) and is a great issue for Republicans.
Notice that I said Republicans there and not conservatives. One of the principles of conservatism is limited government. More money in the coffers of the legislature does not limit government. President Reagan was a believer in the Curve and used it as a basis for his revival of the economy. The only thing is, President Reagan actually cut the growth of the federal government.
My recommendation would be to set the tax rate at the optimal angle on the curve. That would put the lowest tax rate in relation to the amount of money being collected. Next would be setting out the federal budget and then cutting it by ten percent. We don't need to slash too much the first year, just enough to make the Democrats howl. Then we would promise that it is just a one time thing and that it is not a sign of a slippery slope of cutting entitlement spending (wink). Now take the tax revenues and subtract the cost of the yearly budget. Less the 10% and the additional income from the Laffer Curve, then we would have a surplus. That surplus would then be used to pay down the national debt. Normal people have to live within their means and pay the bills, Congress should be held to the same standard.

Apostasy

2006-04-08T05:35:00.000-07:00

Now I know that most of you probably think that I am going to talk about the Afghan Christian convert, but I'm not. I'm the apostate here. Let me tell you why.
Sorry, I need to go get a drink first...
Okay, here we go. Terrorism is a legitimate act and should be seen as a lawful act of hostility. I can see several of you out there throwing things at the screen or shaking your head. What in the HELL has got into him? I shall explain. Right now we have terrorism defined as something between a violation of the law of armed conflict and an actual criminal enterprise. That is why it is so hard to defeat terrorism. Most terrorists operate as trans-national entities and have nothing to do with the sovereignty of the nations that they operate from. Well, that is not quite correct. The governments either openly support terrorism, are complicit with it, or abandon territory to create ungoverned spaces. But most governments are not specifically tied into a trans-national organization like the Taliban was. So we have a huge problem with out new Long War.
Most Americans are so dulled to the use of the word WAR that they don't have any idea of what it entails. We have the WAR ON POVERTY, WAR ON DRUGS, WAR ON CANCER, and now we have the WAR ON TERRORISM. Now I'm not going into the whole "words have meaning" rant that I normally go into when the WAR ON TERRORISM is mentioned, but here is a little taste: How can you have a war without a sovereign nation on the other end? WAR in this country has come to mean throwing men and money at the problem and hoping that it goes away. Better we call it the WAR ON ISLAMOFASCISTS or the WAR ON RADICAL MUSLIMS. But here is how we wrap our national security strategy around the whole problem without harming anyone's fragile feelings: Make terrorism a legitimate act of the law of armed conflict.
Now we have to do some serious groundwork before we put this rule into effect. One of the things that I don't think that the State Department does very well is deliver the message that the US in "No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy". Either countries begin to fully cooperate with us in our LONG WAR and reap the economic benefit of the American market, OR they can choose to not cooperate fully. The price for not playing ball will be the declaration that the US now considers the countries that openly support, are complicit with, or abandon territory to trans-national terror organizations as endorsing those organizations as legitimate entities of the government. Since trans-national terror organizations operating from countries are now seen as legal entities of the government, then that must mean that the national government supports terrorism as foreign policy. And since terrorism is now a legal act of war (thanks to the efforts of the kneeling drunkard), we now have a nation-state that has committed an act of war against the US. THEN we can have a straight gunfight with another nation, remove the government, and leave with clear consciences.
Don't be too hasty to brush this idea off. Most of the tin pot heads of state that we have to deal with only crave the power of their position. There is no altruistic compulsion on their part. They want to stay in power, and if they don't do everything in their power to keep the bad guys from committing acts of terrorism, the US comes in and cleans house. They can invite us in and seek our help at any time, but if they don't produce results, well, we'll get the coup out the way so the next guy can try. We really have to seek out ways to keep the legal and moral arguments away from the terrorists. Give them every right as every other criminal defendant when caught in an act of war and try him as a citizen of the United States. We can be magnanimous. Because Bubba and Tyree will make sure that Akmed is taken care of in the pen.

The Kneeling Drunkard's Plea

2006-03-06T05:15:00.000-08:00

Dear Lord,
Please forgive me of my sins. Give me strength, courage, valor, serenity, and discipline. Thank you for looking after my family and friends, and please continue looking after them. In Jesus' name I pray, AMEN.

The Drunkard is Back

2006-03-06T04:37:00.000-08:00

Hello all, long time no see.
I'm going to be talking to you about some nonsense over the next few posts. I have to get out of town for a little while, but not to fear, this little trip won't take more than a month or so. Seems that Uncle Sam has heard this kneeling drunkards plea and given him a few days break from the global war on terror.
So what are we going to talk about today? I'm glad you asked. I have a rather stiff scotch and water sitting beside me now, and because of it, I'm going to talk about something I normally would not: FEAR.
Big deal, lots of new age guys are talking about fear these days. Fear of failure, fear of the unknown, fear of loss. That's great, but what I want to talk about is the fear that lurks WAY down deep. Now I want to qualify this statement to most of you. I have experienced fear of the sort that most of you will never know. Only you who have led men into combat know what I mean. Not the fear of losing your life, but the fear that you might lose one of your men. I still wake up in the middle of the night with that nightmare. I have also experienced fear of the sort that would make most of you want to slap me. Truth be told, the opposite sex scares the hell out of me. There is a certain woman out there that I really want to tell how I feel, but the fear of it keeps me silent. Silly, yes. Pathetic, maybe. But the fear remains...
Let me digress here for just a moment. I'm a product of pop culture so let me give you an example of the fear that I want to talk about. Some of you out there may know that I am a big fan of Highlander. There is a great scene in Highlander 2 where McLeod and Ramirez are trapped and about to be killed. Ramirez turns to McLeod and says that each man is given a measure of life. The test of this life is what he does with it. But sometimes a man can focus that life into a single moment and accomplish something great. Really a powerful scene in a movie. For you geeks like me you probably got a little choked up as well. Here is the point: What happens when that single moment comes? How do you know when it will be the time? Will I have the strength to focus my effort for that instant? Will I be good enough to rise to the task? When lives are on the line and they need me, will I be able to see them through?
Some will argue that a little bit of fear is good for a man. Fear will keep him sharp, always looking for self-improvement. But fear is a double edged sword. It is the path to self-improvement, but it is also the path to self-doubt. I pray every day that I head down the path to the former and not the latter. And that one day I will wake up and not be afraid.

Egyptian Conference

2005-11-26T14:05:00.000-08:00

I really hate to keep harping on this whole war thing, but you write about what you know. Maybe when I get far away from the desert sand...
Did anybody happen to see the coverage of the pseudo-Arab League conference in Egypt? I did. And if you are not up in arms right now about the outcome, then you should be. Two things of note came out of the meeting. The first is that the Iraqi delegation agreed that the coalition should begin removing troops in 2006. The second is that the insurgents have an "indisputable right" to fight against the occupation.
The first resolution is a thank you to President Bush. The White House has been put under increasing pressure from the Senate to begin the withdrawal of troops. Since most of the Senators passed a resolution calling for "reports" and "planning" for troop drawdowns, the Iraqi government decided to help save some face by saying that they feel confident in the assistance that the US has given the new Iraqi Army. Good on them. Make no mistake about it, for better or worse the people of Iraq owe their freedom solely to President Bush. They are free from a tyrannical government by his force of will alone. Some of you in the know understand that I am working with the new Iraqi Army. I will save my judgment of that organization for another time.
The second resolution is a capitulation to the Arab Street. If you ever need any proof of the duplicity of the Middle East, this is it. The resolution called for the condemnation of all insurgent attacks against civilians, but made it abundantly clear that attacks on coalition forces were an "indisputable right" of the attackers. Let me tell you how I interpret this. If something is a right, then it is legal. If it is legal, then one cannot be prosecuted for that action. If that action cannot be prosecuted, then it is not a crime and is therefore not worthy of arrest. Follow me on this one? It is not a crime to attack the people that are directly responsible for granting them that right.
So now it is not a crime to try to kill me. So long as innocent Iraqis don't get hurt as a result. Here is a selfish little recap for you. I helped liberate this country in 2003. I helped rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq in 2004. I am helping stand up the Iraqi Army in 2005. I think I have a damn sight more right to decide the fate of a free Iraq than people who are openly hostile to Iraq, or worse, complict in the actions of those wanting to overthrow the government. These people owe everything they have to the US military. And the freely elected government that we have protected and nurtured has spit in our face.
We were wrong in not demanding the complete surrender and humiliation of the Iraqis. For some reason they have a sense of entitlement that should have been scrourged from the national ego. We have forgotten the lessons of the British and MacArthur. It's not a fluke that the Union Jack stabilized the world for many, many years. It's not mere chance that Japan is now our partner in Iraq.
Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not enough to cleanse the Arab pathos from Iraq. We must do more.

Buyers Remorse

2005-11-21T03:32:00.000-08:00

Let's start with a recap of my morning. A Humve got blown up just outside of our perimeter and some soldiers got killed. I was called to put out the fire because I have some fire trucks at my disposal. I won't get into the details. I saw worse in Nasariyah back in 2003, but then again we were in an actual standup war at that point. I have lost count as to how many wounded I have seen and helped. I've put more men in body bags now than I can even remember. American. Iraqi. Soldier. Marine. Civilian. I've lost some friends over here as well. All to enemy fire. I've seen no atrocities nor committed any acts of valor. To be blunt, I'm over here just doing my job.
And that is what has sent me around the twist. I have no buyers remorse about the war. I've been here for three tours and still think that coming over here was the right thing to do. No WMD? No problem. Now that Saddam is gone a lot of people have developed a selective memory and have lost the bearing of their moral compass. I'm not going to go into the oft repeated justifications of the war, but just hear me out.
For the last 26 years, the Middle East has been festering. During the Cold War we were able to partially ignore the problem and to use it to our advantage. Defeating Communism was our primary goal and all others could wait. A lot of people are throwing bricks at President Reagan for leaving Beirut, but cleaning out the Middle East wasn't his focus. Burying the Soviet Union was. Reagan 1, Commies 0. After the wall fell, we did not want to hear of the next threat. We went to sleep. Not because the would be conflict had drained the national spirit, but because we willfully turned our back on the next threat in a selfish attempt to enjoy our peace dividend. We were determined not to be aroused from our slumber. We did not wake for attacks on our military barracks. We did not wake for attacks on our embassies. We did not wake for attacks on our naval vessels or attacks on our native soil. We became a self involved, navel gazing, equivocating country that wanted peace at any price.
And we paid the price for our lack of vigilance. Most of us finally realized that our Western way of life is better than the Eastern. We realize that the US is a force for good in the world. We want people to be free. If we are guilty of exporting our culture to the world it is because we want the rest of the world to enjoy the liberties that we have. If a person says he is going to kill you, you take him seriously. If that person does everything he can to undermine you, to provoke you, to kill you, then you eliminate him. Al Qaida is not the disease. It is a symptom. Saddam Hussein is not the disease. He was a symptom. The disease is Islamofascism. We are taking measures right now to treat the symptoms, but we are not curing the disease.
The reason for that is that the cure is too steep a price to pay for the American public. The disease will not be cured until the entire Middle East is crippled and humiliated. They must face the fact and admit their total surrender. Then, and only then, will we be able to rebuild a civilization that can exist with the rest of the world. But we do not have the stomach for such things.
It is much easier to lash out when popular opinion demands it and then withdraw when the task becomes too hard. We will retreat to our own shores. The pacifists will lick their bruised egos and wail of the impending retribution that we BROUGHT ON OURSELVES. The warriors will lament how we could have secured the peace that cost us so much blood. And we will be attacked again. And again.
I knew the reasons for invading Iraq. We were coming in to remove an old enemy and to remove a disease by the only proven way: fire. I do not look at the wounded and dead and weep at the loss. I swell with pride at their courage. I am humbled at their sacrifice. I know their blood has bought more of the victory of the clash of our civilization against that of the barbarian. I just wish that the rest of America didn't use the words we live, fight, and die by as the punch line to their jokes.
Did we do the right thing in Iraq? Yes. Could we have done it better? Yes. Do I have any regrets? Only that my country is not prepared to do all that it takes to complete the victory and ensure that our way of life goes on. Would I do it again knowing what I know now? Where do I sign up?

You already betrayed one generation of veterans. Now get the hell out of my way.

What I have been talking about

2005-11-19T11:14:00.000-08:00

Anybody read the news lately? Seems like we have declared defeat in Iraq over the last few days. Good thing we get to hear about it from CNN.
I guess that most of you have noticed my, shall we say, lack of awe towards our elected law makers. If the best advice they can offer the executive branch on fighting a war is "YOU LIED TO US!!!!", I feel that we have learned nothing in the last 40 years.
I will have spent 22 months in Iraq at the end of this, my third tour. The months that I have not spent in Iraq since the opening of the war have been used for training to come to Iraq. I have been involved in this thing since the summer of 2002. I've spent 45 days in the US since January 2004. I've paid my dues and have a clue about what I am speaking. The war is not being lost in Iraq. It's being lost in DC. I used to wonder what it would be like to be sold out like the vets from Vietnam were. Now the protesters from the 60's are our law makers. And we have only ourselves to blame for putting them there.

37 days and a wake up. About a year after that until my contract ends. God, please don't let me be killed by someone else's stupidity or indifference.

My view of Roe v Wade

2005-11-19T02:42:00.000-08:00

Seems like a lot of my thoughts are being written about by other people these days. That or I am just stealing their ideas. I don't know at this point. Just a little update about me: I'm sick right now due to something I ate. Typical Iraq deployment for me. Eat something, get sick for a few days, lose a few pounds. I detest this country.
Also saw the comments made by Congressman Murtha. Interesting times ahead for us over here.
Okay, here we go with Roe and that guy Wade. How many of you who are reading this think that abortion would cease to happen if Roe v Wade was overturned? How many think that Roe is the only thing that ensures that women can have an abortion? Let me put your fears to rest. The second that Roe is overturned nothing will happened. Why is that? Because most states had legislation on the books concerning abortion prior to 1973. How many of you think that it was illegal to have an abortion in the US prior to 1973? If you said yes, you need to find your history teachers and thank them for selectively teaching you their personal agenda. And then you need to blame yourself for remaining willfully ignorant or facts.
The FACT is that abortion was not illegal in the US prior to Roe. Read the history of the case. Some state legislatures, in an act of federalism, chose to make abortion in their states illegal. Some states legislatures, in an act of federalism, chose to make abortion in their states legal. For those of you having a hard time with this concept, you should refer to the word DIVERSITY. It is the alter at which we pray to the god of liberalism today, so you should know it.
I digress. So if nothing is going to happen if Roe gets overturned, why do we need to overturn it? Ah, good question. Maybe I was a little hasty when I said that nothing would happen concerning abortion if Roe is overturned. Some day, some state legislature may decide to break faith with DIVERSITY and decide to become a diverse state. They may choose to place severe restrictions on abortion, or GASP, outlaw it. That is the reason that we need to reverse Roe. It is to return the power of making law to the people, not to keep it with the government.
One of the outcomes of the reversal of Roe would also be the reversal of several other rulings. Does the government have the authority to take away your property and give it to another private party? Yes. Does the government have the ability to overturn laws that were made by your state representative. Yes. You thought this was about abortion? Wrong. I am pro-life. I think abortion, especially partial birth abortion, is hideous. Yes, I am a Christian. I object to abortion because it hurts the weak and innocent that we are made to protect and nuture. But if we think we are going to get rid of abortion, then we are mistaken. The founding fathers knew that issues were going to come up that they had no answer to. They wanted to make sure that states would be able to have the leeway to take care of those problems. They also knew that not everyone would agree on a certain law, so they made sure that each state could make it's own law. People would vote with their feet, and states would compete for population. We need to return the issue to the states and then I can decide which state I want to live in. And the first step in doing so is to repeal Roe v Wade.

Taxes

2005-11-08T05:42:00.000-08:00

Okay, I'm sorry. I promised something on Roe v Wade this time, but something else caught my attention. I'll get into this subject a bit more in detail in a later column, but here is the gist: Everyone who is a citizen of the USA should pay taxes or no one should pay taxes.
You cannot turn on the tv without some left demogague complaining that the current tax cuts benefit only the rich. You cannot turn on talk radio without someone telling you how cutting taxes on the rich benefits the economy, and ergo, everyone. But lets get to the real problem as I see it. If you are not paying taxes while other people are, then you have no right to any of the government. This could also be applied to military service, but I will release my inner Heinlein later.
At this moment there is talk about eliminating the income tax for people who earn less than $50,000 (single income) or $100,000 (joint filing). While this is a boon for middle America, it does not bode well for the Republic.
I am worried that if we eliminate taxes for some and impose them on others, we will soon see some disturbing behavior in the rich. Why are we being taxed? Why do people who pay no taxes benefit from our money? Since we are paying for the government, why should we not have more say in how it is run and how our money is distributed? Why are we not granted special treatment?
And even though I am one of the ones who would pay no income taxes should the new thinking take hold, I would have to admit that the rich would deserve special treatment and more say. Sort of a political higher class. An example: You are a member of an organized labor union. You pay your dues and are a voting member on the agenda of your union because you are a dues payer. You are now told that some members will no longer have to pay dues but will have the same voting rights that you now enjoy. It is unfair for them to pay because they do not make as much as you do. Would you not feel insulted? Would you not feel that you are appreciated? I would. And I would lobby to make it possible for only those who paid dues to be able to vote on the agenda of the union. (To all you who know me, I am not a huge proponent of unions, but they make a good example for this case.) Why be a part of an organization that simply uses your money with no thanks? And why not change the organization to treat you differently than those that do not contribute?
Paying taxes is a mark of citizenship in this country. Either all should pay or none. How and why we collect taxes is another story.

Judicial Ruminations

2005-11-08T03:08:00.000-08:00

This will be a short post as this topic can take up books. I wonder how many people have actually read The Federalist Papers? I know it is required reading on some college campuses. With that amount of people having read it, it boggles my mind how uninformed most of the debate on judicial nominations is. People see the Supreme Court as the supreme law of the land, and that is just sad.
Don't get me wrong here. The courts are the third branch of our government and have a very real purpose to perform. That purpose is to take the law as made by the congress and then to apply it to the cases that come before it. If there is no law, then that job is made very simple. "There is no law or precedent to follow. There will be no ruling on this case." Folks, it is that simple. When you have judges peering into the eminations from the pnumbra of the Constitution, then you end up with rulings such as we have seen in the last few decades.
There should be no objection to anyone being a strict constructionist. Those are the people you want on the bench. They are the ones who realize that the Constitution is there to define the limits of government power, with all other powers granted to the people and enacted by the legislature.
The judiciary should be non-political. Their job is to apply the law enacted by the representatives of the people. If they are tied to an ideology, right or left, then there is a temptation to apply their own ideas to their rulings. That is judicial activism. In my next column, I'll look at Roe v Wade. That is a particularly good case in how constructionist thought would have prevented the shrill yelling match that has gone on in this country for years.

The Wrong Conversation

2005-11-08T02:55:00.000-08:00

The 800 pound gorilla sitting in the room is Iraq. I know. As I write this, I am 120 days into my third tour. I've been here from the beginning, spent all of 2004 over here, and now am riding out the last six months of 2005 over here. After 22 months, I feel that I have a pretty good grasp on what I am about to talk about. Anyone who feels otherwise, feel free to make a rational rebuttal.
The American people, the federal legislature, and the world are asking the wrong questions. Or to be more exact, making wrong statements. "Bush lied. We were misled. The war is unjust." Now hang on a minute before you start accusing me of being a part of the vast right wing conspiracy. The fact is that I AM a part of the vast right wing conspiracy, but just hear me out. There is an appropriate time and place for all of these accusations to come out. And that time is the day after we have achieved complete and total victory in Iraq.
It would warm my heart if I read the news everyday and there were arguements among lawmakers about how to more effectively and quickly prosecute the insurgency here in Iraq. There are no new ideas, only stale rhetoric. Or worse yet, a defeatist attitude that calls for a submission to the people trying TO KILL ME RIGHT NOW. I have neither the time nor the patience to converse with such people. They do not know anything about military thinking or decision making. Let me break it down for you.
Contrary to popular opinion of the last, say, four decades, the American military encourages detailed planning as well as the ability to quickly adapt to a change in plans. Planning creates a framework that allows for quick decision making when opportunites present themselves. We cultivate that mind set in order to exploit enemy weakness and to achieve endstates in the most efficient manner. The underlying principle to this planning and quick reaction to opportunities is that once forces are committed, there is not stopping until victory. Ah, but what if something goes wrong? Easy. That is what the commander is there for. He places himself at the point of greatest friction and is there to bring the full authortiy and resources of his office to make sure the objective is achieved. He may have to withdraw. He may find a better route. But what he does not do is say "My boss is completely ate up, his reasons for sending me here are flawed, and I'm getting the hell out of here before something worse happens." We plan for when things go bad. That is why a commander has a staff. They are there to point out options to him in case a plan doesn't go well. They are singularly focused on completing the mission. Once it is done they can sit around and do a hot wash to review the plan, but you can't do an after action report if you are all dead.
And that brings me back to my original point. The American people and the law makers are having the wrong arguements. There is no underlying theme of "Let's win this thing and then we can go back to see what was wrong." People are so tied into the casualties that they think that complaining about the dead and wounded is going to help. Politicians are populists, so they parrot what the people say. This defeatist attitude only erodes support for the mission. Lack of support for the mission means lack of support for the troops, no matter how many "Support Our Troops" signs you see. This breeds an attitude of providing minimal support because YOU KNOW THAT THEY WILL BRING THEM HOME IF WE DON'T WANT THEM THERE AND DON'T WANT TO SEND ANY MORE MEN AND MONEY. This is the exact right way to go about losing a war. The conversation that should be happening right now is how to apply the full weight of the United States of America to assure victory in Iraq. Think how refreshing that would be. Think of the global implications. THINK OF THE EFFECT ON THE AMERICAN FIGHTING MAN. I know my morale would soar if I saw the senate pass a resolution that they would mobilize the country to win the peace in Iraq. Hell, I'd sign up for another hitch if they passed something like that to completely wipe out Islamofascism in the Middle East. You can draw your own conclusions as to what that means...

The Future

2005-11-08T02:54:00.000-08:00

Greeting Everyone,
Welcome to KneelingDrunkardsPlea, where grammar and sentence structure won't get butchered too badly, I hope. I'll get into my background throughout the upcoming postings. Besides, I want this to be about ideas and thinking, not about me. Of course my thinking is going to be directly influenced by my experiences in life, but again, you'll learn more about that as this blog progresses.
The main mission of bigcountry is to provide a paper trail for me and to serve as an online journal so that I can refernce my thoughts in later years. Why do I need a paper trail? Good question. I want to take back the country that has been stolen by bad laws, power-hungry and complacent politicians, and self-loathing.
For a long time I have read the news that comes from Washington and sat in wonder. Who are these people? What are they thinking? Then, after a few moments of reflection, I would convince myself that these were highly intelligent and capable people who were making informed and difficult decisions in order to lead the nation. Who am I to question these people? They are obviously smarter and better leaders than I am. I can't possibly do a better job than they. I am no longer that naive.
So I decided to take a lesson from my personal hero. When Ronald Reagan was with General Electric Theater, he made trips all over the United States. There he met with normal Americans and formed ideas that he made in speeches to General Electric workers. When he decided to run for governor of California, he had a paper trail that people remembered and looked back on. There was no stealth to his candidacy. Everyone knew exactly where he stood on almost every issue (the President was prolific, to be sure). I don't claim to be anywhere near the giant of President Reagan, but only fools don't follow the advice and example of successful people.
I intend to run for office in my home state of Texas. This will be my GE Theater. If you like this blog, please tell people you know about it. I want to get my ideas out. Some of you will agree. Some of you won't. But at least you will know where I stand. I hope to be prolific here. I will labor to keep soaring hyperbole and stale rhetoric out of my arguments. There will be no name calling or slanderous accusations. I will present you my arguments with as much fact and logic as I can (I'm deployed to Iraq at this time), so bear with me and correct me when I am wrong. I do not look for truth, I look for fact. Thank you for your time and I hope to see you back here soon.