I firmly believe that surviving veterans of World War II would be jubilant to read the headline shown in the doctored photo above: OBAMA QUITS.
Seriously though, I salute all who’ve worn the uniform of their country on this day we commemorate the sacrifices made at Pearl Harbor Dec. 7, 1941.
By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger
Sixty-six years and six months ago, the largest amphibious force ever assembled sailed across the stormy waters of the English Channel, bound for the heavily fortified beaches of Normandy, France. Nearly half of the 156,000 invasion troops were Americans. They and the troops of allied nations suffered massive casualties that day as they waded ashore under the withering fire of German infantry and artillery. Nearly 2,500 American and 1,920 allied troops died in the invasion and tens of thousands more were wounded.
Between the Pearl Harbor attack Dec. 7, 1941, and the Japanese surrender Sept. 2, 1945, a period of 3 years, 8 months, and 26 days, the Unites States suffered 1,078,000 casualties, dead and wounded. That was in a two-front war, of relatively short duration, but with relatively high casualty rates compared to more recent conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.
It gives us pause to consider former New York mayor Ed Koch’s warning in a recent edition of the Jewish World Review. He said, “There was a time when the U.S. military said it was capable of fighting 2 1/2 wars at the same time. Today, as a result of being bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, we probably are unable to fight a third war, and our enemies know it.”
So how will the American people react to the very real prospect that we may be called upon to fight an open-ended war, on six fronts, simultaneously? Although that prospect is now far from the American consciousness, who can deny that such an eventuality may be in our future?
The first attack of the third Islamic jihad began Nov. 4, 1979, when radical Iranian students occupied the American embassy in Tehran, taking 52 diplomats hostage and holding them for 444 days. In subsequent years, radical Islam staged many additional attacks, but it wasn’t until Sept. 11, 2001, that jihadists made it clear that the major front in their war for worldwide domination had broadened to include the cities and towns of America:
The obvious question is, “How long will it be before these fumble-fingered terrorists perfect their bomb-making skills?” These and the 9/11 atrocities, along with the Fort Hood massacre, are but the first of what radical Islam promises will be many years of terror attacks in a three-front war against the West. And although leftist political sensibilities may soon cause us to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, we cannot know when or how the domestic terror war will end.
For the first time in our history, we confront an enemy who does not distinguish between uniformed fighting forces and men, women and children in the civilian population; everyone is fair game. And if so-called “moderate” Muslims continue to merely sit on their hands as interested spectators, then how can we escape the conclusion that it is not possible for a 21st century culture to coexist side-by-side with a 7th century culture? Are the American people prepared to engage in a three-front war against Muslim extremists with a thirst for martyrdom and unlimited patience?
A fourth potential war front is now developing along our southern border where Mexican President Felipe Calderon appears unable to control drug-related violence on his side of the border.
The Mexican government reports that more than 31,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence since Calderon sent some 45,000 troops and federal police to battle the drug cartels in 2006. According to the Houston Chronicle, at least 230 U.S. citizens have been killed in Mexico’s escalating wave of violence since 2003 – an average of nearly one killing a week. The situation is such that Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas) has suggested that it is time the United States used “every aspect of law enforcement that we have, including the military.”
What he fears, and what should be of major concern to all Americans is that, as violence grows in the Mexican border states the Mexican national police and the military will find their country to be all but ungovernable. Anarchy will reign and both the peace-loving and the violence-prone will migrate northward in ever-growing numbers… the peace-loving looking for safety and security, the violence-prone looking for trouble. And when the drug cartels and the Mexican military carry their fight across the border into Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, the U.S. president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be forced to commit many thousands of U.S. troops to push them back.
When that happens, and as more and more U.S. and Canadian citizens are attacked and murdered in Mexican resort cities, our troops will find themselves pushing farther and farther south into Mexico to insure the safety of hundreds of thousands of North American expatriates. We will quickly find ourselves engaged in war on a fourth front… a second Mexican War. Are the American people prepared for that?
In addition to fighting wars against radical Islam in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the cities and towns of America, and fighting the Mexican drug cartels on our southern border and in Mexican border states, we may also find ourselves engaged in a shooting war against Iran on a fifth front in the Persian Gulf, in support of our allies in Israel and the Arab states of the region. As Spengler writes in the Asian Times, “The difference between early 2008 and early 2010… is that Iran has had two years to enrich uranium, consolidate its grip on Syria, insert itself into Afghanistan, stockpile missiles with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, and build up its terror capabilities around the world. The window is closing in which Iran may be contained.”
For more than three decades, through Republican and Democrat administrations alike, we have failed to take the steps necessary to bring about regime change in Tehran. Have we waited too long? When the time is ripe, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will let us know. But, ready or not, are the American people prepared for yet another armed conflict in the Middle East… one that would almost certainly cause us to lose a critical portion of our imported energy supplies?
And finally, we find ourselves today with 25,000 American troops stationed along the DMZ in South Korea, where the North Koreans threaten our Japanese allies and use South Korean population centers for artillery target practice. While Barack Obama may have unlimited patience for North Korean provocations, the South Koreans do not. Apologizing to his people for not taking retaliatory action, South Korean president Lee Myung-bak has threatened massive retaliation if the artillery barrages continue… with 25,000 U.S. troops serving as the first line of defense against a North Korean force of 1.1 million active duty troops and 8.2 million reserves.
All of this takes place at a time when North Korea’s only major ally, the People’s Republic of China, has chosen to send an unspoken message to the Obama regime by test firing a rocket from a nuclear submarine just miles off the coast of southern California. So if the North Koreans continue with their provocations and the South Koreans retaliate with massive force, what of the 25,000 U.S. troops on the DMZ? Is there anyone outside the Obama White House and the New York Times who thinks that the United States could push back militarily, when the money to fund those military operations would have to be borrowed from… guess who… the Chinese?
It has become standard fare for our national political leaders to begin major foreign policy speeches with the warning that “we live in dangerous times.” Yes, we live in dangerous times and we have the scars to prove it, but we have never before lived in a world quite as dangerous as the one in which we now find ourselves. So if we are incapable, as Ed Koch suggests, of fighting three wars simultaneously, how could we possibly wage war on as many as six fronts simultaneously… in the U.S., Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Mexico and Korea?
During the 2008 Democrat primaries, Hillary Clinton asked, rhetorically, who the American people would rather have answering the White House telephone at 3:00 a.m., she or Barack Obama. As it turns out, with Obama sleeping next to that telephone, the rest of us find it more and more difficult to get a good night’s sleep.
Obama’s foreign policy initiatives… characterized mostly by inappropriate bows, national insults, snubs, diplomatic faux pas, outlandishly expensive grand tours, and big toothy grins… has been a complete failure. His “kumbaya” style of foreign relations has caused us to lose not only the grudging respect of our enemies, but the trust and admiration of our allies, as well.
The world is far too dangerous a place to allow well-intentioned amateurs to play war games with our lives and with our precious freedoms. It’s time we hired some adult leadership while we still can.
Hollrah is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and a number of online publications. He resides in northeast Oklahoma.
Foster Friess
By Foster Friess, Guest Blogger
Democrats are fond of talking about the Clinton era budget surplus President George W. Bush “squandered” and the terrible financial mess President Barack Obama “inherited.” Both arguments ignore a few basic facts. First, presidents don’t control spending, Congress does. Second, outside events have to be taken into account before you assign praise or blame.
President Bill Clinton had the lucky combination of a time of peace, a Republican controlled House of Representatives and a booming economy, including the gains from internet stock insanities. Since all spending bills originate in the House of Representatives, credit for the budget surplus could more fairly be given to Speaker Newt Gingrich and the “Contract with America” than President Clinton.
President Bush had been in office less than nine months when the cowardly 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center occurred. Blaming Bush for the deficits that followed is akin to blaming President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) for the sudden increase in federal spending after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
The chart above shows the deficit when each party was in control of the House of Representatives. Democrats are blue while the Republicans are red. The graph indicates a clear trend. Since 1974 – the year the budget process began to implode – the Republicans controlled the House for 12 years and the Democrats 24 years.
In 8 of the 12 years the Republicans controlled the spending, the deficit went down the following year and the 4 years it went up were all in the years immediately after the 9-11 attack. Despite the huge blow to the economy and the expenses of fighting two wars, deficit spending peaked in 2004 and was declining sharply until the Democrats regained control of the House in 2007.
Meanwhile, in 18 of the 24 years the Democrats controlled the federal purse strings, the deficit rose the following year.
The Democrats, not the Republicans, have had firm control of both houses of Congress for the past four years. During their first two years, we had the near financial collapse on their watch. For the past two years, the Democrats have added the White House giving them carte blanche to promote their legislative agenda in Washington.
Instead of focusing on the economy, the Democrats have passed a series of unpopular and expensive bills, which added regulatory uncertainly to an already shaky marketplace. Until employers know how health care reform and the overhaul of the entire financial market structure will impact their business, they will not be hiring. Only four months from a new tax year, the people who actually create jobs and drive the economy have no idea what their personal taxes rates will be in 2011.
It seems to be dawning on the American people that President Obama and the Democrats now own this economy and blaming it on George W. Bush, whose name has not appeared on a ballot since 2004, is getting old.
President Obama certainly inherited a financial problem, but a case can be made that the tax and spend Democrats on Capitol Hill have only made it worse. A $1.6 trillion dollar deficit for the year, an ineffective and wasteful $800+ billion stimulus package and a 9.6% unemployment rate gives the impression that when it comes to boasting the economy the Democrats are out of their depth. During a recession, government should be encouraging small businesses instead of loading them down with new regulations adding to labor costs and raising taxes.
Are the Democrats in over their heads? With less than 60 days left in the current fiscal year, they haven’t even been able to write a budget for 2010, much less create a long-term recovery plan.
How did we get into this mess? The deficit spending death spiral began with the passage of the “Congressional Budget Reform and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.” Before its passage, other than times of war, deficits were rare and small. Presidents would routinely not spend money Congress had appropriated. This bill stripped the Executive Branch of the ability to “impound” funds, turning the U.S. Treasury into a cash cow that Congress is more than happy to milk.
Thomas Jefferson was the first president to impound funds Congress had voted to spend. He declined to build gunboats on the Mississippi River because he thought they were inferior. For the next 160 years nearly every president, including FDR, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy, exercised their executive power by declining to spend money for military equipment that Congress had appropriated but they thought unnecessary.
In 1968, President Richard Nixon, horrified by the excesses of President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” spending on domestic programs, began impounding funds on a massive scale never seen before. This fiscal restraint earned him no friends on pork addicted Capitol Hill. In 1974, with Nixon badly weakened by the Watergate Scandal, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act which effectively ended any future president’s ability to impound funds once authorized by Congress.
The lack of fiscal responsibility has resulted in an explosion of “earmarks” for expensive and wasteful pork barrel projects being inserted into essential bills. With the ability to simply not spend the money off the table, a president’s only options are to either sign or veto. Since the shameless members of Congress have no compunction about attaching tons of wasteful pork to critical legislation, too often it is quietly signed into law with the hope no one will notice.
In 1970, before the passage of the Impoundment Act, the Defense Bill had 12 earmarks. In 2010 it had 1,720. When President Dwight Eisenhower proposed the first highway bill in the 1950s, it had two earmarks. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan vetoed the Highway Bill because it had 121 earmarks. His veto was easily overridden. The most recent highway bill contained an estimated 6,371 “special projects.” It passed 412 to 8 in the House of Representatives.
The party that controls the House controls the spending. When you go to the polls this November be sure to pull the lever for a true fiscal conservative, Democrat or Republican, and not someone who is trying to buy your vote with your grandchildren’s money.
God Bless,
Foster (:>)*****
EDITOR’S NOTE: Foster Friess promotes private-sector solutions to benefit society and curb an increasingly intrusive government. Through the Express Rider network of like-minded influence-leaders, FosterFriess.com provides a conduit to educate and empower citizens on issues transforming America. To read previous BMW posts written by or about Foster Friess, click here.
First, a BBC News headline reported, Hackers target leading climate research unit. Ten days later, a new headline from the stodgy-and-liberal media outlet reads, Inquiry into stolen climate e-mails.
What’s wrong with those headlines? They focus on something far less important than the fact that the e-mails exchanged between researchers at the UK’s East Anglia University appear to prove manipulation of climate change data on a global scale. Why does that matter? Because that data played — and continues to play — a significant role in the worldwide push for climate change legislation such as the soon-to-be-considered Copenhagen Treaty.
Below, I’ve prepared the headlines and lead paragraphs for five never-before-published “breaking news” articles about major events in history that mimic the aforementioned BBC News treatment of the climate change e-mails scandal:
In today’s edition of American Minute, William J. “Bill” Federer highlights the words of an American president following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and points out what is wrong with America 66 years:
“DECEMBER 7, 1941 – a date which will live in infamy – the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.”
Thus spoke President Franklin D. Roosevelt following the attack on Pearl Harbor by over 350 Japanese aircraft. Five American battleships and three destroyers were sunk, 400 planes were destroyed and over 4,000 were killed or wounded.
President Roosevelt concluded: “No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory…We will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.”
FDR continued: “Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in our armed forces – with the unbounding determination of our people – we will gain the inevitable triumph – so help us God.”
In 2004, the World War II Memorial was dedicated in Washington, D.C. Of the over 500 words inscribed on the Memorial, FDR’s phrase “So help us God” was not included, nor was any was other reference to faith.
For pointing out the glaring wrong, Bill, you also point out what’s right.
On this 66th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, I have the opportunity to share more of my father’s reflections about his personal experiences during World War II with readers of this blog.
This opportunity came about as a result of a school project undertaken by Mykaela, a 12-year-old school girl from Kentucky. A couple of weeks ago, Mykaela contacted me after reading several posts about my father’s experiences as a soldier serving in the U.S. Army in Europe during World War II (My Father’s War Stories from World War II). She had an assignment to interview a World War II veteran, but didn’t know any, so contacted me.
After exchanging e-mails, we arranged for my father, now living in Texas, to answer her questions about World War II. Those answers appear below:
Q1: Where were you when you first heard about Pearl Harbor?
A1: I was a senior in high school and was living with my parents. We did not subscribe to a newspaper but got our news from a tabletop radio. I remember (the news) came as a “news flash”. “Japan has attacked Pearl Harbor. We do not have the details yet but will give them to you as soon a they become available” Later, the president, Mr. Roosevelt, came on the radio with an address to the nation. In his address, he came forth wth the words that everyone has heard over and over by now: “This day, the 7th day of December, 1941, will go down in history as a day of infamy etc…”
Q2: What were your feelings?
A2: I was a boy of 17 years of age. My feelings were of both fear and excitement. The fear of the unknown future. The excitement of the anticipation for whatever was going to happen. At age 17, one does not comprehend all of the future events that could come and many more that would come with a declaration of war. There was also the feeling of anger at what the Japanese did to our military men in Hawai.
Q3: Did you see any signs of fear, anger or rage?
A3: There was the feeling in the community of being double-crossed, violated, tricked, and lastly, of anger at the enemy for their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Many Americans boys were killed by that attack while the Japanese diplomats were smiling in Washington, D.C., and pretending all was going well within the Japanese-American diplomatic relations. As the people took the time to digest what had happened, they did become more angry and wanted revenge.
Q4: What did people so during the next few days?
A4: During the days that followed the attack, I think the people began to realize that this was not just a news item. It was real. Parents of sailors killed at Pearl Harbor began to receive telegrams from the Defense Department saying, “We regret to inform you that your son, (John or Robert or Harold or ??) was killed in the attack on Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941. His remains will be shipped to you etc…”
Q5: How was life different during the war?
A5: Soon after the attack, material things in civilian life were much the same, but it was not long before many items were available only in small quantities. A few months later, gasoline, coffee, cigarettes, sugar and most anything else was rationed. People stayed home, launched paper drives, metal drives and did anything else to help make the tools of war. A young man who was not in uniform came under close scrutiny by his neighbors and the local draft board. This group of people decided who was going to be drafted next.
Q6: What items were the hardest to get for your family?
A6: Sugar and coffee for the table along with gasoline and tires for the car. These were items that I remember my parents said were very hard to come by.
Q7: What slogans and patriotic posters were being shown?
A7: On posters: “A slip of the lips may sink a ship.” “Uncle Sam wants you” which had a picture of Uncle Sam pointing directly at you. “Buy Bonds”.
Q8: Describe V-E (Victory in Europe) day and V-J (Victory in Japan) day. Where were you then?
A8: I was in a convalescent camp in Colorado Springs, Colo., on V-E day and at my parents’ home on V-J day. There was intense excitement, especially on V-J. day. After V-E day, people were worried that soldiers who had been in Europe would have to go to invade Japan. This worried the soldiers as much as, or more than, civilians. With V-J day, they were relieved of that worry. Now they were ready for their sons, daughters, husbands, sweethearts all to come back home so they could take vacations, go on picnics, etc.
Q9: How did the people feel about the atomic bomb?
A9: The American public was tired of their boys being killed fighting the Japanese who were fanatics. They would not surrender but would kill themselves first. This was a part of their religion. The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima first. The Japanese government would not surrender, so a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki a week later. “If the bomb would stop the war, then drop it” was the feeling in the U. S. It was anticipated two million of their soldiers and civilians and one million of our soldiers would have perished in an invasion of Japan. After all, it was they who started the war, it was they who killed Chinese civilians as well as soldiers, it was they who marched captured American soldiers to prison camps but provided no food or water for them on that march, and it was they who killed the prisoners who could not keep up on that march.
Q10: What should an 8th grader remember about this war?
A10: I would say remember there are bad guys in this world who want to control the world and will do anything to do it. Sometimes we have to fight for freedom, but it is worth it!!
After providing Mykaela the answers above, my dad ended his response by noting what, I suspect, was a bittersweet feeling shared by many Americans of what has become known as “The Greatest Generation”:
“I had three brothers in that war. We all came home alive!”
I’m glad they did! Thanks for writing, Mykaela!