Motivation Monday

American Exceptionalism

This Fourth of July week is a great week to think about our country and what it means to be American.  I received an essay from our former Priest today and as usual his writing is  brilliant, inspiring and insightful.  Please read it and digest it.  Then have your kids read it.  Then read it together and discuss.  You'll be glad you did.

American Exceptionalism: A Panegyric

The Founders of our nation were a diverse group of people. Imagine them gathered together in Independence Hall, Philadelphia preparing to vote on the Declaration of Independence. Many in the room were Anglicans (members of the Church of England), but there were also Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Baptists and adherents of the Dutch Reformed Church. Most held conventional views about God and Christianity, but several were nominal Deists, men such as Thomas Jefferson, who in 1804 would write an edited version of the Gospels that eliminated all miracles and references to the supernatural. This “Jefferson Bible” is still popular and in print today.

With all the religious diversity among the Founders, there still was a consensus among them on what we term as “civil religion” – the public religion that united them as Americans. Call it the American Creed. Benjamin Franklin in his Autobiography articulated it this way: “A belief that there is one God who made all things. That he governs the world by his Providence. That he ought to be worshiped by Prayer, Adoration and Thanksgiving. But that the most acceptable Service to God is doing good to Man. That the soul is immortal. And that God will certainly reward Virtue and punish Vice either here or hereafter.”

When Thomas Jefferson presented the Declaration of Independence to the group, they unanimously agreed that “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,” and among these are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Freedom is something all Americans want and value. No matter our political opinions, or even our religious beliefs, whether we are liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, freedom is the one thing that unites Americans. And yet, freedom, as the Founders of our nation understood it, is more complex than we may think. It acknowledges both the sinfulness of human beings but also their capacity for virtue. These two components – sin and virtue – are at the heart of the American system of government and the basis for American Exceptionalism.

The Founders were adamant: The State does not give us our rights; God does. They sought not freedom from God but freedom under God. They appreciated the wisdom of William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, who long before had said that a people who refuse to be governed by God will be governed by tyrants. Our Founders heartily agreed.

HUMAN SINFULNESS

Our Founders knew that any proper understanding of freedom means coming to terms with sin. John Adams believed that “whoever would found a state and make proper laws for the government of it must presume that all men are bad by nature.”

James Madison, the principal drafter of the Constitution, believed that both those who governed and those who were governed needed restraints because of human sinfulness. In Federalist Paper #51, Madison wrote: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” But men are not angels. In Federalist Paper #10, Madison wrote of conflicting interests that have “divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good.” The roots of this, he wrote, is “sown in the nature of man.”

Madison and others assumed that human beings are sinful, and so drafted the Constitution with a system of checks and balances among three co-equal branches of government. This, by the way, is what makes the American system of government unique among all the nations of the world. It is not having a Bill of Rights – many countries have such charters. It is rather having a system of checks and balances with three co-equal branches of government. In that way, no one branch of government ever become so powerful that it goes unchecked or evades accountability.

The Framers of the Constitution believed that checks and balances is the kind of government that best reflects human nature. One hundred years before Lord Acton made his famous dictum that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” the Framers devised a form of government to curtail the sinful drive for power in each of us. They didn’t approve the consolidation of political power but sought to limit it. No wonder Jefferson could write: “The government which governs best, governs least.”

PUBLIC VIRTUE

In addition to the recognition of human sinfulness, the Framers also affirmed the need for “public virtue” if a republican form of government was to flourish. Madison wrote: “I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom.” And again, he wrote: “Is there no virtue among us? …If there be not, no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea.”

The Framers of the Constitution knew that a government that is strong enough to give you everything you want is also powerful enough to take from you everything you have.

George Washington became the embodiment of public virtue – a kind of Cincinnatus – a gentleman farmer who cast aside self-interest and rose to the demands of his country, first as General of the Continental Army and later as the first President of the United States. King George III was reputed to have said to the royal artist Benjamin West, that if George Washington relinquished the presidency after his second term in office (versus becoming a dictator or monarch) he would be “the greatest character of the age.” Well, Washington did precisely that. After he had served two terms as President, he freely relinquished office, thus establishing the peaceful transfer of power from one president to another

The Framers assumed that the virtue in Washington was present in other people of character and would cause them to rise above private self-interest. They believed further that those empowered to vote had the ability and virtue to recognize these qualities in others. The checks and balances built into the system would serve to block the excesses of those whose public virtue did not match the demands of office. But, virtue in the office holder and in the electorate was necessary for the public good to take precedence over private self-interest.

RELIGION

American Exceptionalism assumes that Americans are a sinful but virtuous people. They are sinful in that selfishness and self-interest can sometimes dominate those who govern and those who are governed. Human beings are not angels, as James Madison knew full well. On the other hand, human beings have the capacity for public virtue – of rising above self-interest and working for the common good, as the late Senator John McCain liked to say, sacrificing for something greater than ourselves. The question then becomes: What is it that sustains public virtue, cultivates statesmanship, and encourages individuals to put the common good above the pursuit of self-interest?

The Framers of the Constitution had no doubt of the answer. They believed that churches and synagogues would help to educate and produce citizens of virtue. As they viewed it, religion was intrinsically linked to public virtue.

Thomas Jefferson, we know, believed that the ultimate test of a religion was whether it produced upright men and women. Shortly before his death, he expressed the view that it would be good if all Americans believed, without compulsion, that there is “only one God, and he all perfect,” and that “there is a future state of rewards and punishments.”

John Adams, on many occasions, expressed the view that religion and morality were linked together. He said, “There is no such thing (morality) without a supposition of a God. There is no right or wrong in the universe without the supposition of a moral government and an intellectual and moral governor.”

James Madison’s views were even more pronounced. Raised an Anglican, he studied Hebrew and moral theology at Princeton University under its president, John Witherspoon, a

Presbyterian minister. From these studies, he held a calm faith in a moral, orderly universe governed by God. In 1825, he summarized his views: “Belief in a God All Powerful wise and good is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources.”

Our challenge in America today is to sustain “public virtue” where an increasing number of people no longer believe in God and even fewer belong to any faith community. Of course, you can be a moral and virtuous human being without believing in God. For example, some of the great social activists in America have been either agnostics or even atheists. Benjamin Franklin recognized this when he said, “A virtuous Heretick shall be saved before a wicked Christian.”

Still, belief in God has been linked to public morality. Part of believing in God is having a heart for people, compassion for the poor, a passion for justice, and a desire to respond to human suffering. Public virtue is what President John Kennedy proclaimed in his inauguration speech: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” This is the willingness to make the necessary sacrifices to respond to the suffering of others and to save the planet from the excesses of our own self-indulgence.

FREEDOM AS SACRED TRUST

The recognition of human sinfulness and the requirement of public virtue were foundational to the Founders in their understanding of freedom. They understood that a for a republic to be successful, its citizens must not just have the freedom to do what they want but the freedom to do what is right. Personal freedom and moral freedom go together, and the link that connected the two was religion. So, unsurprisingly, even nominal Christians, and those who were agnostics and atheists, supported the role of religion as a moral influence the formation of its citizens.

Liberty was to be regulated by the “laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” To win this liberty for themselves and their children, they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. These signers of the Declaration of Independence would not betray that pledge, nor those

Jefferson and Madison were right: Religion plays a crucial role in directing our freedom beyond self-interest to a genuine concern for the common good.

Sin, virtue and religion are indispensable in shaping the American system of government. No wonder the Founders regarded freedom as a sacred trust.

committed to Independence. England tried to bribe American generals to stop the conflict. General Reed, of Pennsylvania, replied, “I am not worth purchasing, but poor as I am, the king of Great Britain is not rich enough to buy me.” These people could not be bought because they believed freedom a treasure beyond price.

Some of us may have visited Valley Forge where American troops slept in the barest huts, wearing ragged clothes, and at times sustaining themselves on tree bark. In that hard winter of 1777-78, when one-third of Washington’s army died of wounds and starvation, one-third deserted and went home, and one-third stayed with Washington to eventually win victory, there was a time when Washington became so discouraged that he wrote out his resignation to send to the Continental Congress. Then came to his attention a letter written by a boy who had died of wounds. The boy was writing to his mother. He told of the desperate conditions prevailing in the camp and closed his letter with these words: “But we do not doubt for a moment that we will win, because we have as our leader a man of the greatest wisdom and courage, George Washington.”

Washington wept as he read this wonderful compliment, and then tore up his resignation and went to his knees in prayer. With renewed determination, he fought for freedom’s sacred trust.

Ask yourself: What would it have been like if the Founders of our nation refused to sacrifice when the call of duty came their way?

Nathan Hale never saw his 22nd birthday. When caught by the British, he could have betrayed George Washington and lived to a ripe old age. Instead, he chose to die, his last words being, “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country.”

Paul Revere could have said: “Why pick on me? It’s the middle of the night. I can’t ride through Middlesex Village. Besides, I’m not the only man in Boston with a horse.” Instead, he rode throughout Boston and the surrounding area calling out, “The British are coming! The British are coming!” He thus gave the patriots time to mobilize and defend themselves.

Patrick Henry could have said, “Yes, I’m for liberty but we must be realistic. We must compromise. We’re small compared to the British and someone is going to get hurt.” Instead, he rose in the Virginia House of Burgess and proclaimed, “Give me liberty or give me death!”

It is said that freedom must be continually won, or it will be eventually lost. We must never take our freedom for granted. We must never be too busy with our private concerns that we fail to heed the call to sacrifice for the common good.

Benjamin Franklin could have said, “I’m over 75 years old. What you need as a minister to France in these strenuous times is a younger man. Let a new generation take over. I want to rest.” And yet, Franklin managed to persuade the French to enter the war on the side of the Americans and he brilliantly helped negotiate the Treaty of Versailles.

All of us are indebted to those who paid dearly to give us the freedom we now enjoy. How well are we preserving it? A little girl said to her mother, “You know that vase you said had been handed down from generation to generation?”

“Why yes, dear,” replied the mother. “What about it?”

“Well, mother,” said the little girl, “I’m sorry to say that this generation has dropped it.”

The precious, fragile vessel of freedom has been passed down to our generation by God-fearing men and women who founded this land of liberty. Will this generation drop it? Or will we pass on our freedom to future generations? The choice is ours.

The Rev. Dr. Gary Nicolosi

July 4, 2019

Independence Day

Reality

It's something like 490 days between now and the election.  And while I'd really like to ignore it for 400 days, the reality is that the media is relentlessly covering every aspect.  They are handicapping who's doing better, who's out, who's in, who can beat Trump, and on and on and on.  So it's difficult to ignore.  But what I've been trying to do is just pay attention to a select few folks out there who I respect and aren't fatally biased or opportunists looking to make a name for themselves (which most in the media are).  One of my "go to" writers is Peggy Noonan.  I don't always agree with her but every once in a while she knocks it out of the park.  Copied below is her column this week.  I, like her, wonder how the eventual nominee is going to walk all the crazy rhetoric back.

The 2020 Democrats Lack Hindsight

They ignore reality and march in lockstep with their base. Did they learn anything from 2016?

 By Peggy Noonan

June 28, 2019

I’ve received tens of thousands of letters and other communications from Trump supporters the past few years, some of which have sparked extended dialogues. Two I got after last week’s column struck me as pertinent to this moment, and they make insufficiently appreciated points.

A gentleman of early middle age in Kansas City wrote to say he’d sat out the 2016 election because he was dissatisfied with both parties. But now he’s for Donald Trump, and the reason “runs deeper than politics.”

America’s elites in politics, media and the academy have grown oblivious to “the average Joe’s intense disgust” at being morally instructed and “preached to.”

“Every day, Americans are told of the endless ways they are falling short. If we don’t show the ‘proper’ level of understanding according to a talking head, then we are surely racist. If we don’t embrace every sanitized PC talking point, then we must be heartless. If we have the audacity to speak our mind, then we are most definitely a bigot.” These accusations are relentless.

“We are jabbed like a boxer with no gloves on to defend us. And we are fed up. We are tired of being told we aren’t good enough.” He believes the American people are by nature kind and generous—“they would give you the shirt off their back if you were in trouble”—and that “in Donald Trump, voters found a massive sledgehammer that pulverizes the ridiculous notion that Americans aren’t good enough.” Mr. Trump doesn’t buy the guilt narrative.

“It’s surely not about the man at this point. It stopped being about Trump long ago. It is about that counter-punch that has been missing from our culture for far too long.”  The culture of accusation, he says, is breaking us apart.

A reader who grew up upper-middle-class in the South writes on the politics of the situation. His second wife, also a Southerner, grew up poor. She is a former waitress and bartender whose politics he characterizes as “pragmatic liberal.” They watched Mr. Trump’s 2015 announcement together, and he said to her, “He doesn’t have a chance.” She looked at him “with complete conviction” and said, “He’s going to win.”

As the campaign progressed, she never wavered. At the end, with the polls saying Hillary, “I asked my wife how she could be so certain Trump was going to win.” He found her response “astute and telling.”  “She told me, ‘He speaks my language, and there’s a lot more of me than there is of you.’ ”

I have to say after a week of reading such letters that emotionally this cycle feels like 2016 all over again. Various facts are changed (no Mrs. Clinton) but the same basic dynamic pertains—the two Americas talking past each other, the social and cultural resentments, the great estrangement. It’s four years later but we’re re-enacting the trauma of 2016.  And the Democrats again appear to be losing the thread.

They’ve spent the past few months giving the impression they are in a kind of passionate lockstep with a part of their base, the progressives, and detached from everyone else.  And in the debates they doubled down. Both nights had fizz. There was a lot of earnestness and different kinds of brightness.

But what Night One did was pick up the entire party and put it down outside the mainstream and apart from the center. This is what the candidates said:

They are, functionally, in terms of the effects of their stands, for open borders.

They are in complete agreement with the abortion regime—no reservations or qualms, no sense of just or civilized limits.

They’re all in on identity politics. One candidate warned against denying federally funded abortions to “a trans female.”

Two said they would do away with all private health insurance.

Every party plays to its base in the primaries and attempts to soften its stands in the general. But I’m wondering how the ultimate nominee thinks he or she will walk this all back. It is too extreme for America, and too extreme for the big parts of its old base that the Democrats forgot in 2016.

It was as if they were saying, “Hi, middle-American people who used to be Democrats and voted for Trump, we intend to alienate you again. Go vote for that jerk, we don’t care.”

Another problem: America has a painful distance between rich and poor, but it is hard to pound the “1%” hammer effectively in a nation enjoying functional full employment. Our prosperity is provisional and could leave tomorrow, but right now America’s feeling stronger.

“Grapes of Wrath” rhetoric resonates when people think they’re in or entering a recession or depression. The debaters Wednesday night looked like they were saying, “Who ya gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”

After these big facts, candidate-by-candidate analysis seems secondary. Beto O’Rourke’s fatuous, self-actualizing journey makes the Democrats look sillier than they have to. Elizabeth Warren was focused and energetic, and her call to break up concentrations of power, including big tech, was strong and timely. She made a terrible mistake in holding to her intention to do away with private health insurance. An estimated 180 million Americans have such policies. Why force potential supporters to choose between her and their family’s insurance? Who does she think is going to win that? Why put as the headline on your plan, “This is what I’m going to take away from you”? Why would she gamble a serious long-term candidacy on such a vow? It is insane.  If she is extremely lucky Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won’t endorse her soon and make it worse.

Bill de Blasio had the best moment in the first half-hour, suggesting Democrats shouldn’t bicker about policy differences but instead unite as progressives. He has that air of burly, happy aggression that is the special province of idiots. Tulsi Gabbard broke through when it became clear she was the only explicitly antiwar candidate on the stage; this had the interesting effect of showing the others up.

Night two was more raucous but similarly extreme. The first 15 minutes included higher taxes, free college and student-loan forgiveness. Most candidates agreed on free health insurance for illegal immigrants. They also appeared to believe that most or all U.S. immigration law should be abolished.

The big dawgs did OK. If Kamala Harris was not a big dawg, she is now. Joe Biden sort of held his own but seemed to flag. Bernie Sanders seemed not as interesting as last cycle, more crotchety and irritable.

Eric Swalwell’s uncorking of a memory from when he was 6—ol’ Sen. Biden came to town and talked about passing the torch to younger leaders—was an attempt at slyness that so widely missed its mark, was so inelegant and obvious, that it was kind of fabulous. By the end of the night Mr. Swalwell had flamed out from sheer obnoxiousness.

The nonpolitician Marianne Williamson was delightfully unshy, sincere and, until her daffy closing statement, sympathetic. Kirsten Gillibrand yippily interrupted—“It’s my turn!”—and did herself no good.

It was an odd evening in that it was lively, spirited, at moments even soulful, and yet so detached from reality.

Friday Funnies

It's all in good fun!

The First Dem Debates

Don't know...didn't watch.  Knew it wouldn't have been very good for my blood pressure.  I've read several reviews from several sources and they are all over the map.  I'll wait until the field is narrowed to a managable number before I pay much attention.  But here's my fundamental take.  They all will say and do whatever they think (or their advisors think) will keep them in the game.  Right now it's about survival.  They seem to think that the thing that will do it is to tack to the left.  Pay no attention to lefty rhetoric from them.  They will all move back to the center when it gets real.  Because if they don't they're toast.

Motivation Monday

Friday Funnies

It's a joke...maybe

Motivation Monday

A worthy goal...

Friday Funnies

Wendy’s social media manager is pretty clever!

Cool Pic

Very Clever

China

China has been in the news more and more recently.  But I'm not sure the average U.S. citizen remotely understands the threats and opportunities to us.  We visited China a few years ago and over the course of about 18 days we saw a vibrant economy, abject poverty, mystery, repression, amazing culture and friendly people.  It was an eye-opener in so many ways.  I'd always wanted to go and never could because of the clearances I held so this tourist trip was a life-long desire.  I'm glad we went and we learned a lot.  But over the course of the last couple of years my travel experience has really stimulated me to think about what China is and is not.

Recently (as in Trump recently) our country has started to hold them accountable for their unfair trade practices and downright cheating on intellectual property.  It's been going on a long time and it would be fair to say that they have gotten mega rich on the backs of the West, specifically the U.S.  The balance of trade is unfair and the barriers to trade are onerous.  So I am generally happy that Trump is exhibiting some backbone and some smarts in this area that so many of our leaders avoided. I know it's painful.  I know it might impact us negatively in the short term.  I know there is enormous pressure to just maintain the status quo.  But I think we have to work toward a fairer trade environment with China and the current strategy seems to me to be the best on put forward.  I'm also heartened that Trump seems to have hired some very smart folks to engage in trade negotiations with China.  In the past trade talks seemed to be more politically motivated than economically motivated.  So I'm cautiously optimistic.

What I'm must less optimistic about is our national security relationship with China.  Simply stated, they are a huge threat and getting bigger.  Like many, I think at some point we will be forced to confront them, and it is likely not to be pretty.  China seems to be emerging from a dark period of several decades and their economic vitality is leading many in leadership positions to seek to restore what they believe is their rightful place as leaders of the world.  They see themselves as one of the world's oldest civilizations and yearn to assert themselves.  If you look at any analysis of their Army, Navy and Air Force capability, even in open sources, it is pretty eye watering.  They are building a formidable force and a capability that will challenge us to our limits.

Coincidentally, there have been a couple of blog posts on one of my favorite bloggers, CDR Salamander regarding China in recent days.  One starts as a discussion regarding what to do with USS Truman...scrap her or refuel her.  The second is a discussion of China missile capability.  Both are a bit of inside baseball and I realize you won't go read these posts unless you're interested.  But if you're a bit of a national security geek like me, the discussion is sobering.  There are some great pull quotes and analysis from some serious people who, in my view, are spot on regarding the threat.  So if you've got some time and are interested, go to the links and read what I think are very readable, understandable, and most importantly scary analysis.  There is a reckoning coming.  We are not ready today.  I'm worried we're doing not much to be ready tomorrow as our leaders can't seem to concentrate on anything but the latest political hit job.  When the balloon goes up, we could find ourselves losing significant numbers of assets and people.  Who will we blame?

The original article on Truman is here.

The counterpoint is here.

The Chinese missile threat article is here.

Motivation Monday

Pride

I don't really know why I'm posting about this.  I guess because this is "Pride" month and it's in the news.  As an aside San Diego's Pride parade is July 13th which is after Pride month, but I digress.  But, I mean, I generally have had the same epiphany that many have had over the past decade or so and believe who someone decides to love is none of my business.  The issues surrounding the legitimacy of the "gay" movement are undeniably controversial.  But in certain quarters, acceptance and celebration of LGBTQ people is unprecedented.  In fact, it could be argued that it's the biggest and fastest social and cultural change in human history.  Think about it.  25 years ago we weren't remotely where we are today as a society regarding these issues.  But now we see support on a broad scale.  Pride parades and celebrations are not only held they are celebrated by a wide swath of the populace.  And that is just fine.

Of course, there is still a lot of resistance.  In many quarters of our country the celebration of LGBTQ advances is still anathema.  In many parts of the world it is not only resisted it's abhorrent!  It's not only seen as deviant behavior it can be punished by death!  It is resisted culturally, governmentally, and religiously.  Many, many people have simply not been able or have not wanted to accept the change.  The resistance has also tragically resulted in violent acts against gay people.  This is never acceptable and should be condemned.  However, one factor here is the advocacy of much of the press.  They always, always take the most liberal, edgy position, so it's difficult to discern what they are reporting and what they are sensationalizing.  But what else is new?  So it will continue to take time and patience on the part of people who are advocates.

So as I said at the beginning, I don't really have issues with the movement.  But at the same time and for myself I'm not interested in advocating for it.  I'm supportive, but public displays of overtly sexual attention (gay or straight) makes me uncomfortable and I don't really think are appropriate.   But other than that the celebration is a non-issue for me.  But more and more I think it's weird that the whole world MUST officially celebrate the sexual behavior of a segment of the population.  And a very small segment of the population at that.  I guess it goes along with our current "anything goes" culture, but for me it's just not appropriate.  And I think they are in danger of overplaying their hand.  I think that the public displays that I've seen at events, on TV and in the news aren't helpful.  And they don't recruit the "average" person to the cause.  At least I don't think they do.  And if the average parent is on the fence or ambivalent, they likely won't be terribly supportive of an event that glorifies a sexual lifestyle that is outside the norm.  I also think in a strange way the "Pride" celebration is divisive in a way that advocates don't comprehend.  I hate to say it but there are a lot of people who just jump on a bandwagon becuase it's the politically correct thing to do.  Your friends and neighbors are doing it, so you'll go along with the crowd.  To win hearts and minds you need sincere cultural action and thought, not flamboyant parades and festivals.  They are fine, but to me they just contribute to a lot of people nodding their heads, saying the right thing, and then going about their day.  Not a judgment, just what I think.  I'm sure most advocates don't care about that so it's just my opinion.  And this is my blog...so there you go.

And this opinion is totally non-PC.   I can't and don't think I ever will get behind the "T" part of LGBTQ.  Transgenderism.  A person is born a man or a woman.  And no amount of outward appearance change, hormonal treatment, or surgery is going to change that.  I have no animus toward the person, but I think our society is doing a tremendous disservice to people with this mental illness to just blithely accept their torment rather than helping and encouraging them to seek treatment of some sort.  And to be clear...I'm not a doctor or a therapist or have any credentials.  That's just what I think.  And I'm an old guy who's thoughts on this issue don't really mount to a hill of beans.  I'm sure many of the hip people who believe the opposite would think I'm a troglodyte.  And that's okay.

Friday Funnies

Patton's Speech

You've probably seen the great movie, "Patton" starring George C. Scott.  It opens with a version of this speech.  A sanitized version I should say.  I've not seen the whole thing before but a friend shared over on FB and thought I'd post it here.  Seems pretty appropriate given the day.  75 years ago allied forces attacked Normandy to begin the end of WWII.  The tributes are legion of their sacrifices and accomplishments.  But amidst the tributes there are very few who truly understand the nature of war.  Very few who understand the base nature of man on man warfare.  It is in the human nature to wage war and it is horrendous.  It gets more horrendous given the weapons we've developed.  But on this day 75 years ago I think General Patton captured the nature of leading men into battle pretty well.

General George S. Patton's speech to troops of the United States Third Army in 1944, prior to the Normandy Landings.

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
"Men, all this stuff you hear about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of bullsh#t. Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big-league ball players and the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. That's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. The very thought of losing is hateful to Americans. Battle is the most significant competition in which a man can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base.

You are not all going to die. Only two percent of you right here today would be killed in a major battle. Every man is scared in his first action. If he says he's not, he's a goddamn liar. But the real hero is the man who fights even though he's scared. Some men will get over their fright in a minute under fire, some take an hour, and for some it takes days. But the real man never lets his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country, and his innate manhood.

All through your army career you men have bitched about what you call 'this chicken-sh#t drilling.' That is all for a purpose—to ensure instant obedience to orders and to create constant alertness. This must be bred into every soldier. I don't give a f#ck for a man who is not always on his toes. But the drilling has made veterans of all you men. You are ready! A man has to be alert all the time if he expects to keep on breathing. If not, some German son-of-a-bitch will sneak up behind him and beat him to death with a sock full of sh#t. There are four hundred neatly marked graves in Sicily, all because one man went to sleep on the job—but they are German graves, because we caught the bastard asleep before his officer did.

An army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, and fights as a team. This individual hero stuff is bullshit. The bilious bastards who write that stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real battle than they do about fucking. And we have the best team—we have the finest food and equipment, the best spirit and the best men in the world. Why, by God, I actually pity these poor bastards we're going up against.

All the real heroes are not storybook combat fighters. Every single man in the army plays a vital role. So don't ever let up. Don't ever think that your job is unimportant. What if every truck driver decided that he didn't like the whine of the shells and turned yellow and jumped headlong into a ditch? That cowardly bastard could say to himself, 'Hell, they won't miss me, just one man in thousands.' What if every man said that? Where in the hell would we be then? No, thank God, Americans don't say that. Every man does his job. Every man is important. The ordnance men are needed to supply the guns, the quartermaster is needed to bring up the food and clothes for us because where we are going there isn't a hell of a lot to steal. Every last damn man in the mess hall, even the one who boils the water to keep us from getting the GI shits, has a job to do.

Each man must think not only of himself, but think of his buddy fighting alongside him. We don't want yellow cowards in the army. They should be killed off like flies. If not, they will go back home after the war, goddamn cowards, and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed more brave men. Kill off the goddamn cowards and we'll have a nation of brave men.

One of the bravest men I saw in the African campaign was on a telegraph pole in the midst of furious fire while we were moving toward Tunis. I stopped and asked him what the hell he was doing up there. He answered, 'Fixing the wire, sir.' 'Isn't it a little unhealthy up there right now?' I asked. 'Yes sir, but this goddamn wire has got to be fixed.' I asked, 'Don't those planes strafing the road bother you?' And he answered, 'No sir, but you sure as hell do.' Now, there was a real soldier. A real man. A man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how great the odds, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty appeared at the time.

And you should have seen the trucks on the road to Gabès. Those drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they crawled along those son-of-a-bitch roads, never stopping, never deviating from their course with shells bursting all around them. Many of the men drove over 40 consecutive hours. We got through on good old American guts. These were not combat men. But they were soldiers with a job to do. They were part of a team. Without them the fight would have been lost.

Sure, we all want to go home. We want to get this war over with. But you can't win a war lying down. The quickest way to get it over with is to get the bastards who started it. We want to get the hell over there and clean the goddamn thing up, and then get at those purple-pissing Japs. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. So keep moving. And when we get to Berlin, I am personally going to shoot that paper-hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler.

When a man is lying in a shell hole, if he just stays there all day, a Boche will get him eventually. The hell with that. My men don't dig foxholes. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and showing the Germans that we've got more guts than they have or ever will have. We're not just going to shoot the bastards, we're going to rip out their living goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket.

Some of you men are wondering whether or not you'll chicken out under fire. Don't worry about it. I can assure you that you'll all do your duty. War is a bloody business, a killing business. The Nazis are the enemy. Wade into them, spill their blood or they will spill yours. Shoot them in the guts. Rip open their belly. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt from your face and you realize that it's not dirt, it's the blood and gut of what was once your best friend, you'll know what to do.

I don't want any messages saying 'I'm holding my position.' We're not holding a goddamned thing. We're advancing constantly and we're not interested in holding anything except the enemy's balls. We're going to hold him by his balls and we're going to kick him in the ass; twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all the time. Our plan of operation is to advance and keep on advancing. We're going to go through the enemy like sh#t through a tinhorn.

There will be some complaints that we're pushing our people too hard. I don't give a damn about such complaints. I believe that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder we push, the more Germans we kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing harder means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that. My men don't surrender. I don't want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he is hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight. That's not just bullshit either. I want men like the lieutenant in Libya who, with a Luger against his chest, swept aside the gun with his hand, jerked his helmet off with the other and busted the hell out of the Boche with the helmet. Then he picked up the gun and he killed another German. All this time the man had a bullet through his lung. That's a man for you!

Don't forget, you don't know I'm here at all. No word of that fact is to be mentioned in any letters. The world is not supposed to know what the hell they did with me. I'm not supposed to be commanding this army. I'm not even supposed to be in England. Let the first bastards to find out be the goddamned Germans. Some day, I want them to rise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl 'Ach! It's the goddamned Third Army and that son-of-a-bitch Patton again!'

Then there's one thing you men will be able to say when this war is over and you get back home. Thirty years from now when you're sitting by your fireside with your grandson on your knee and he asks, 'What did you do in the great World War Two?' You won't have to cough and say, 'Well, your granddaddy shoveled shit in Louisiana.' No sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say 'Son, your granddaddy rode with the great Third Army and a son-of-a-goddamned-bitch named George Patton!'

All right, you sons of bitches. You know how I feel. I'll be proud to lead you wonderful guys in battle anytime, anywhere. That's all."

General George S. Patton - June 6th 1944

Gringos and Mexicans or Americans and Illegal Aliens?

Where you stand depends on where you sit.

Saw this little ditty over on FB.  Thought it was an interesting and typically one-sided view of the world that seems to be rather common.  You know...the whole "you're either in agreement that Americans are the problem or if you disagree you're part of the racist, bigoted, misogynistic, climate denier, woman hater, fill in the blank" crowd.  It's pretty common.  Check this out...

Gringo (a): - Hi, where are you from?

Mexican: - Hi, I’m from Mexico

Gringo (a): - Ah! The land of Chapo Guzmán, narcos, marihuana, crime and extortion.

Mexican -I’m sorry, are you a drug addict or a TV junkie?

Gringo (a) - No!!! Why?

Mexican -Because if you were an athlete or sports fan, you would have identified Mexico with Ana Guevara, Hugo Sanchez, Julio Cesar Chavez, Finito, Chicharito Hernandez, Canelo Alvarez, Rafael Marquez, etc.

If you were an educated person, you would have asked about the Aztec empire, the Mayan culture, the Olmecs or any other of the great mesoamerican cultures.

If you were a well traveled person you would have talked about our majestic archaeological sites, our tourist-friendly colonial cities, our megalopolis or our exotic beaches… the astonishing biodiversity of our rainforests, mountain ranges, deserts, conifer forests…

You could have identified Mexico with our great painters, Diego Rivera, Rufino Tamayo, Frida Khalo, José Clemente Orozco; our composers: Agustín Lara, Consuelo Velázquez, Armando Manzanero, Juan Gabriel Jose Alfredo Jimenez, our writers and poets: Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, Juan Rulfo, Octavio Paz, Juan José Arreola, Elena Poniatowska, Amado Nervo, Jaime Sabines;

Our inventors or scientists: Manuel Mondragón, Guillermo González Camarera, Luis Ernesto Miramontes; our cinematographers: Ismael Rodríguez, Emilio Fernández, Alfonso Cuaron, Guillermo del Toro, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Emmanuel Lubezki, and even Luis Buñuel, who, being originally from Spain, chose to adopt the Mexican nationality...

If you were a gourmand, you would have asked about Tamales, Cochinita Pibil, Mole, Adobo, Chilaquiles, Chiles en nogada, Guacamole, Pan de Muerto, etc. Or our traditional beverages: Tequila, Mezcal, wines and beers.

However, I can see, the only thing you can relate to Mexico is the provider to American drug addicts...

I just want you to realize that México is a lot more than what ignorant people and fear-mongering media knows or chooses to propagate.

There are millions of honest Mexicans, who even without knowing you, will open the door to our homes, and that if you care to visit, you will love to get to know.

-Anonymous

See what I mean.  If you are an American who respects laws, believes in sovereignty,  is worried about overburdening already strained social support systems, think people should get in line and wait their turn, are tired of being stereotyped, is concerned about the flow of drugs and the proliferation of gangs, then you fit a predefined role!  So I thought I'd create my own little clever ditty.  See how you like it...

American (not gringo!):  Hi.  Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free.  Welcome to the country.  We allow more immigrants into our country than any other in the world.  We are a country of immigrants and we bend over backwards to allow you to be successful.  We provide equality of opportunity and will lend you a hand at every turn.  We think assimilation has worked for centuries and is a tried and true way for generations to be successful.  But we'll also help you maintain your identity.  All we ask is that you respect our laws and enter our country legally.  Get in line and wait your turn.  We know that the system is terribly bureaucratic and you'll be frustrated, but our politicians don't seem to be able to work together to create a system that is fair and efficient.  So until they do you'll have to live with the system we have. 

Illegal Alien (Mexican): I recognize that I live in a country that has been devastated by corruption for generations and have to get out to seek opportunity for myself and my family.

American:  Great.  Like I said get in line and come in legally.  You'll be afforded all the privileges of residency and ultimately citizenship.  We want that to happen.

Illegal Alien:  Thanks but I want to seek opportunity now.  I've got friends who have entered illegally and they are doing fine.  They seek menial jobs and get fake ID's to get government services.

American:  I get that but don't you see that by coming here illegally you'll be living below the radar.  You'll never get legitimately ahead.  You'll be looking over your shoulder all the time.  Get in line and do it right.  You'll be glad you did for yourself and your children.

Illegal Alien:  Thanks but I don't think so.  I'll take my chances on the illegal route.  

American:  Okay, but this isn't going to end well.

Plausible?  I don't know but I do know and have said for a long time that our immigration system is seriously broken.  We need to make it much easier for people to immigrate to the country.  We need to up the quota for immigrants to even more people.  We need to solve the issue of those already here.  All those things are solvable.  But they get obscured by the flood of the masses, by the flow of drugs, by the illegal presence of people who came here illegally, by the use of services by illegals, etc, etc, etc.  It's a mess.  Our politicians on both sides are failing us.

Motivation Monday

A Fundamental Right

The issue of Mueller coming out and speaking about his 2 year, $35M investigation that found no collusion between the Russians (or as we used to call them in the Cold War, those Communist Bastards) and Trump campaign and no definitive obstruction of justice on the part of Trump has been all over the news so I've restrained from comment.  This whole sordid chapter in our history has been difficult to watch.  It has been and is such an obvious setup that didn't work that it boggles the mind.  These guys are like keystone cops.  They can't get out of their own way.  So now the media is all lathered up about Congress impeaching Trump even though there are no charges.  And the reality is that there are only about 40 or so Dems in the House calling for it so it's going nowhere.  But the gaggle of Presidential candidates are trying to score points with it and the media is stirring the pot.  So it will continue to be a dog's breakfast and we'll have to suffer through it.  So get used to it.

But there is one thing that stands out for me as an incredible and shameful injustice that is even worse than all the other bullshit we've had to put up with.  I'm talking about the presumption of innocence.  Of all the rights we have in this country, presumption of innocence is right up there at the top, if not very near it.  That we are all innocent until proven guilty is fundamental.  It is a supreme law of the land.  And it is rather unique.  In many countries and throughout history the presumption of guilt has been the standard.  But not here.  The burden of proof is on the accuser.  And I believe the vast, vast majority of Americans believe that's how it should be.  That it is a right not to be trifled with.  But trifle with it Mueller and his band of crack Democratic operatives did.  For him to come out and declare that "if they thought he was innocent, they would have said so" is outrageous.  Mueller hid behind the Justice Department Office of Legal Council opinion that the President can't be charged.  But that in no way should have prohibited or inhibited his findings.  But he punted, to put it politely.  In reality he's a coward and an obvious Trump hater.  What he did proved beyond a doubt his contempt for Trump and that he should have had nothing to do with the investigation.  And the people who are saying it was a setup from the beginning have gained a whole lot of credibility!