Journalists and History...

...don't mix it would seem. According to Tom Elia at The New Editor blog, the Chicago Tribune's Ron Grossman sent a copy of the photograph reproduced below to his newsroom. Recognize it?




A sample of the reactions from Mr. Grossman's supposedly elite colleagues are reproduced below:

While some instantly recognized the image, others couldn't quite place it.

"I know I ought to know it," one co-worker said. "It was in the movie, ‘Flags of Our Fathers.' " Some, seeing uniforms, realized it must be a war photo. Maybe Vietnam? One got the era right but the battlefield wrong. She guessed it was D-Day, not, as it was, the raising of the American flag on Iwo Jima.

I have said many times before. Journalists are among the least skilled professionals in the world. They are not trained in any of the arenas they purport to explain to we the people and yet they expect those same people to listen to their analysis and instruction with respect and awe. Why? Tell me why should we give any respect or credence to what journalists say when they are so clearly deficient in both knowledge and comprehension?

As a bonus question, with what side did Japan and Italy ally with during the First World War? And what were the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente? (Hint: One included Germany). No Googling!

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds. His money quote:

HOW IGNORANT ARE JOURNALISTS? This ignorant.

The Media - Then and Now

Once upon a time, the American media was an organization that for all its faults, understood that American interests were more valuable than the interests of our enemies. Allow me to share with you a moment from World War II.

The San Francisco Examiner newspaper in 1944 wrote an editorial suggesting that the Marines were operating under incompetent leadership because they were in a bloody and desperate battle for the island known as Iwo Jima. The Examiner strongly suggested that perhaps the Army, under the leadership of the media's favorite general, Douglas MacArthur, could do a far better job. This provoked the San Francisco Chronicle - a that time a paper with some sympathy for American fighting men - to respond as follows:

To slur the United States Marines in one type of operation, however, to draw odious comparisons between theirs and the type of operations conducted by General MacArthur, is to raise a sinister fantasy. To hint that the Marines die fast and move slowly on Iwo Jima because Marine and Naval leadership in that assault is incompetent is an attempt at a damnable swindle of the American people.

The Chronicle does not propose to engage in controversy over the relative merits of our fighting forces in he various theaters of war. But neither does the Chronicle propose to remain mute when United States Marines or any force on the world battle line, is butchered at home to make a Roman holiday.

It is a pity that the media of today, and several of our supposed leaders - yes, John Murtha, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, I mean you - cannot give our armed forces the respect that once was considered their due. It is a greater pity that when elements of our so-called intelligentsia do relapse into cheap attacks on the men and women of our Armed Forces that the Press cannot bring themselves to defend those who have given them the privilege of writing so negatively about that same military. I follow the line proposed by the San Francisco Chronicle before it decided that playing the role of Democratic Party propaganda organ as preferable to reporting news. I wish that more of our so-called elites did as well.

The Chronicle quote was taken from page 169 of Richard F. Newcomb's 1965 book "Iwo Jima", published by Signet.

Tsar Rehabilitated- A Little Late

According to Yahoo! News, a Russian court has ruled that the last Russian Emperor, Nicholas II and his family were "victims of political repression" and should be rehabilitated. It seems a little late, in my opinion. I suspect that anyone who learned the tragic story of the last Russian Tsar already knew that they were victims of political repression- it is difficult to make any other judgment when a repressive, totalitarian government lines up a hemophiliac child, his teenage sisters and their parents and cold-bloodedly shoots and stabs them to death. And then rapes and burns their mutilated bodies. For a primer on the events of 1918, see the incredible book Nicholas and Alexandria and its follow-up The Romanovs: The Final Chapter by renowned historian Robert K. Massie.

I think that this court could have spent its presumedly valuable time on matters of real consequence? But then it seems that the judiciary in many countries, not just in the United States, has time to spend on this type of case. However, I supposed that this is a case of better late than never. Not that there has ever been any serious question of whether or not the Tsar and his family were victims of 'political repression'.

A more important question, at least in my opinion, is to ask where the voices that are so loud when a single Islamic terrorist is killed by United States soldiers were on this one? The answer, sadly, is that the media, as usual, was too busy getting in bed with the Stalinist government (think Walter Duranty) and the elites were too busy trying on Communism and betraying their own country (the Rosenbergs). And of course throughout the Cold War, the situation was similar- the so-called elites were too busy trying to make the United States into a copy of the Soviet Union, and the media were too busy demonizing the few courageous voices who were trying to protect their country and their principles.

An Important Birthday

Napoleon Bonaparte, French general, Emperor and master military genius, was born on this day in 1867. Why is this important? Because it was Bonaparte's imperialist dreams that caused the French-English wars between the 1790s and the Waterloo campaign of 1815, led to Britain's Royal Navy becoming the world's premier fighting force and set up the beginnings of the European order that was finally overthrown in 1918.

Napoleon was born on the island of Corsica, but entered the French army at a young age and rose rapidly, becoming a general at age 20. When France was plunged into the darkness of the French Revolution, it was Bonaparte who, with the support of the Army, eventually took control of the French government, being named First Consul in 1799 in what can only be called a coup de etat. After consolidating his power, he declared himself Emperor.

As a side note, it was Bonaparte's expedition to Egypt in 1798 that resulted in the discovery of one of the most important artifacts of all time- the Rosetta Stone. A stone that has the same text written in hieroglyphs, Demotic script and Greek, it was this that finally provided the key for cracking the Egyptian hieroglyphic writing system.

Once he had firm control of France, Bonaparte attacked and conquered virtually ever nation in Europe save for England alone (though Scotland and Ireland also remained unconquered it was mostly due to English naval power, not through any efforts of their own). English naval commanders, such as George Rodney, Sir John Jervis and of course Horatio Nelson created new tactics for the Royal Navy and the superior seamanship of the British, coupled with their new tactics, forced the French from the seas, thus effectively frustrating Napoleon's plans for invading his most resolute foe. The Royal Navy's need for men in their ships and their practice of impressing (forcibly taking men for use in their Navy from neutral ships) also led to the War of 1812 between the US and Great Britain- a war that while it led to some fantastic single-ship victories, was a disastrous one for the United States.

Unlike later tyrants such as Stalin, Mao and Hitler, Napoleon did make many positive contributions to French society, laying the seeds for the modern French nation in his policies. Although his foreign policy ended in disaster for France, his domestic achievements included centralizing the French government departments, setting up a system of higher education, creating a law code, a central ban and road and sewer systems. He also made some positive contributions to Europe as a whole. By reorganizing the old Holy Roman empire, he laid the foundations for the later emergence of the state of Germany, and his Napoleonic Code is part of many modern civil codes, including in the US state of Louisiana.

Historically, Napoleon is one of the few tyrants who probably could not have been stopped by an early response to his aggression, as his victories depended on his mastery of tactics and strategy- not on numbers or on technology. However, the sturdy resolve of the British Empire to oppose Napoleon did eventually lead to his ultimate defeat, as Britain kept resistance going for over twenty years, despite losing virtually every land engagement.

Napoleon was a man of mixed heritage- he was not entirely bad for the world, as he did have some positive effects. However, the balance of his reign led to death, destruction and a constant state of war for over twenty years, thus he must be placed in the same category as all other would-be conquerers. The moral is that when a State or a leader looks high, there is a long way to fall, if the objects of that desire have the will to protect themselves.

Remembering Marco Polo (Bridge)

It is instructive that so close to the anniversary of American independence is another anniversary much more somber in nature. To be specific, today is the seventieth anniversary of the battle at Marco Polo bridge in Beijing. This incident was the final straw in the long history of Sino-Japanese irritants, and led to open warfare between the Empire of Japan and the forces of Revolutionary China (led by Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang Party, or KMT).
As a result of the battle, China and Japan were engaged in full-scale war, as opposed to the mostly diplomatic battles they had engaged in since the end of the previous war in 1931. This war continued until Japan surrendered to the United States and the remainder of the Allies in 1945.

One side effect of the war was to allow Mao Tse-tung's Communists to grow strong as the Nationalist Party (KMT) focused its energies on fighting the Japanese. The Chinese Communists and Chiang Kai-shek's KMT were deadly enemies, and in the years leading up to the battle at Marco Polo Bridge the KMT had forced the Communists to retreat in the famous Long March, greatly weakening them. Chiang intended to destroy the COmmunists before taking aim at the Japanese. However, this policy was not shared by all of his supporters. In fact, Chiang Kai-shek was actually kidnapped by Marshal Zhang Xueliang in order to force him to agree to put resistance to the Japanese as his first priority.

Chiang did agree to focus on defeating the Japanese, but at the cost of allowing the Communists (who did virtually nothing against the Japanese) to grow strong. In fact, they grew strong enough that at the end of World War II, they were quickly able to defeat the KMT and seize control of China, although it ought to be noted that they were aided by the corruption and elitism that was prevalent in the KMT as well. Had Chiang been willing to consider land reform, he might have managed to defeat the Communists despite their strength. So in one aspect, the battle at Marco Polo Bridge was an important step on the road to China's submission to the bloody hands of the Communists under Mao Tse-tung.

Supreme Court Snatches Defeat From Victory

Well, it has occurred. I cannot say I am surprised, but I am disappointed. I was hoping that at least one justice would actually read the Constitution before opening the floodgates of litigation by giving rights that are intended for U.S. citizens to people who meet none of the criteria for such rights. Yes, you heard me correctly. Today the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 decision, announced that the inmates of Guantanamo Bay, people who by definition in the Geneva Conventions signed by the United States of America are not eligible for any such rights, are eligible for the right of habeus corpus and are allowed to sue the US government in US federal courts. By so doing, with one stroke they have managed to hand the Islamic imperialist forces the victory that they could not win on the battlefield.

I quote the Geneva Convention as follows- see for yourself if our enemies in al Quaeda and Iraq fall into one of the following categories:

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

This is so disappointing on so many levels it is difficult for me to begin. I think that if I were the President, I would order the troops to shoot ever single inmate at Guantanamo- immediately. After all, since these people have now outlived their usefulness, and will soon be released into American society with (probably) American citizenship (can't deny these poor mistreated people the privileges of US citizenship since the Court has decided to give them every other right). I am sure the Court will do everything in its power now to ensure that these people receive millions of dollars for their 'mistreatment'- never mind that these are the same people who planned and executed 9/11- and will soon have a plan in place to allow them to settle down in the very country thy so badly wish to destroy. When America finally falls, as so many other great cultures have fallen to Islam, it will be the Democrats, the leftist legal profession and the media who will bear all the blame, since they seem determined to take Americans' privileges away and give them to people who do not deserve them.

As far as this disgraceful ruling goes, I think that Michelle Malkin hit the nail on the head. She wrote on her site,

What’s that sound? The thunder of left-wing lawyers and Gitmo detainees jumping up and down for joy at the Supreme Court’s ruling this morning. Brace yourselves. Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia warns that the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed” and concludes “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”

Chief Justice John Roberts says the rule of law and the American people have lost out–and with this ruling, we “lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.”

I could not agree more. I think that with this decision, the Court has finally succeeded in doing what Osama Bin Laden could not- deliver victory in this war to Islam. It won't be immediate, but this country is doomed. The Left has got their hands on the true power, since Congress and the President will not exercise their right as equal branches to the Court to refuse to recognize illegal decisions such as this one which have no basis whatsoever in the Constitution itself. The Founders clearly did not intend for non-lawful combatants and illegal aliens to qualify for the same rights as American citizens. Now that the Court has handed those rights over to the worst possible group of detainees, how long will it be before legitimate prisoners of War- those who DO meet the criteria contained in the Geneva Conventions- start suing in federal courts? Malkin says it will not be long and I sadly agree.

To those who have a way out of this country, I strongly advise that you begin looking at your options. To those who don't, I suggest you start practicing your shooting- you will need your defences once sharia takes control, aided and abetted by the same lawyers and so-called 'elites' who were so eager to hand over our rights to our enemies. America has fallen at last, and it is now only a matter of time before Islam replaces the Constitution with Sharia law, since our own elected officials and these unelected judges would rather ignore the Constitution to hand out our rights to our enemies than actually do something to protect their own country. As Byzantium before us, we are doomed, due to our own self-loathing elites. If you happen to have a moment, read Sir Steven Runciman's The Fall of Constntinople. It details the fall of Constantinople, once one of Christendom's proudest empires, but which was eventually delivered to Islam by its own leaders and allies- just as we are being delivered to Islam.

And as an aside, when you are looking for places to retreat, don't choose Europe. Without our protection, Europe hasn't a chance of surviving. They are a lot further down the path of self-destruction than we. Pick a nation that has some nationalistic pride, like China or Japan. But make sure that you pick one that will fight, because I don't think any of us would want to live under Islam's sharia law- it is even harsher to non-Muslims than it is to Muslims. I wonder how the so-progressive Left will enjoy living under what they have brought us? I almost wish that I would live to see that event, but I am saddened by knowing that my son will be forced to live in a world where the United States no longer exists as such.

So farewell to the Great Experiment! Farewell America! She has endured for over two centuries, but now her own elites, encouraged by the people's ignorance and inattention, have delivered her to her enemies and now it is only a matter of time before they manage to hand over the remainder of what once were considered the rights of Americans. To be shortly followed, no doubt, by the reins of power to the medieval clerics who want to take us all back to the Middle Ages. it was a great ride, but like so many other cultures before us, we have been destroyed from inside by our own ignorance, stupidity and pride.

Revolutionary Turning Point

Today is a big day for history buffs. The United States would probably not exist were it not for the support France provided the fledgling nation against the power of Great Britain, then the world's most powerful nation. On this day in 1778, the Continental Congress signed a treaty with France that made France an ally and changed the Revolutionary War from a rebellion into an international conflict.

Once the treaty was signed, France dispatched their West Indies Fleet under Admiral Francois de Grasse to the United States. deGrasse's defeat of the British fleet commanded by Admiral Thomas Graves off Cheasapeake in 1781 led to the Franco-American victory at Yorktown over General Lord Cornwallis' army, which to all intents and purposes ended the Revolutionary War.

Although France was acting mainly for its own interests (France and Britain were then engaged in a long-running war that would cover nearly a hundred years and only end with the final defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815), France is to be thanked, as without their timely intervention, Britain would probably have won the war eventually.

Today is also an important day in history for naval history buffs. On this day in 1991, the battleship USS Wisconsin used her 16-inch main battery to destroy an Iraqi anti-aircraft battery in Kuwait. This was her first service since the Korean War. Today, the Wisconsin, together with her sister-ship USS Iowa, are the only two battleships remaining in US government service.

The Great White Fleet Remembered

Renowned military historian and reporter Austin Bay has reminded me, via a column posted over at Townhall.com, that this week, specifically December 16, is the 100th anniversary of the circumnavigation by the Great White Fleet. I doubt that a celebration of the famous cruise will appear in any of the so-called mainstream press. However, in his article, he provides a masterly summation of the cruise, which officially was simply the round-the-world cruise by the United States Atlantic Fleet. Bay writes,

President Theodore Roosevelt sent the fleet of 16 white-painted battleships on the 14-month cruise for a number of reasons. I doubt the headline "TR PR" appeared in 1907, but it would have been accurate, as well as succinct. The Great White Fleet's journey certainly served as a global public relations event.

In a recent interview, naval historian Dr. A.A. Nofi agreed with that assessment. "The voyage was an announcement," Nofi said. "America had been quietly building up the second-largest navy in the world, and no one was paying attention. The Great White Fleet said, 'Hey, we're here.'"

Nofi said, however, there was another reason to send the fleet, one that had less to do with showoff bravado and more to do with calculated geostrategic signaling in the wake of Japan's victory over Russia in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. An Asian power had defeated a European power in a major naval engagement that featured the movement of the Russian fleet from European waters to East Asia. "In the immediate political context (of the early 20th century)," Nofi said, "the fleet's voyage was a message to Japan that said that unlike Russia, if America has to cross the ocean to fight you, its navy will be there in force and ready."

Precisely. Theodore Roosevelt, much like Ronald Reagan, understood that if there was to be war, the United States needed to be ready. To that end, he was a strong supporter of the nation's armed forces, and particularly the Navy- a favoritism that rubbed off on his cousin Franklin as well. And although his muscular (and largely personal) diplomacy was replaced by the muddle-headed do-gooding of Woodrow Wilson, he laid the groundwork for the US Navy's successful performance in World War I. The United States Navy's site provides additional information on the 1907 cruise. According to the Navy, as recorded by Mike McKinley,

The cruise provided the officers and men of the fleet with thorough at-sea training and brought about improvements in formation steaming, coal economy, gunnery and morale. It also stressed the need for overseas bases that could provide better coaling and supply services along with more auxiliary ships. Foreign coaling ships or ports were used 90 percent of the time for coaling and resupply.

For the sailors who participated in this historic once-in-a-lifetime adventure, the cruise reinforced their pride in service and country. They had been the ambassadors of good will and the vehicles through which others perceived and judged America and the Navy. The results were gratifying. But even more concretely, the sailors saw their individual roles and the role of the Great White Fleet as providing the muscle behind US foreign policy.

As one sailor succinctly put it, "We just wanted to let the world know we were prepared for anything they wanted to kick up. We wanted to show the world what we could do."

Taken as a whole, the cruise did indeed provide invaluable experience to the men of the Fleet as well as the master planners in Washington. It opened the world's eyes to the growing power of the upstart republic. And it opened America's eyes to the fact that they had truly arrived on the global stage and that the world was beginning to be our stage. Finally, the cruise and his successful arbitration of the Russo-Japanese War provided Roosevelt and his Administration with two valuable public relations coups, overshadowing anything that the opposition (in those days a mostly loyal opposition, it must be said) could do to submarine his Administration.

Pity that today's Press and many of our political so-called 'leadership' has neither the intestinal fortitude nor the love of country to repeat such an experience. I would hope that some mainstream press organ might pick up on this story. But since even they cannot find anything in the story of the Great White Fleet to shame current President George W. Bush, I doubt that they will waste any of their precious newsprint on a story that holds only glory and praise for this great country and our wonderful Navy.

Pearl Harbor Remembered

For those few readers who may not be aware, today is the sixty-sixth anniversary of the Japanese attack on the United States Pacific Fleet as it lay at anchor in Pearl Harbor. The attack precipitated official American involvement in World War II, as it was followed shortly by Germany declaring war on the United States, thus finally bringing the U.S. into the fight alongside the British Empire.

The attack was meant to have been announced by the Japanese ambassador just as the attack commenced, thus avoiding the image of a sneak attack, but due to a combination of circumstances, the diplomats were not able to get the ultimatum translated and typed in time to deliver it before the Japanese planes attacked. the results of Pearl harbor were devastating for the US Pacific Fleet- all eight battleships out of action, most of the warplanes destroyed and over two thousand Americans were killed. The only bright spot for the United States was that the attack failed to catch any of the Pacific Fleet's three aircraft carriers in port- all were out on missions at the time. President Franklin Roosevelt, in his speech to Congress asking for a declaration of war, called the attack 'a day that will live in infamy', and so it should be. But it should be remarked that much of the anger came from Japan's attempt to meet the letter of the law while violating the intent.

And to the credit of the nation, where there had been a strong peace movement, the attack overnight essentially ended the protests. Despite a year of constant defeat, despite horrendous casualties and despite the loss of men, ships and armies, the American public did not give up- they persevered until at last General Douglas MacArthur was able to dictate peace terms to Japan from the deck of the battleship Missouri, anchored in Tokyo Bay.

This brings up an interesting point. In the news today, many news organizations mark the anniversary fo Pearl harbor. Yet not a single one seems to have made the point that the Pearl harbor attack differs in several significant ways from the recent attack on Manhattan's Twin Towers. And these differences are important.

First, the attack on Pearl Harbor targeted military personnel and installations- a perfectly legitimate target by any rule of war. Pearl Harbor was not a civilian establishment- it was the main base of the United States Pacific Fleet. Second, the men at Pearl had the ability to defend themselves. True, there was incompetence and cowardice displayed throughout, but there was also much heroism, as shown by fighter pilots Taylor and Welch, who managed to take off and shoot down several Japanese planes, despite being incredibly outnumbered. there was the battleship USS Nevada, who desperately made a dash for the sea, only to be deliberately grounded to avoid blocking the channel. The point, however, is that the defenders had the machines and methods to fight back- they were not defenceless civilians.

So where is the outrage about September 11? Pearl harbor is to this day remembered as a sneak attack. Yet September 11 was even more so, perpetrated by cowards who did not have the courage to engage in open combat with the United States, but rather hid and used unarmed civilians as shields. And it ought to be noted that many of those killed in the September 11 attacks were not even Americans, but rather foreigners who happened to be working or sightseeing there. No one killed at Pearl Harbor was a civilian that I am aware of.

My point is simple. The Japanese are rightfully condemned for their duplicitous methodology. However, why cannot our press and our politicians bring themselves to be as righteously outraged about a much more cowardly and duplicitous attack, carried out for equally ignoble motives (Islamists want world domination and see us as the primary obstacle)? To me, the perpetrators of September 11 are far more despicable than the Japanese government and military of 1941. I wish that more of our so-called intelligentsia shared that opinion. But I fear they are too blinded by their hatred of all things related to our President to even admit that he got something right.

Baby-boomers

The baby-boom generation has had an enormous effect on the United States, of that there is no question. However, there is a significant question as to what kind of effect that might have been- was it positive or negative? For myself, though I am a generation younger, at least two of my best friends are members of the baby-boomer generation, and I know many other members of this generation. And I cannot help but think that overall, there are virtually no positive benefits that one can ascribe to the baby-boomers.

And it seems that I am not alone in this opinion. Over at Townhall.com, Dennis Prager agrees, writing a column apologizing to the current generation for the baby-boomers' many mistakes. Amont other things, Prgaer says,

Our generation came up with two truly foolish slogans that also ended up robbing you of childhood.

One was, "Never trust anyone over 30." Our infantile attitude toward adult authority has inflicted great harm on you. Because of it, many baby boomers decided not to become adults, and this has had disastrous consequences in your lives. It deprived you of one of the greatest needs in your life -- adults. That in turn deprived you of something as important as love -- parental and other adult authority. With little parental authority, you were left with little personal security, few guardrails and a diminished sense of order in life. And we transferred this denial of authority to virtually all authority figures, from teachers to police.

The other slogan whose awful consequences we baby boomers bequeathed to you was, "Make love, not war." Our parents had liberated the world from immeasurably cruel and murderous regimes in Germany and Japan -- solely thanks to waging war. But instead of concluding that war could do great moral good, we sang ourselves silly with such inane lyrics as "Give peace a chance," as if that deals in any way with the world's most monstrous evils. So we taught you to make love and not war. And we succeeded.

Prager gets it right. The baby-boomers somehow completely missed that it was only through the power of armed resistance that the forces of Nazi Germany, and Imperial japan were defeated. Only the power of the United States military kept western Europe free from the menace of the Red Army while Communists murdered millions and built the Berlin Wall to hold in their own citizens. And the sins of the baby-boomers do not end there. Prager comments that,

We also made you weak. We did everything possible to ensure that you suffered no pain. Sometimes we changed game scores if a team was winning by too large a margin; we abolished dodgeball lest anyone suffer early removal from the game; and we gave trophies to all of you who played on baseball teams, no matter how awfully you or your team played so that none of you missed getting a trophy while members of another team did. Much of this was thanks to the self-esteem-without-having-to-earn-it movement, which in our generation's almost infinite lack of wisdom we inflicted upon you. Sorry for that, too.

So true. One gains self-esteem by actually doing something and doing it well. And if one does not do well at a particular game, then one can either find an area where he or she does excel, or work to gain expertise in the area where they lack. Something that too many baby-boomers simply don't appear to understand.

In the end, the baby-boomers destroyed much of the underlying strength of America and the West. They made us into a nation of lawyers, where one can hardly even stand up for himself without prompting a lawsuit. They took away many of the joys of childhood, where much of the fun was discovering one's limitations and strengths, and they preached canards that they felt were below them to practice. And what benefits did they bring? Aside from personal technology, has anything they did proved a success? the great Society that they were so proudly for? A disaster. The War on Poverty? A complete failure. Their continuing habits of appeasement and dictator-worshipping? Embarrassing at best and dangerous at worst.

The best thing that the succeeding generations can do is try to undo most of the Boomers' work in order that we can restore the world before the baby-boomers got their hands on it. And maybe, give children back the joys of childhood.

Remembering Torch

This is one in an intermittent series of posts on the history of the United States Navy.

Today is the sixty-fifth anniversary of the Allied amphibious invasion of North Africa, code-named Operation Torch. Under the overall command of General Dwight Eisenhower,with subordinate officers including Major General George S. Patton and Army Air Corps Major General James Doolittle, Allied forces simultaneously attacked Casablanca, Oran and Algiers on the night of November 8, 1942. Although Vichy French naval units fought back, the U.S. Navy suffered no casualties, while sinking thirteen French ships.

Torch's main importance was a test run for the great invasions of France on June 6, 1944. Torch provided the first chance for a combined Allied amphibious operation, and until D-Day, was the largest amphibious operation ever attempted. In addition, many of the techniques used successfully in the invasion of France were first tested during the North African campaign, including the use of a split British-American air command and multiple simultaneous landings.

Torch led to the eventual defeat of the German Army in North Africa, and was an important step in the path that eventually led to the invasion of France in 1944. In addition, Torch provided the first experience for Eisenhower as a combined Commander-in-Chief, and proved the Allies could carry off a combined campaign of extreme complexity with success.

Remembering Beirut

Militant Muslims have long considered the UNited States a paper tiger. Much of the blame deserves to rest with President Clinton, who ignored attacks on US personnel and property for almost a decade. However, Clinton is not the only blame-worthy President. Presidents dating back to Jimmy Carter also deserve to share the blame for promoting the perception of the United States as a weak nation ripe for destruction. Even Ronald Reagan, who did so many positive things for this nation, deserves to share some of the blame.

Today marks the 24th anniversary of the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut by the Hezbollah organization. In this attack 241 Marines were killed and many other injured. This was the first assault by Muslim fanatics on the US military, as well as being the most serious assault on United States personnel since the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Teheran, and resulted in far more fatalities. Yet the U.S reaction left much to be desired.

President Reagan reacted by pulling the Marines out of Lebanon, resulting in Islamic fanatics being able to claim (with some reason) that they had defeated the United States. As a result, Muslims like Osama bin-Laden were able to claim that the United States lacked the will to oppose fundamentalist Islam, and thus they were able to use it as a recruiting tool.

Historically, only strength is respected by most Muslims. They have no respect or appreciation for other religions or other cultures. Islam teaches its adherents that Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists are animals- not worthy of anything other than ignominious slavery or death should they reject Islam's domination. If they are willing to live in a subserviant state, then they are allowed to live, though as Saudi Arabia shows, not with any real freedom. It is indisputable that a Muslim in a Christian/Jewish/Buddhist/Hindu country has more freedom than any of the above in a Muslim country.

So remember the brave Marines who were killed by cowardly Muslim terrorists. But remember their sacrifice with this caveat- if we fail again, their deaths are truly in vain, for only if we win in IRaq, and destroy al-Quaeda's credibility do their deaths mean something. Otherwise, should our lovely anti-war, anti-patriotic Democratic Party and their shills in the mainstream media manage to bring about defeat and withdrawal, we will succeed only in allowing our allies to be slaughtered and encourage the Islamic groups who long for a worldwide Caliphate. They may not be strong enough to win today, but if we retreat again and lose this campaign, they will be strong enough someday- especially if we allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons. I hope that our leaders recognize that winning this war is imperative, and that we can elect leaders who understand this- not political opportunists who would rather sell America to China than protect their fellow Americans.

Murderers Aren't Cool

Murderers are not cool, though much of the Left does not appear to know that. Leftists are always happy to idolize Fidel Castro, Mao Tse-tung, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot and others of their ilk. However the most irritating of thee lionized murderers has to be the late, unlamented Che Guevara, who finally met justice on October 9, 1969 in Bolivia. For some mysterious reason, many young, ignorants seem to think wearing the visage of this mass murderer on their T-shirts and other articles of clothing is somehow cool and stylish. This is about as logical as the equally ignorant middle class youths who believe that emulating black prison fashion, complete with its baggy pants and sideways hats is somehow the height of style. The prevalence of Guevara's face on the clothing of the inhabitants of 'progressive' places like San Francisco causes me to wonder whether they actually know who this butcher was, or if they are merely indoctrinated fools who do know and are advocating replicating Guevara's acts of mass murder upon their countrymen.

However, since the fortieth anniversary of his death passed unremembered here at StoneHeads, I decided to follow the advice of the Power Line crew and join the Facebook group Che Guevara Was a Murderer and Your T-shirt Is Not Cool. I highly recommend this site for all who actually know the history of Guevara's bloody passage through Latin America. As for the useful idiots who wear Guevara's face on their attire, they demonstrate merely that ignorance is to be found among the most unlikely people. Why Americans (who are privileged to live in one of the most free and wealthiest places on Earth) would want to idolize a murderer who desperately wanted to replace their freedom with a particularly repressive form of dictatorship (also known as Communism) escapes me, but as I said, ignorance and foolishness are no strangers to those who should know better. One has only to look at the modern Democratic Party's' embrace of Islamic barbarians to appreciate this fact.

Two pictures of Guevara following his execution can be found on the site as well. I paste the link to the first picture here and the second picture's link here. Be warned, it lacks the glamor so many young fools seem to associate with the Cuban Butcher. But it may disillusion those who seem to think that Marxist revolutionaries somehow are glamorous folks. I hate to pour cold water on your fantasies, but revolutionaries like Guevara are in fact murderous thugs, and we can only hope that they end like he did- unglamorously lined up against a wall for the firing squad.

Muslims To Christians: Make Peace Or Else

Islam has a long history of imperialism and bloody conquest against non-Islamic cultures. Cases in point include the unprovoked invasion and conquest of the classical Mediterranean cultures (Carthage, Egypt) of North Africa through the sixth and early seventh centuries and the equally unprovoked invasion of Spain in 715. This invasion continued until Charles Martel's victory in 732 at the Battle of Tours halted Islam's attempt to conquer Europe. Other examples include the Mughal conquest of India, the destruction in 1453 of the ancient Christian kingdom of Byzantium (today known as Turkey) despite Byzantium's history of cooperating with Islamic kingdoms and the Ottoman invasion of Europe that ended before the walls of Vienna in 1683. Sandwiched in betweem were many more Muslim invasions of Europe. Compare this with no Christian invasions of native Islamic land (the Crusades did not invade any historically Muslim land- Jerusalem was not historically a Muslim city).

Contrast this bloody march of conquest with Christianity's history- a religion that spread from the slaves through the middle and upper classes and finally came to be the faith of kings. At very few times in Christianity's history can one find examples of conversion by force, and nowhere can Christianity match Islam's bloody record of destroying civilizations and converting entire populations by the sword. Although Christian kings fought viciously against each other, there was never any concerted attempt by the Christian powers to destroy of even invade Islamic heartlands, despite the great provocation given by the repeated Muslim attemtps to conquer Europe. While this was probably due more to the nature of political infighting amongst the Western leaders than anything else, it is significant that no Pope or Emperor ever tried, aside from the Crusades, which wree primarily to aid Byzantium and recapture the holy city of Jerusalem.

With this history, does it not seem strange that 138 leading Islamic scholars have sent a letter pleading for Christians and Muslims to make peace to many leading Christian leaders? According to the United Kingdom's Evening Standard,

Prominent Muslim scholars are warning that the "survival of the world" is at stake if Muslims and Christians do not make peace with each other.
In an unprecedented open letter signed by 138 leading Muslim scholars from every sect of Islam, the Muslims plead with Christian leaders "to come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions."

...

The Muslim scholars state: "As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes."
The phrasing has similarities to the New Testament passage: "He that is not with me is against me" - a passage used by President George Bush when addressing a joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11.

The hypocrisy in this letter is towering. Firstly, the Muslim scholars claim if Islam and Christianity do not make peace the "survival of the world is at stake". This sounds suspiciously like a threat to me. Secondly, they claim that Islam is not against Christians. Really? Then why are all the atttacks against Christians, Americans and other non-Islamic peoples always clothed in religious motives. bin Laden and the zealots of al-Quaeda and Hezbollah have never been shy at proclaiming their religious motivation. However, the Muslim scholars pass this point with no comment and proceed to say that "as long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion..." Did the Muslim scholars somehow miss the fact that the current war, at least according to American leadership, has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam as a whole? American leaders have been careful to state that they are waging war against the miscreants who bombed the World Trade Center and the states who have aided them. This includes Saddam Hussein's Iraq. At no point has any American leader called this war a fight against Islam. It has been called a war on terror and various other names, but never has it been cast as a war against Islam. Only the Islamics we are fighting have cast it in religious terms.

And that brings up a second point. Certain elements of Islam started this war, not the West. The West, in particular the United States, has actually fought for Muslims, both in Bosnia and in the Middle East. US soldiers were stationed in Saudi Arabia at the request of Saudi leadership to protect them against fellow Muslim Saddam Hussein. US soldiers also liberated Kuwait (a Muslim country) from Iraq (another Muslim country) in the First Gulf War. And the United States supported the (Muslim) mujahadeen who helped drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan.

To me this smacks of the classic Islamic idea that when one is being defeated, it is acceptable to call for a truce, which should be used to rearm and refresh oneself before continuing the battle. And this seems more evidence that the United States is currently winning the war against Islamic fundamentalism, if leading Islamic scholars are calling for a truce. I hope and trust that the Christian leaders to whom this letter is addressed treat it with the appropriate solemnity- they drop it in the nearest wastebin. I believe that there are essentially only two kinds of peace- the kind of a resounding victory and the kind of defeat and submission. Detente falls into the 'peace through strength' category, as it is enforced by a willingness to fight for one's beliefs. Which kind do we want?

If Islam truly wants peace with Christians, perhaps they could abandon the anti-Christian rhetoric issuing from so many mosques around the world. Perhaps Saudi Arabia could discontinue its sponsorship of the radical, anti-American Wahhabi sect, which preaches violence against America. Perhaps Muslim nations could eliminate their anti-Bible laws, and no longer execute Muslims who wish to convert from their barbarous religion to one that is kinder and gentler. Perhaps Islam could begin an honest debate about how seriously the Koran should be taken. Perhaps Muslim nations should do a better job preventing Muslim fanatics from executing people memerly for the crime of being non-Muslim. Perhaps Islamic nations should actually offer protection to the non-Muslims who live in their midst, instead of encouraging the medievalist who want them dead. And most of all, perhaps Muslim nations can cease their autocratic leadership practices and give their people some real rights, along with disposing of the medieval notion that women are merely baby factories. if the people were to be granted some enlightened leadership, then perhaps the fundamentalists would be less successful in their proselytizing.

Christian nations are perfectly ready to live in peace with Islam. But we are not willing to live in the kind of peace that Islam too often brings- the peace of submission and dhimmitude. If Islam is willing to renounce its violent and imperialist tendencies towards us, we are perfectly happy to live side-by-side. But we will not tolerate any further attempts to conquer us, and Islam has made too many of these attempts for this poor writer to trust them any further than needs be. I can only hope our leaders are similarly wary, for I do not wish to live under sharia. Not now, and not ever.

Birth of the Flying Boat

This is one in a series of posts on the hisstory of the United States Navy.

On October 5, 1913, the first amphibious flying boat was tested at Hammondsport, New York. The flying boat was designated as OWL, which stood for Over Water Land Type. This test led to a deeper program and eventually to the many amphibious flying boats that have served theis country ever since. One of the mopst famous that eventually resulted from this was the classic PBY (Catalina) flying boat used so successfully during the Seconed World War.

New Journalists Missing Moral Clarity

Journalists are responsible for presenting the news of the day to ordinary citizens. Their requirements include objectivity and analysis. However, they are also expected to understand the difference between a mass-murderer who espouses a form of global slavery and an elected leader of the freest country on Earth. Unfortunately, it appears that Ryan Yeoman, of the Central Connecticut State University does not have that understanding. Writing today in the opinion pages of The Recorder, Central Connecticut State's college newspaper, Yeomans states,

As of late, if you were to bring up the president in a discussion you would find that many Americans disapprove of the decisions he has made. At the same time, Osama bin Laden presents many good arguments against the president and many of his reasons for disapproving of Bush are similar to those of anti-Bush Americans. Would it be wrong to assume that there is some kind of connection between feelings of the American people and those of Osama bin Laden? As I would love to make this connection, I ultimately cannot because of the actions of our president. If I were to say I agree with bin Laden, that would mean that I agree with a terrorist; under the Patriot Act, I could be labeled a potential terrorist and my phone could be tapped, and every move I make could be watched and analyzed.

In finding myself in this predicament, I questioned myself as to who the lesser evil actually is. I ask, “Who has done more damage to the lives of the American people?” Personally, I worry more about the next bad decision Bush is going to make than I worry about a potential Osama bin Laden organized terrorist attack.

One thing I have realized from these videos is that while Osama bin Laden remains free, Americans are slowly becoming bound by the decisions of the president to remove and restrict the rights given to us by our knowledgeable forefathers, without whom we would not be here. I can only hope that Americans will open their eyes and see what is in front of them, in order to prevent things from getting out of hand any further.

This writer displays such a lack of common sense that it is difficult to know where to start deconstructing. Let's take his statement that "Americans are slowly becoming bound by the decisions of the president to remove and restrict the rights given us by our knowledgeable forefathers". Mr. Yeomans, precisely what rights has the president removed from American citizens? I cannot think of a single right enumerated in the Constitution that Mr. Bush has either removed or restricted. In fact, the courts have created new rights for our enemies that have never existed previously, such as access to the US court system.

Yeomans also complains that although he agrees with bin Laden, "If I were to say I agree with bin Laden, that would mean that I agree with a terrorist; under the Patriot Act, I could be labeled a potential terrorist and my phone could be tapped, and every move I make could be watched and analyzed." Well, actually no. Free speech is protected, though advocating the assassination or other violence against the president is a federal crime and has been since long before the Bush Administration. I have not noticed any anti-war/pro-Islamic protestors being placed in prison for speaking their minds, and certainly the MoveOn.org folks who masterminded the 'Bush-as-Hitler' campaign are still free. If Mr. Yeomans were communicating with foreign nationals connected to terror via international phone calls, then yes, those calls could be and probably should be tapped. But tapping domestic calls (those are calls with both ends within the United States, as opposed to international calls, which have at least one end in a foreign country) require a warrant- no matter how many Democratic talking points bin Laden parrots.

However, the most startling aspect of this opinion piece is the complete lack of understanding betrayed by the writer. This is someone who will be entering the journalistic world and will be responsible for portraying the news to his fellow Americans. Yet, he displays the most astonishing lack of ability to differentiate between an elected leader who is bound (and who has followed) the law, and who has two other branches of the government overseeing him as well, and an unelected terrorist who wants a global Islamic caliphate, containing no rights whatsoever for non-Muslims. A leader who masterminded the attacks on September 11, 2001 that killed over three thousand American citizens. And Yeomans appears to be ignorant of how bin Laden's videos have increasingly adopted Democratic Party talking points, as he tries to elect a party that would be much easier to defeat than the current Adminstration.

It used to be that college students were taught the difference between murderous barbarians such as bin Laden and elective republics such as we. There is a difference between forces that refuse to wear uniforms, who hide amongst civilians and who behead and torture their enemies (the Muslims) as opposed to a society that adheres to a rule of law, wears uniforms, fights under a flag, and who actually provides their captives with food, Korans and exercise (the United States)- none of which privileges are granted to those unfortunate enough to fall into the hands of the Islamists. Mr. Yeomans has an understanding neither of history, which provides the context for bin Laden and his allies, nor for the proper use of force, which is often the only resort against aggression such as that espoused by bin Laden and his allies. Proper use of force saved Europe from Islamic aggression many times, beginning in 732 at the battle of Tours, and most recently in 1683 in the siege of Vienna.

If Mr Yeomans is the future of American journalism, then American journalism has fallen a long way since the days of Ernie Pyle. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

HuffPo Calls for Coup de Etat

I missed this when it happend, but thank goodness Glenn Reynolds and Captain Ed Morrissey did not. A left-wing bloger called Martin Lewis wrote an entry calling for the United States military Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) to arrest George W. Bush. Lewis's main point was apparently that the Joint Chiefs of Staff have the power to remove the President from his command. Lewis wrote,

General Pace - you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.

You can relieve the President of his command.

Not of his Presidency. But of his military role as Commander-In-Chief.

You simply invoke the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.

The United States Code: Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47, Subchapter X, Section 934.

Article 134 reads:

"Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."

It appears that Mr. Lewis somehow believes that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (something that would have applied to Massachusetts Senator John Kerry's antics in the Winter Soldier fiasco) somehow allow the JCS to arrest a sitting United Sates President. Further, he is calling for what amounts to a military coup de etat. Possibly he is unfamiliar with Section II, Article 2 of the United States Constitution, which clearly states

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Captain Ed Morrissey's response to Lewis' ignorance and mind-boggling calls for coup is worth quoting, as he wrote,

Lewis quotes extensively from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but clearly his scholarship does not extend to the Constitution. The command of the armed forces follows from the president's election to office, and cannot be separated from the office itself. Bush isn't C-in-C because he got appointed to that position, but because the American electorate voted him into that role. In other words, the military cannot arrest the C-in-C but leave the President in power, and to argue otherwise is to demonstrate complete ignorance.

Secondly, the President does not serve at the pleasure of the Joint Chiefs -- and indeed, the military is subservient to the civilian command structure. They do not have arrest authority over the President -- nor over anyone else in the US other than military personnel, as the Posse Comitatus Act stipulates. Civilian oversight keeps the military from seizing power and is a long and vital tradition in this nation. It's what keeps us from becoming a banana republic, run by military strongmen.

Quite correct. What Lewis called for is no more and no less than the abandonment of the principles that cause the United States to be far above the so-called "republics" ike Hugo Chavez' Venezuela or Fidel Castro's Cuba- countries where the executive is uneleceted and kept in poweer only by the threat of the army (or the secret police in the case of Chavez). The United States has a long tradition of civilian preeminence over the military- as eveidenced by the firing of Douglas macArthur. And this tradition goes back further than Ledwis might think. The fledgling United States first met that threat when George Washington helped squash a plot of his officers to become king. Washington's actions set the civilian oversight and control of the military into stone, and yet Lewis would have us go the way of the banana republic, where the elected government is merely the thrall of the army, as Republican Rome eventually became when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

I guess the Left is not only ignorant of the United States military but has a more than passing ignorance of the bedrock laws of this country. Or maybe they truly believe that laws are made to be broken unless they suit the Left's political ends. No matter what the thoughts that guided the writer of this scurrilous piece, they should be anathema to most Americans- no matter what their political persuasion. Otherwise, we are doomed to the same fate that eventually met ancient Rome. And I can't think that Lewis and his left-leaning allies would like that.

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

Marine Music & Nuclear Submarines

This is one in a series of posts on the history of the United States Navy.

On this day in 1800, the United States Marine Band gave its first concert in Washington, District of Columbia. This was the first in a long and continuing tradition of great musicians providing music to the public, including such luminaries as John Philip Sousa, who led the Marine Band from 1880 - 1892. This tradition continues today, as "The President's Own" band continues to provide superb music for all State occasions and many public concerts.

And also on this day in history in 1951, the first contract for a nuclear-powered submarine was awarded to the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics. This award paved the way for the Navy to enter the nuclear era with the launch of the U.S.S. Nautilus (SSN-571) in 1954. Today, Nautilus, named for the famed submarine in Jules Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in which he predicted nuclear power among other things, can be found at Groton, Connecticut, near the huge submarine base of New London, Connecticut.

Independence Day

Today is the 231th anniversary of the independence from England of the United States of America. I hope that we all enjoy ourselves on this FOurth of July, and thank God that we live in the greatest, freest country on Earth. Remember, freedom is not free, and if no one stands up to defend our beliefs, our culture and our nation, we will all be wearing the marks of the dhimmi sooner or later.

God bless the United States. Have a wonderful Independence Day, everyone.

Cuba & History

Cuba has been a thorn in the side of the United States since we foolishly allowed Fidel Castro to clamp a dictatorship on the residents of the island. Today, June 22, 2007 is a pasrticularly painful reminder that the United States could have completely prevented this from occuring.

On this date in the year 1898, Admiral William Sampson began amphibious landings at Santiago as a part of the Cuban campaign of the Spanish-American War. This is significant not only beacause of the ability of the United States Navy to successfully execute an amphibious assault- which would be useful during both World Wars in the following century, but because of the effect that this could have had upon American history.

At the conclusion of the war, the United States had established control of Cuba, and Spain ceded all claims. However, the United States, despite the pressure of Manifest Destiny, chose to relinquish control over the island, though we did take over control of the Philippine Islands.

In retrospect, this has been one of the gravest errors of American foreign policy. Had we chosen to make Cuba a part of the United States and allowed the Philippine Islands to gain immediate independence, we would undoubtedly be better off today. The Philippines have brought the United States very little benefit, while the disadvantages of our refusal to take over Cuba are with us still today.