AROUND THE SCUTTLEBUTT

24 December 2015

SAPPY CHRISTMAS SONG INTERLUDE: AN OLDIE BUT GOODIE WHILE IT'S IN THE HANDS OF THE JUDGES

Well, fans, that's a wrap. As the judges deliberate, here's a little ditty, an oldie but goodie, that some will appreciate more than others.

Merry Christmas to the guys for whom Christmas Eve memories will always include An Hoa, and Go Noi Island, The Arizona and The Yellow Brick Road, Antenna Valley and Sherwood Forest. Hat's off to those who were in Hue City, the A Shau Valley, Khe Sanh, Mutter's Ridge, and "The Hill of Angels"--Con Thien. To our Doggie mates in Pleiku and the Central Highlands, The Parrots Beak and Ia Drang Valley. Hey, shipmates who were Brown Water Grunts in the Delta or spent Christmas after Christmas on Yankee Station: BZ, gents, BZ. And who could forget the guys who flew Linebacker I and II and Arc Light and The 12 Days of Christmas--and those who never lost faith in places like The Zoo and The Hanoi Hilton. Merry Christmas, brothers. Welcome Home.

Christmas Eve Sitrep
5th Marines TAOR
(Translations available upon request)

Oh, there's strange things done 'neath the Vietnam sun
But the one that really jacked my jaws
Was the night 'neath the moon, when the third platoon
Gunned down Ol’ Santa Claus.

We’re the Marines, winter nights we’ve seen,
From Wake to the frozen Chosin,
Our lines were tight, pre-planned fires were right
And ready to be called real close in.

We had 81s and naval guns.
60 mortars were ready to crack.
We had an Ontos or so, and an arty FO'
With H&Is back to back.

T’was a Silent Night, and nary a light
broke the Arizona’s black mantle,
Except for a flare, o’er Hill 200’s air—
Recon’s Christmas candle.

No Yuletide logs, in paddy bogs,
But the ceasefire was holding well.
‘Course after Tet, you could pretty well bet
Uncle Ho just might still raise some hell.

Then I froze where I stood, 'cause out of the wood,
Eight horses came charging along.
This may sound corny, but those mustangs looked horny,
“My God,” I thought, “cavalry Cong.”

They were coming our way pulling a . . . sleigh?
Damn, you never know what they will use.
Our LP’s twice clicked and our flares all were tripped,
And our claymores blew a fuse.

We let him get close, then I yelled, "Who goes?"
Like they do in the movie show.
The answer we got, believe it or not,
Was a hearty, "Ho, Ho, Ho".

Now these troops of mine had seen some time,
They'd done lots of things back-assward.
They may be thick, but I'll tell you a trick,
They knew that wasn't the password.

The "foo gas" roared, the 81s soared,
The ‘bloopers” sure raised hell.
A bright red flare flew through the air,
So we fired our FPL.

I'll give him guts, yep, that man was nuts,
Or I'm a no good liar,
But he dropped like a stone in our killing zone.
'Til I passed the word, "Cease fire".

I went out and took a real good look,
My memory started to race;
My mind plays games when it comes to names,
But I never forget a face.

He was dressed all in red, and he looked well fed,
Older than most I'd seen.
He looked right weird with that long white beard,
And stumps where his legs had been.

He hadn't quite died when I reached his side,
But the end was clearly in sight,
I knelt down low and he said real slow,
"Merry Christmas, and to all a good night."

So, I picked up the hook and with a voice that shook,
Said, "Gimme the six, rikki-tick."
"Skipper", I said, "Hang onto your head,
Well…we just sorta greased Saint Nick."

Now the Skipper's cool, he's nobody's fool,
Right off he knew the word.
If this got out, there'd be no doubt,
We’d have no “Freedom Bird.”

"Just get him up here and we'll play it by ear,
Make sure he's got a S-2 tag;
Bust up that the sleigh; drive those reindeer away,
And fer gosh sakes bury that bag."

Now back in the World, little kids are curled
in their beds awaiting first light.
Then their folks they’ll wake, and for the tree they’ll break
Expecting a glorious sight.

Instead, by and by, those kids will cry,
“Huh, nothing's under the tree!”
'Cause, the word just came back, from FMFPAC,
That Santa has gone VC.

Oh, there's strange things done 'neath the Vietnam sun
But the one that really jacked my jaws
Was the night 'neath the moon, when the third platoon
Gunned down Ol’ Santa Claus.

23 December 2015

SAPPY CHRISTMAS SONG: LAST CALL FOR CONTESTANTS

The latest iteration of the Sappy Christmas Song Contest. It goes into the record books at Noon, EST on 24 December. If you are from Chicago, follow Reformed Catholic's example: Enter Early and Often!!

THE WORST NOEL
By a truly demented group I am proud to call friends!

The worst “No El” the announcer did say
Was to shoppers and tourists on Christmas Eve day.
On Christmas Eve day, their lists now complete.
As homeward they struggled, for cookies to eat.
"No El! No El! No El! No El!
Subways are closing, we’re running no El."

(Mac)

In a subway car stranded down in the ground
A motley group of people were found.
A lawyer, a soldier and a stock trader
With a preacher, a teacher and a young hooker.
"No El!, No El! No El! No El!"
Subways are closing, we're running no El."

(Jodi Harrington)

No cell phone service, the lawyer did cry,
The trader then fumed that no stocks he could buy.
They both commiserated each others position,
That neither could speak with their office's admin.
No El, No El, No El, No EL!
Subways are closing, we're running No El!

The Preacher got up, who's with me he said,
I'm exiting the car, gotta get me a sled.
My daughter's expecting it under the tree,
so I'm leaving this place, come on, come with me.
No El, No El, No El, No El!
Subways are closing, we're running No El!

(Our first two-fer from Reformed Catholic)

The young hooker's name was Anna Marie
Her dress was so skimpy her tats you could see
She shivered in the cold which the soldier did see
And he gave her his scarf to cover her knees.
No El! No El! No El! No El!
Subways are closing, we're running No El!

" We must get out of here", they all agreed
The soldier kicked down the door so all were freed.
Finding the subway exit in the dark
Would certainly not be a lark.
No El! No El! No El ! No El!
Subways are closing, we're running no El!

(Another two-fer from QG for a hat trick! And the crowd goes wild!)

Down the street, in a house, the cats did not care.
Their antics had left the tree all but bare.
They decided to climb up the chimney with glee,
When they peered out the top, a strange crew they did see:
No El! No El! No El ! No El!
Subways are closing, they're running no El!

(And Robin enters the fray—if my Sis is the judge, you’ve got the cat edge)

The lawyer did use his phone then that night,
the flashlight app did work and give them light.
They walked along the track, "will it end" someone wailed,
"It will end for you, stay away from the third rail".
No El! No El! No El! No El!
Subways are closing, we're running No El!

"Emergency Door", shown the light on the wall.
They opened the hatch to get out one and all.
On a street they did not know, but holiday lit,
With a bunch of little kitties, on a chimney they sit.
No El! No El! No El! No El!
Subways are closing, we're running No El!

(Two more from Reformed Catholic)

20 December 2015

SAPPY CHRISTMAS SONG -- BREAKING NEWS

THE WORST NOEL
By a truly demented group I am proud to call friends!

(Mac)

(Jodi Harrington)

(Our first two-fer from Reformed Catholic)

(Another two-fer from QG for a hat trick! And the crowd goes wild!)

(And Robin enters the fray—if my Sis is the judge, you’ve got the cat edge)

19 December 2015

THE GREAT SAPPY CHRISTMAS CAROL CONTEST OF 2015

About ten years ago, before that Mostest Excellentest Texas Blogger, Quotidian Grace (aka, Jody Harrington), took a sabbatical from blogging for Grandma duties (a wonderful example of priority-setting and moral stewardship), she sponsored a wonderful seasonal event on her blog:

The Sappiest Christmas Song Contest.

As one who tied for second place in 2009 and received The Country Music Wannabe Award (“… to Mac, who managed to send in lyrics that mentioned killing pets, prison, Bubba, pardons, Momma and a train in the same stanza! We are not worthy of such talent.”), I miss that ancient and honorable tradition. [NOTE TO LOVERS OF MOMMAS AND FUZZY CREATURES, in a tasteful pastel color: my lyrics were based on a theme from David Allen Coe’s classic “You Never Even Called Me By My Name”, recognized far and wide as the most perfect Country and Western song ever written.]

But, I digress. In the immortal words of Alvin, Simon and Theodore, themselves pretty good Christmas singers, “Let’s do it again!”

Here are QG’s original rules, slightly updated:

Welcome to QG's Fourth Annual Sappy Christmas Song Contest!

~applause applause~

The contest is inspired by the Bulwer-Lytton Bad Fiction Contest and its motto:"where w.w.w. means wretched writers welcome!"

Each year my Gentle Readers are invited to contribute their own deathless lyrics in a group effort to create the sappiest, most sentimental and generally execrable Christmas Song of the year.

Here are the rules of the contest:

· Mac will post his beginning stanza. If your muse is with you, add a stanza or lines of your own in the comments.

· Mac will post updates as the 2015 Sappy Christmas Song evolves and you may continue adding verses in the comments.

· When, in the sole judgment of Mac, the Song seems complete, or I am tired of it, the entire song will be posted and prizes will be awarded. The prizes will be inspired by the contributions--so be creative!”

This year's Sappy Christmas Song will be sung to the tune of The First Noel.

And....HERE'S THE FIRST STANZA:

04 December 2015

A MOST DISTURBING DECISION

As reported in Politico and elsewhere, the Secretary of Defense has placed the liberal agenda and Democrat Party politics above National defense. He has decided that our Country will be militarily stronger and more secure if women are ordered to serve in the infantry, armor, and artillery branches. To get to the meat of the article, zip through Politico’s normal “This Town” emphasis on the “Republican Reaction.” The reaction is interesting, but generally irrelevant.

This decision saddens me, because I generally respect Secretary Carter as a leader. It disturbs me because it represents a threat to our national security. Politics has no place in the front-line foxhole.

Ignoring the “draft” red herring, I write about the Secretary’s decision to ignore the advice of the Service Chiefs, men who have spent their entire lives mastering the nasty business of warfare. I worry, in particular, about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Joseph Dunford, USMC, who was Commandant of the Marine Corps as the decision was being made. Secretary Carter and the White House have ignored and simply wished away his reasoned and reasonable objections.

Remember, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal military adviser to the President, Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council (NSC). This is important when one recalls that none of the current Service Secretaries has ever served in the armed forces, nor have the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security or the National Security Advisor. All tend to be career politicians or bureaucrats. The National Security Advisor, a former member of the Obama presidential campaign team, is serving in her post, which, unlike all the service Chiefs (including Defense and Homeland Security) does not require approval of the Senate. Because of her misleading, if not outright false, statements on behalf of the White House concerning the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, she could not have been confirmed as Secretary of State. National Security Advisor was her reward for political loyalty.

Therefore, when it comes to dealing with the realities of close combat, the civilian secretaries have special need to listen to the advice of those who have had that experience.

Now, I recognize that people will say that General Dunford was the only Service Chief to object to opening all Military Occupational Specialties (MOSs) to women. There are several possible explanations for this.

The Air Force Chief of Staff is a career fighter/attack pilot and the Chief of Naval Operations is a career submarine officer. Their branches do not regularly participate in direct, 24/7, close combat and the two chiefs reflect that mentality. Pilots go back to air bases for showers, hot chow, air conditioned tentage, and when they are in combat, it is from several thousand feet. As the Air Force pilot I know best once told me in a letter from Saudi Arabia regarding their basing arrangements, “Dad, we are the Air Force, not the Marines. We don’t do suffering.” Likewise, submariners live a cramped, crowded life, but they have not been in combat since WWII.

The Army Chief of Staff is a little different. He is an infantryman, but spent most of his junior officer career with Special Forces (“Green Berets”). He has commanded a brigade and two divisions, but his only combat experience is as a division commander. More importantly, the Army surrendered on the issue of women in the combat arms several years ago. He may have seen the issue as the bell that cannot be un-rung. The Department of the Army is a huge bureaucracy, and most of its policy making professionals are either people who have never served in uniform or those who have never served in rifle platoons, rifle companies, and infantry battalions where the dirtiest of the dirty work is a professional constant.

General Dunford has done it all. He, alone, can speak to the day-to-day effects that this new policy will have on unit effectiveness, morale, and discipline. And he was ignored! This in spite of a year-long test conducted by the Marine Corps in the field, which is the combat infantryman’s work space, that showed that in units at all levels, mixed gender units did not perform as well as all male units and were not as effective.

Ineffectiveness in combat results in needless death and injury. As an officer of Marines, General Dunford has lived a life dedicated to two things: accomplishing the mission and taking care of his Marines. No Marine infantry officer I have known in my now-fifty years as a Marine would ever tolerate someone who is, in any way, a threat to the effectiveness of his unit, even if that individual really, really wants to be there.

I speak from experience—I had a Marine in Vietnam who could not tolerate C-rations. His weight plummeted. We sent him to the rear, but before the helicopter that would take him to An Hoa came in, he sneaked along on a combat patrol. When we were ambushed, we suddenly had to take care of the enemy AND a collapsed Marine. (After the fire fight, he was raving until I clocked him, thus earning the privilege of carrying him in a fireman’s carry back to the Company position.) My platoon at the time was 19 Marines, although the T/O was 42. For number’s sake, and because he honestly wanted to serve, we could have kept him, but the detriment to the platoon as a whole made that impossible.

So, in the face of clear and convincing evidence that introducing women into a fire team, rifle squad, rifle platoon and infantry battalion will most likely deteriorate the combat effectiveness of the unit, all we get is the rosy statement that “Carter noted that about 220,000 military jobs were closed to women and would now be opened, allowing women to operate tanks, fire mortars and lead infantry soldiers into combat.”

The infantry is just a job—the same as physician, files clerk, automobile mechanic, and short-order cook? This is just another government jobs program. Ask anyone who served in Vietnam about their experience when the last lessening of standards, LBJ's "Project 500,000" and they will tell you that combat is no place to test social theories.

You see, one does not “operate” a tank. The crew fights their tank as a weapon. If the loader cannot reload as fast because she is not as strong as a male replacement might be, the result is not a missed deadline costing paying overtime to finish the job; it is the death of the tank and its crew. If the mortar crew cannot set up their weapon as quickly as possible because the woman assigned to hump the fifty-pound baseplate (along with the rest of her gear) is slow, several riflemen may be killed or wounded for lack of supporting fires.

Not to worry, we are assured. “[Secretary Carter] said the military would maintain high standards for all combat assignments but explained that some standards were being modified after studies demonstrated they were "outdated" or not reflective of the skills necessary for the jobs.”

And there you have it. Standards will be changed to accommodate women. Never mind that centuries of warfare at the lowest levels have demonstrated a need for endurance, strength, simple bone structure are necessary. If we have to do away with pull ups (going over walls, through windows), running at speed (forced marches when all the trucks are down and you just have to cover that 14 miles in two-and-a-half hours), and shorter training days because of increased knee, hip, and ankle injuries ("People, the lieutenant cannot join you in today’s attack because she cannot walk after the forced march. Sorry."), we are less effective on the battlefield.

But as sure as the sun comes up in the morning, when even the reduced standards cause proportionately more women than men to fail to qualify, the proponents of this change will call for getting rid of more “outdated” standards.

Finally, I have personally had the sad responsibility of relieving for cause subordinates who just could not do the job and who were affecting the effectiveness of my command. Just wait for the uproar the first time a woman is relieved for cause, not necessarily for any single error or omission, but simply because she is no good at being a rifle platoon commander. Who wants to bet that the company commander is the one who ends up being relieved?

But, say the proponents of this change, only those women who want to be 0311 riflemen (riflepersons?) will be put in the infantry. Really? Anyone who says that has never been in the armed forces. You may get to express your preferences for MOS and assignment, but the “needs of the service” take precedence. And think of the effect on morale, good order, and discipline, if a man coming out of boot camp who is qualified to be a jet engine mechanic got placed in the infantry simply because the woman assigned there complained to Kirsten Gillibrand that “they are making me go to the infantry and I don’t want to do that.” Arrrrrgh!

No, this is not a decision that is best for the Country or for its defense—the one true responsibility of the national government. It is all about politics and the President’s search for some kind of legacy. As Politico observed, “Carter’s decision represents a major milestone for President Barack Obama, furthering his legacy of making the military more inclusive. The president inherited a military that banned gays from serving openly, barred transgender troops and didn't allow women in units that were primarily involved in ground combat. All three of those exclusions have been or are in the process of being overturned.”

How reassuring must that be to the mothers of America whose sons and daughters will be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and party loyalty.

28 September 2015

THE PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON BASEBALL, AND STEPHEN DECATUR

I am so tired of being embarrassed by my President. I really am. I try to give him the respect that any person who occupies that office deserves. We only get one President at a time, and this is his time—and for some reason, he invariably uses it to embarrass us. The latest case in point is his appearance at the United Nations this morning.

He had an opportunity to be a statesman. He had an opportunity to show himself to be worthy of his Nobel Peace prize. He had an opportunity to be a visionary. All three legitimate uniforms were in his wall-locker back in the clubhouse, and what did he do? He pushed them aside and showed up in the clown costume of a two bit Chicago ward heeler, a party hack.

To use the baseball analogy that Edward-Isaac Dovere used in his Politico article referenced above, he threw a couple of inside puff balls to Putin and then, in the grand Washington tradition of Jonathan Papelbon, he threw blazers at the head of his own Country and kicked us in the groin in the dugout! According to Dovere, the President then “invoked the invasion of Iraq as an example of how the United States itself stumbled by going against international law.” That’s a great way to establish moral authority—calling your own country an international outlaw.

He had an international stage, and he wasted it for the sake of the political hacks who make up his base. Dick Cheney left office seven years ago. He was only Vice President. But, having done nothing of real substance in seven years, the President reverts to the only real consistent policy of his presidency: blame the guys who came before him. And then as an afterthought, he takes a few puny swipes at the Blowhard of the Month—who is self-destructing on his own, thank you very much.

That, of course, is the real fear of the Democrats: Trump slithers back into the subways and sewers of New York City and people take an even harder look at Hillary Clinton and her ever-changing stories: I gave all the e-mails, er, well, not all of them, but certainly all that I wanted to ever see the light of day, and besides it was Ms Abedin's fault, the one I set up to be paid by the State department and a Party loyalist and maybe the Bill and Chelsea Foundation (about which I know nothing, Colonel Hogan, absooooluuuutely nothing!) and its all a plot against me.

And then, to complete the baseball analogy, he decides on his own to come back out of the dugout to tip his hat at…..himself. He should have learned from Jayson Werth of the Washington Bugs…Mosquitos…. Gnats, that’s it, the Washington Gnats. Here is Werth only 7 weeks ago: : “We are only a game back right now, but as we get healthy, we’ll be rolling again. It’s our division to lose.” As of tonight, the Insects are nine-and-a-half back and failing fast.

According to Dovere,

Obama held himself up as an example of how to make international diplomacy work. The U.N. is a body famous for spending a lot of time and money sitting around in rooms like this one, he said, bemoaning what’s gone wrong in the world and urging international action, but rarely delivering much more than resolutions.

That’s a huge contrast to the Iran agreement he spearheaded, Obama said. If the deal is “fully implemented," he said, "the prohibition on nuclear weapons is strengthened, a potential war is averted, our world is safer. That is the strength of the international system when it works the way it should.”

Unless it doesn’t. To quote the World War II RAF pilots who were fed up with qualified assurances, “And if my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a bloody motor-bus.”

Nope, it was a bad day for the home team in that snake pit on the East River. Our own manager shot us in our collective foot. And he did it intentionally.

We need another Stephen Decatur. “My Country. In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right. But right or wrong, my Country.” Do we have some dirty laundry in our closet? Some, but nowhere near as much as the “Hate America First” bunch would have you believe. Should we air it in public? Just remember what our mothers taught us.

No, you blew it, Mr. President. And when the team is doing as badly as you suggest we are, baseball has a tried and (sometimes) true solution: Fire the manager.

Sorry kid, we’re gonna option you to the Mexican League.

WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH A “DO-NOTHING” CONGRESS?

With the departure of Speaker Boehner, the “livid left” has once again trumpeted its disdain for what its denizens call the do-nothing Congress. What they are really doing is expressing their continued disdain for the United States Constitution.

Why do I rant? Well, anyone who reads the Constitution and studies the Constitutional Convention will quickly realize that the Framers intended for the Congress to do very damned little. First, they intentionally strictly limited the powers of the central government. It was to do those things, and only those things, that needed to be uniform in order for the Nation to survive: provide for the National defense, institute a single foreign policy, provide a postal system and a system of roads to connect the States, introduce a single currency, and set up a uniform system of tariffs to control the importation of foreign goods.

Everything else was left to the States as the best source of government for the people. Want to introduce an expensive and far-reaching system of public welfare? Do it, but don’t insist that your neighboring states adopt your plan. Want to fund and organize a system of public education? Great. Do it. Pay for it with taxes you raise locally. Manage it by a system of local school boards that will decide what needs to be taught. They are right there and know best what the children of their locality need to be taught. Want to allow workers to organize in unions. It is your State. Have at it. Once again, don’t insist that the other states follow your lead. The voters of those states can decide for themselves. And for Heaven’s sake, keep Washington, DC out of your State, except to the extent that it has been delegated powers in the Constitution.

To ensure limited federal government, the Framers loaded the Constitution with protections for the people from the government. First and foremost was the system of checks and balances, the system that President Obama and the Democratic Party find so loathsome today. In order to enact a law, majorities in both Houses of Congress and the President must agree. If a proposed law cannot garner that support, the Constitution says, in effect, it is probably a bad idea and should not be imposed on the people and the States. Give the President the authority to veto a bill that has made it out of Congress. If the super-majorities needed to over-ride a veto cannot be reached, it was probably a bad bill and should not have been enacted into law. And give the Congress, especially the House, the power of the purse.

“The power of the purse.” The great check on tyrannical power that my generation had to understand. If, somehow, a bill was enacted into law, and the voters changed the makeup of the Congress, the Legislative Branch could limit or prevent the Executive from carrying out a particular law by with-holding funding for that purpose. Today, we incorrectly call that “shutting down the Government.”

Why do I say “Incorrectly?” It is because the professional politicians in Washington, with their three-day work weeks and lengthy recesses no longer frame, debate, and enact individual spending bills for the various departments of the Executive Branch. They could, but that means that the first business of the federal government will be to stay in Washington and work out those spending bills. Instead, it is considered better from a political point of view to lump all spending authorizations into a single omnibus bill that “must be signed.” Recently, the Republican Party has balked at that blatant attempt by the Democrats to perpetuate the bread and circuses system it has imposed on America. Constitutionally appropriate that might be, but people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Presidents Clinton and Obama, have placed party above Country and have, instead, resorted to a beautiful—if corrupt—public relations campaign to mislead and outright lie to the American people about the Constitutional duties of the Legislative and Executive branches.

Because we spend so much time in high schools teaching about truly unnecessary subjects, what my generation knew as “Civics” has pretty much disappeared from the curriculum. When I graduated from high school back in the ancient days of the early 60’s, there were only two tests that students in Illinois were required to have passed in order to graduate: one on the United States Constitution and one on the Illinois Constitution. Today, Pennsylvania has a whole series of tests administered all through elementary and middle school to measure reading comprehension and math proficiency. High School students take three “Keystone Tests” in Algebra I, Literature and Biology. Observe, if you will, gentle reader, that our students will probably have read all sorts of obscure literature but not the Constitution. Now, I am all in favor of a solid classical education which exposes our students to the great prose and poetry of the English language, and even some of the garbled 20^th Century junk that is passed off as great literature, but the sweetest use of the English language that I have ever read is still the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Our students can tell you all about the Harlem Renaissance and their rights under the Constitution, but don’t have a clue about how the Constitution is supposed to work, that rights come from our "Creator", not the Constitution, and that their ignorance is harmful to the future of our Nation.

So, I implore the great American people to insist that we replace Langston Hughes with James Madison as required reading. Only if Americans really understand the Constitution and the system that protects us our freedoms to read and write and sing and pray and speak without fear of policing by the Government in Washington will we truly be free.

03 September 2015

IT IS TIME FOR EUROPE TO STAND ON ITS OWN

Listening to NPR this morning, the topic was the flood of Syrian economic “refugees” (people who won’t fight for their own freedom and, instead, move to some other country to sponge off of that nation) attempting to enter western Europe, in general, and England and Germany in particular. Lest my definition seem unduly harsh, NPR has been full of interviews where the “plight” of the refugees has been reported. Repeatedly, I hear the complaint that “We are stuck here when we had expected to be in Germany (or Britain) by now where my wife could have had her baby without us paying for it, and we would have housing and an ‘allowance.’”

At this juncture, most are being stopped at the Hungarian border as Hungary attempts to protect its sovereignty. (My guess is that Hungary has a legitimate fear that if it lets them in, they will be stuck with these people when the rest of Europe says “Enough is enough.” In a blurb for later programming, I caught a remark by some European commentator complaining that the US is not taking its “share” of these people.

That is an interesting comment, coming as it does in the year that we remember the 70^th anniversary of VE day. For the last 70 years, we have spent blood and treasure to keep Europe free and to allow it to develop. We funded the Marshall Plan. We have spent huge percentages of our GDP to maintain troops in Europe, while the Europeans invested in developing their economies.

Recently, we have been inundated by economic “refugees” from Central and South America who are illegally entering our country. I have not heard a single offer from Europe to take these deadbeats off our hands. It is time for Europe to man up and solve its own problems without foisting them off on us.

13 July 2015

HEY, GREECE. SHUT UP!!!

Is anyone else as fed up as am I with the whining that is emanating from that fetid peninsula between the Adriatic and Ægean Seas? Perhaps it is because I have been driving all day and, as the choice of “the lesser of two weevils,” had to listen to NPR for 600 miles.

Here’s my complaint. The Greeks elected a government that borrowed other peoples’ money to finance a corrupt bureaucracy and a failed welfare State. Then, when it came time to pay the piper, the Greek people were stunned to find out that they were expected to pay their debts, even if it meant that they now had to live within their means. Which they promptly did, right?

Nah! They whined that Europe was “oppressing” the Greek people by demanding repayment and refusing to lend any more money until the Greek government cleaned up its act by raising taxes and cutting “pensions.” They whined that Europe was disrespecting them by ignoring the results of a democratic election. One woman, a psychologist, actually lamented that the EU did not understand that the Greek people had held an election and overwhelmingly decided that they wouldn’t pay. That being settled, didn’t the EU understand that they now owed the Greek people more loans so they could get on with their lives? Insanity!

You people. You whine in the outfield. You whine in the infield. You whine on the base paths. What's that make them, Larry?

Whiners.

Can we now get on to something important, such as what are the Kardashians doing this week?

28 June 2015

MR. MCCULLOCH MEET MR. JONES

In the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 US ___ (2015), Justice Kennedy took great pains to try to differentiate the import of the decision. He wrote

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

Id.

Unfortunately, language such as this in an opinion is known as dicta. Dicta, from the Latin dictum (“remark”), is the part of a judicial opinion which is merely a judge's editorializing and does not directly address the specifics of the case at bar. It is extraneous material which is merely informative or explanatory and which is not required to reach the decision. While it may be cited in later legal argument, it does not constitute precedent (previous court decisions or interpretations) since the comment was not part of the legal basis for judgment. Opposing counsel’s appropriate argument is: "Your Honor, that is merely dicta and is not binding on the Court or the case at bar."

In other words, it is worth less than the paper on which it is written.

And the attempts to use Obergefell as weapon have begun. Mark Oppenheimer, an admitted supporter of same-sex marriage, has written an interesting and alarming article for Time. Titled Now’s the Time To End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions, he uses a well-known propagandists’s technique to advocate for government control of churches and religious matters. He does so by writing

Two weeks ago, with a decision in Obergefell v. Hodges on the way, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah introduced the First Amendment Defense Act, which ensures that religious institutions won’t lose their tax exemptions if they don’t support same-sex marriage. Liberals tend to think Sen. Lee’s fears are unwarranted, and they can even point to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in Friday’s case, which promises “that religious organizations and persons [will be] given proper protection.” But I don’t think Sen. Lee is crazy. In the 1983 Bob Jones University case, the court ruled that a school could lose tax-exempt status if its policies violated “fundamental national public policy.” So far, the Bob Jones reasoning hasn’t been extended to other kinds of discrimination, but someday it could be. I’m a gay-rights supporter who was elated by Friday’s Supreme Court decision — but I honor Sen. Lee’s fears.

The old “somebody-might-think-about-tossing-that-match-through-that-window-but-I sure-won’t” ploy.

For the uninitiated, Bob Jones University is a private non-denominational university. Originally founded in 1927 as a part of the modernist-fundamentalist debate that swept through the northern Presbyterian church in the 1920s, it is now located in Greenville, SC. (That debate in which the “modernists” rejected the divinity of Christ and His virgin birth, the authenticity of His miracles, the atoning nature of the Cross, the inerrancy of Scripture, and the bodily resurrection of Christ, divided, among others, the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, a predecessor of the current PC(USA). In fact, that continuing debate has led to the recent continuing massive loss of members by the PC(USA).)

The University, which was at one time the largest liberal arts university in Tennessee before it moved to South Carolina, held to a particularly narrow Biblical interpretation regarding interracial dating, and completely excluded black applicants until 1971. Beginning in 1971, the University admitted black students, but only if they were married. After 1975, the University began to admit unmarried black applicants, but continued to deny admission to applicants who were married to a spouse of another race. As far as I can recall, no one ever asserted that this Biblical interpretation was a sham, i.e., that it was not honestly held.

Nonetheless, the IRS revoked the University’s tax exempt status because of those beliefs and policies. In Bob Jones University v. US, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), the Supreme Court held that the first amendment's free exercise provisions did not prohibit the IRS from revoking the tax-exempt status of a religious university for no other reason than that those practices are contrary to a compelling government interest, such as eradicating racial discrimination.

Same-sex marriage is now a fundamental right under the Constitution. What Mr. Oppenheimer is not (wink, wink) suggesting is that someone use the Bob Jones precedent to revoke the tax exempt status of any church or congregation that preaches against same-sex marriage or refuses to accept and ratify such “marriages” as religiously conforming.

In McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 159, 4 Wheat. 159 (1819), the Court held that a State could not tax a federal entity, in that case the Bank of the United States. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Marshall said that "[T]he power to tax involves the power to destroy…"

And that, dear friends, is what the hard-liners in the so-called “gay rights” movement want. They do not seek the long-cherished American “right to be left alone.” They got that from Obergefell. They want to force any Christian who believes that homosexual conduct is a sin tosay “Oh, I was wrong. The Bible is wrong. You are right.”

If they don’t get that, then along with Mr. Oppenheimer, “ a gay-rights supporter who was elated by Friday’s Supreme Court decision,” they will continue to look for any way to destroy Bible-believing Christian churches. And I do believe that the attack will be aimed solely at Christian churches. Bible-believing churches think homosexual conduct is a sin. They, and I include myself here, also believe that there are plenty of additional sins to go around and we are all sinners and will be until Judgement Day. But Islam thinks homosexual conduct is a capital offense. However, I’ve heard no one suggest that an effort be made to silence the teachers in that faith.

And, I have to say, they have a logical argument. If same-sex marriage is a fundamental federal right, then to combat the evil of conscience, the federal government ought to be allowed to use its taxing power to destroy any church that does not accept same-sex marriage as legitimate. Remember, Bob Jones University was punished because it carried its beliefs into action. Why not, then, destroy a congregation when its session and pastor refuse to permit a same-sex wedding in its sanctuary?

And, for liberals, there is another benefit to this ploy. Money!!!! That is what Mr. Oppenheimer really wants. Like Henry VIII, he wants the “fortunes” that are currently tax-free in the accounts of churches and other religious and non-profit entities. Everybody wins—except American citizens who can no longer rely on the protections afforded by the Constitution!