Memorial Day Remembrances

Several years ago, when I was commander of my DAV chapter, we were awarded a special medal of appreciation for our service by a non-profit group who aids veterans. I felt honored to receive the award but slightly embarrassed by the attention as were most of the members in my chapter. But, we smiled politely and accepted the award, complete with the best salute we could manage, and with all the humility we could muster. Afterwards, the presenter, came up to me and wanted to thank me for my service and for being an example of a "true American hero". To be honest, I was taken slightly back; maybe even a little put off by her comment. I smiled and thanked her again for the medal, but politely pointed out that I wasn't a hero. I went on to explain that the bravest---the real heroes---were usually the ones who don't come home. They were the ones who went above and beyond to risk all, not so much for God and Country like in the movies, but for their fellow soldier, shipmate or airman. I doubt any of those mostly young men and women, if they could speak to us now would have ever thought of themselves or their actions as heroic. Real "heroes" are like that. They do the job which needs to be done. That's it.

Noting a bit of disappointment in her expression, I pointed out that I have known a few who I would consider heroes who did make it home. I told her about an acquaintance I had the honor to make on my first day at my new duty station, Naval Station Treasure Island, which was located right in the middle of the San Francisco Bay between San Francisco and Oakland. I was asked to escort an older, somewhat rough looking Senior Chief to a special ceremony being held on the Island. There really wasn't anything special about him I thought. He was of medium height and heavy---solid---built with a slight beer belly; tanned with the usual tattoos in his arms. I could tell that he was quite used to giving orders and expecting instant results. I seriously doubt anything less than perfection would earn you a memorable butt chewing. So, while we were waiting (and to break the boredom), I asked the Senior Chief what the ceremony was all about. It turned out that this was his retirement ceremony. He said that as a boy he had always wanted to go to sea, so he had left home at 16 and lied about his age to join the Navy. After completing boot camp, he opted not to go home for his two weeks leave and instead wanted to go on to his first duty station and do some exploring (by that, I assume he wasn't talking about the usual tourist traps and was more interested in the two legged sights). So, off he went. He arrived on base and reported in; being given a billet assignment at one of the transient barracks. After settling in, he said he took a stroll around the base just to get his bearings and then decided to hit the sack after chow and a quick shower. The next morning, he planned to head off into town to start this two week leave. That day was Saturday December 6, 1941. The place was Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. His life, and the lives of countless others would be forever changed just 10 hours later.

Well, obviously he survived and went on to spend the next 30 years in Navy. He was in nearly all the major engagements, and would later be involved in Korea and Vietnam. After his active duty enlistment was up, he was allowed to join the reserves. But as for all sailors, the day came when it was finally time to disembark from his remarkable career, and there was me sitting next to this remarkable gentleman awaiting the signal to escort him into his retirement. That, I said was someone I would define as an American Hero. I went on to point out that our chapter had two individuals who survived the infamous Bataan Death March, and opted to remain in the military. Both would go on to fight in Korea and one fought in Vietnam. Then there was another individual that most people would take little note of. He was slight, about 5'5" and small built and seemed to keep a tan year around. He was always smiling with a slight twinkle in his eye. He spoke with a slight but undistinguishable accent. As a child of about 9 years old, this non descript individual survived a long brutal march, leaving him an orphan along the way, to the Nazi concentration camp of Bergen Bilsen.

After the war, he was permitted to leave Germany, and having nowhere to go, was sent by the British to the little island of Cyprus, where, again, he was kept behind a fence and barbed wire while awaiting permission to emigrate to British controlled Palestine. After waiting months, he was finally granted permission. He was placed in local kibbutz where he tended crops and look after the animals. However, as he soon learned, danger was just as likely to be two legged as four. Not only was his kibbutz attacked and sabotaged by Arabs, so were most of the other kibbutz's too. It wasn't uncommon to see the crops destroyed or the animals set free or simply killed. Sadly, it wasn't unusual for one of the kibbutzniks to be shot at or worse. So, even though he was still a young teenager, he joined the underground (and illegal) para-military Haganah. In 1948, he was called upon to fight in Israel's War of Independence (he also drove around Israel's famous first president, David Ben Gurion).

Shortly after the war (and I assume hoping for some stability and peace) he immigrated to the US and became a US Citizen. It wasn't long before he received a certified letter from the government. It was his draft notice. Despite pleading his case, he belonged to Uncle Sam for the next four years and off to Korea he went. Apparently accepting the inevitable, he decided to make it a career. He would go on to do multiple tours of duty in Vietnam and ultimately was given a disability discharge to go with his 20+ years of service. We also had an individual who was awarded a two star Combat Infantry Badge. Prior to serving in Korea and Vietnam, he did a tour of duty at the Nuremburg Trials and would later serve as a guard over former Reich Minster Albert Speer and Rudolf Hess. He too would received a disability discharge as all of us had.

I went on to point out that we had several others who had equally remarkable careers. These are individuals that I regard as heroes. Each were basically unremarkable men who preformed remarkable acts of courage and valor, much to their own surprise. I went on to point out that those who claim to be "heroes" rarely are. They are usually individuals who, for whatever reason, lack that special something that marks a hero, yet crave the recognition and attention. It's like those who dress up as military, usually complete with a chest full of metals, and show up at parades, malls, or other events and pose for pictures or try to get something for nothing (that is, until they get called out by the real deal and then they scurry away like roaches in the light. These individuals cheapen the honor of those earned their ranks and ribbons and should be called out every time).

So, after listening to my little spiel, I think they went away a little wiser; at least I hope so. But be that as it may, while you are celebrating your long weekend, the hamburgers and hotdogs, the "adult" beverages, the swimming pools, and everything else that goes with Memorial Day, please take a moment to recall all those who sacrificed their youth, their limbs, their bodies, their minds, and all too often, their lives to make your celebration possible. Share it with your children so they will learn too that with freedom comes responsibility and courage.

A Public Mandate? A Look At Political Trends Amid The 2016 Presidential Election

It seems that some of the political pundits were surprised that Bernie Sanders didn't win Kentucky. Why? Sanders is an avowed democratic socialist, whereas Kentucky is a very conservative state. The Democrats have only a few pockets in Kentucky which are liberal let alone ultra liberal such as parts of Louisville, Lexington, and a few other places around colleges and universities. In fact, Kentucky has long been considered the buckle of "Bible Belt". There's an old political joke which says that "a Kentucky Democrat is a Goldwater Republican anywhere else". What should be surprising is that Bernie Sanders did as well as he did. Of the past ten or so years, Kentucky has been electing mostly Republicans to national offices as well as to state and local offices, and that trend seems to be continuing. Kentucky went from 1967 until 2003 without electing a Republican Governor---that's 36 years--- and yet Kentuckians elected another Republican for Governor in 2015, just 12 years later (prior to 1967, the streak was 23 years without a Republican Governor).

When it comes to who Kentuckians send to Washington, all but one of the state's six US Representatives are Republican (the exception is 3rd District Congressman John Yarmuth, who was previously a Republican and now a very liberal Democrat). Both of Kentucky's US Senators, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul are Republicans as well. With May 17th's primary over, the big question is whether or not Kentucky can flip the State House of Representatives, which hasn't happened since just over 100 years. This effort has been underway since 2004 with the GOP inching closer every election cycle. The State House of Representatives has 100 members, 53 of which are Democrats and 47 are Republican. The State Senate, which comprises 38 members and had long been held by the Democrats, is now firmly in the hands of GOP with 27 members to the Democrats 11. That gives the GOP 71.1% of the vote total.

Oregon, which Sanders did win, is just slightly more balanced politically than Kentucky. Oregon has elected 22 Democrats as Governor (including the current one) compared to 20 Republicans (the last one was elected in 1979 and served two terms). The Oregon State Senate has 30 members, 18 of whom are Democrats compared to only 12 Republicans, which gives the Democrats 60% of the vote. The House also has a nice advantage to the Democrats, who hold 35 seats to the GOP's 25; both Houses have been under Democrat control since 2012. Both of the state's US Senators are Democrat as are four of the five US Representatives as well. As a whole, the state seems to be trending more Democrat. as an aside, a Gallup Poll report from February 2014 ranked Oregon as the fifth most liberal state in the nation (tied with Hawaii and excluding Washington DC). As an aside, Gallup ranks Kentucky as the 12th most conservative state just behind South Carolina and just above South Dakota while Delaware is rated as the most moderate. So, the question is whether or not states like Kentucky and Oregon will continue their respective trends. To answer that question, we must look at voter demographics to get an idea as to where the country as a whole is headed.

According to the Gallup Poll mentioned above,Americans are becoming slightly less conservative and leaning more liberal. A related poll conducted at the same time states that, as a whole, Americans have begun to move away from the Democratic Party although the Democrats still maintain a numeric advantage, especially in the more populated states such as Massachusetts, California, and Maryland. However, states which show a solid or strong tilt to the GOP are also among the least most populated states, with Tennessee and Indiana being the two most populace state in the Republican camp (Wyoming and Utah are the two most solid Republican states, yet among the least populated). 18 states are identified as "competitive" including Kentucky. While I would tend to disagree, the "golden triangle" between Louisville, Lexington and Covington/Cincinnati, make up the states central population centers and lean Democrat, so I at can least understand their argument.

Nevertheless, this tell just part of the story. There are other factors to look at as well, including new voter trends and satisfaction with the government. So, starting with the first factor, new voter trends, we should note that Millennials (those born between 1981 and 1997) have overtaken the Baby Boomers (1946 to 1964) for the first time, approximately 75 million compared to 74 million. That spread will become wider as the Boomers, many of whom are entering retirement, begins to shrink. Millennials have proven to a hard group to put your finger on, unlike their predecessors. As a whole, they are the most diverse group in terms of race, gender and sexual orientation (43% for instance are non-White). They are less likely to join a political party. In fact, most are Independent (approximately 50% and growing) which has helped push Indies into the nation's top spot in political preference, though in the absence of a viable Independent or third party candidate, they usually vote Democrat. They are nearly divided between libertarianism (small "L") and democratic socialism. They came out in droves to support Barack Obama when he first ran; mostly out of their desire to step outside of the political duopoly stranglehold. However, while they continued to support Obama in his second term, they did so in smaller numbers, mostly because of their disillusionment with Obama's track record and their "lack-of-choice" other choice, Mitt Romney (of course, few were hopping on John McCain's bandwagon four years earlier either).

Millennials are also the most technological attached generation ever. While Boomers were the first with home computers, video games and personal calculators, Millennials were virtually born with a "smart phone" in their hands. Nevertheless, they are also the generation which is the most heavily in debt (mostly due to the cost of higher education), to be unemployed or underemployed and to live at home with a family member. They are the least likely group to have any religious attachments but also the group with the most personal attachments thanks to social media. They tend to distrustful of social institutions and people (and the least anxious to get married), and yet they remain optimistic about the future in general. When it comes to politics, Millennials are more apt to focus on specific issues, where they can come together ad hoc , examine, solve (especially when they can apply technology to the solution), and move on to other projects.

To break this down further, Millennials responded to a Pew Survey regarding the size of government they would prefer (this is important since, as rule, conservatives and libertarians prefer smaller governments while liberals and socialist leaning prefer a larger government). The majority of White Millennials (52%) said they would prefer a smaller government with less services. However, among non-White Millennials, they stated they would like a larger government which offered more services (71%). Speaking of non-White Millennials, just about half are Latinos, which is the largest growing racial segment in America as most of you know. So, who do like? Well, according to the Harvard University Institute of Politics poll from May of 2015, 47% said their choice is Hillary Clinton. In fact, Latinos in general, but especially among Latino Millennials, their party of choice, in the absence of an Indie or third party, is the Democrats (50% of Millennials have a negative view of the GOP, which they view as "uncaring"). Among the few Millennials Republicans, their preference was Dr. Ben Carson. Black Millennials lean strongly toward the Democrat Party. Women too lean toward Democrats regardless of any generation identifier with 59%.

So, with all these numbers being thrown at you, I suspect you just want to know what all this means. Just this, Millennials are the rising political force in the nation. Right now, they make up about 25% of the electorate. By 2025, that number will be closer to 38%. At the national level, if the Republican Party/Conservative movement are to survive, let alone grow, they are going to need to temper their stance on social issues. This includes ensuring a social safety net (i.e.: some form of Social Security), a return to moderate politics and policies, find a compromise on the issue of Freedom of Choice vs. Right to Life, and gay/transgender issues for starters. They will have to reverse the trend toward a police state with its unaccountable surveillance, a restoration of democracy such as ending Citizens United and the concept of "peoplehood" for corporations as well as unlimited financial support by corporations, imposing term limits, an end to gerrymandering, and a focus on domestic issues (such as our infrastructures) and less involvement overseas., and of course, job creation. Lastly, ending the hold corporations have on government such as reforming the "revolving door" between government and big business, limiting access to elected officials by lobbyists, opening up participation to Independents and third parties which means eliminating restrictions to debates as well as real campaign finance reform.

While much of this applies to the Republican Party, the Democrats have no room to giggle and point fingers. This applies equally to them too. Right now, Millennials lean toward the Democratic Party, but only because they view them as easier to stomach than the GOP...for now. However, as the Millennials grow in political, social, and economic clout, so too does the days dominance by the duopoly grow shorter. If someone like Donald Trump can tap into this, the GOP will have made a game changer. If not, then get use to "President Hillary Clinton", which I for one certainly don't want to hear. In fact, I think a "President Clinton" would be catastrophic for this nation and perhaps the world. Maybe too, there is a younger version of Bernie Sanders waiting in the wings. So, what's it going to be folks?

Oregon one the most country's most liberal and least religious states
http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/02/oregon_one_of_countrys_most_li.html


Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana Most Conservative States
http://www.gallup.com/poll/181505/mississippi-alabama-louisiana-conservative-states.aspx


Massachusetts, Maryland Most Democratic States
http://www.gallup.com/poll/181475/massachusetts-maryland-democratic-states.aspx?utm_source=partisanship%20state&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=tiles


Millennials in Adulthood
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/03/07/millennials-in-adulthood/


Millennial Demographic Trends
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/52558/20150512/millennials-demographic-trends-democrats-preferred-political-party-win-2016-presidential.htm

The Folly of Newspaper Endorsements

Each election cycle we face what seems like endless recorded phone calls, "surveys", while our mailboxes become littered with campaign material. We are forced to endure countless mind numbing political television and radio commercials. Unfortunately this is part of the messy and often irritating process of democracy. These days, however, most of us are much more aware of the corruption of elections. We know that we are a defacto Oligarchy with a rising police state and the democratic republic our Founding Fathers established. We know our political system, and perhaps ever our social system, are broken beyond any hope of reform, which is why it's more important than ever to get out and vote. Voting is the next-to-last best hope of change we still have before we are forced to resort to our only remaining option. Since 1980, I have asked you to get out and vote. I've also asked that you ignore the opinions of the media and check out each candidate or issues for yourself. It is the best way for you, as a voter and citizen defender of this nation of ours, can make a truly informed decision. I am, and I've always been, a strong advocate of thinking for one's self. I strongly oppose allowing the media to make choices for me, and that especially includes their so-called "endorsements". These "endorsements" are nothing more than to convince you to adopt their political agenda. They count on you to be lazy and uninformed; to not care about your community, your state, your nation, and even your own wellbeing.

The article below is a reprint that I've posted in one form or another every election cycle since 2001, encouraging you to think for yourself and to vote. If you don't know who's running where you live, no problem. If you're a Democrat, contact your local Democrat Headquarters and ask. If you're a Republican, then contact the GOP Headquarters. If you belong to an third party, then contact their headquarters. If you're like me and an Independent, simply contact your local Board of Elections. Any and all of the individuals will be more than happy to assist you. Making an informed decision is as important for our present as it is for our future. Please consider sharing article with others. We're all counting on you.


The Folly of Newspaper Endorsements

There was a time when newspapers were the ever vigilant "crusaders" of public interest, albeit self-appointed and as often as not, the creators of their own hype (see "Yellow Journalism"), however, society grew up. Today, we have instant access to information the world over, and with it, the ability to do own investigation of candidates or issues which are important to us in a matter of minutes.

For years, I campaigned for release of unedited transcripts of candidate interviews and full disclosure of the interviewer's names and political affiliations. The public has a right to know exactly what each candidate said their background, and what their positions are, as well as the leaning of the interviewers making so-called "endorsement". I've been involved in politics for well over 35 years. To many times over those years I've come across candidates who were misquoted, misattributed, or the "correct" answer inserted while the gaffs were carefully removed. Sometimes a candidate may not even be interviewed nor their campaign material seen by the editors. I can say this based on firsthand experience, not only as a community and political activist, but as someone who has run for office before. I've also managed or co-managed dozens of political campaigns and I've seen the kind of damage this can do. Today, we have a partial solution with a few of the interviews being taped and though not entirely unedited. Still, we lack full disclosure from those doing the interviews or making the endorsements as to the political registration or leanings. That remains hidden from your view. I believe that you, the voter, have a right to know.

As I have done for years, I urge readers to take a few minutes to do their own research and make their own decision about who to vote for. The Voter Guide is one such resource for you to consider. If you find that you happen to agree with a particular candidate's positions mentioned , fine. Then support that individual as a volunteer, with a financial contribution or with simply with your vote. But do so as an informed voter. Don't let anyone think for you. Ever. The role of the media is to present the facts in a impartial, balanced and fair manner, not to attempt to manipulate or sway public opinion to suit its own political agenda, even if they think it's "for your own good". Only you can decide what's in your own best interests. Can you imagine Fox, CNN, ESPN, CBS, ABC, or even Public TV making a political endorsements? Neither can I. Forget about your newspaper's endorsements. Remember that endorsements are merely personal opinions, and not always the most informed ones at that, with a political agenda. Think for yourself. Do your own research. And then vote. America is counting on you.

Does Claims of Being "Offended" Mean a Lack of Political Will?

Louisville Mayor Greg Fisher (D) and University of Louisville President James Ramsey attempted to do the unthinkable. They attempted to remove a monument given to the citizens of Louisville in 1895 in remembrance of war dead by the Kentucky Women's Monument Society. They attempted this without input from the residents of Louisville; without consideration of the people wanted and thus an action they had no authority to do. They spoke quickly, without public discussion, and stepped aside allow the digging to begin---like thieves in the night. They claimed that "someone" was "offended" by the monument, and therefore, they would remove it with no idea or plan what to do with it or where it would be removed to. They claimed it was for "diversity" while its removal represents a suppression of diversity. They claimed it was for "tolerance", yet their actions speak of intolerance. It was there when men and women of all races marched off passed it on their way to fight the Axis Powers in World War II. It was there during the Korean and Vietnam wars as a mute witness to the horrors of war to come and which have passed. It stood during school desegregation of the 1950's in silence. It stood during the Civil Rights Movement without a murmur. It bore witness to the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King and President John Kennedy, who both viewed it. It stood during the anti-war protests of the late 1960's and early 1970's quietly. It stood during the era of forced bussing in the 1970's without notice.

This act proves that even a small city like Louisville Kentucky, just a week away from its annual two minute of fame, isn't immune to the creeping blight infecting America know as "political correctness". statue was a gift to the residents of the City of Louisville. It was not given to the government of Louisville nor to the University of Louisville, which didn't exist at that time, to do with as they please. Even the Louisville Metro Council and historical societies, local and state, lacked the backbone to step up and say anything. The memorial wasn't given in celebration of the fading glory of the "Lost Cause" or in perpetuation of the myth that the Civil War was fought to protect the economic interests of less than 4% of the South's population or for any sense of superiority. It wasn't even given to the citizens of Louisville as a reminder of the war itself, and the most terrible in our nation's history. Kentucky, a slave holding state, officially remained neutral and did not secede, Louisville remained firmly committed to the North while much of state leaned toward the Confederacy, especially after the war the resulting mistreatment of the South under Reconstruction. The monument was given in remembrance of the brave men who gave their lives for their country and their ideals. Hundreds of such monuments, honoring the dead of both sides were erected all across America, and thousands more have been erected to honor the dead of subsequent wars, some of which also being equally unpopular.

However, Louisville Kentucky isn't the only place where this disease of political correctness has spread. Efforts to erase the likenesses of Generals Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson and President Jefferson Davis from Stone Mountain in Georgia have been attempted several times. In Memphis Tennessee, some individuals have sought to dig up the remains of General Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife and them removed from a public cemetery; some have been callous enough to suggest that their bodies be thrown in the local garbage dump. Other cities have jump on the "rewrite history" bandwagon and attempt to dig up the remains of their famous Confederate war dead who happen to be buried in public cemeteries. A few have places been successful in prohibiting the small 3" x 4" Confederate flags from being placed on the graves or from flying the larger flag from a pole in the center of their section. A few naive communities have even forbidden anything doing with the "Lost Cause" from being displayed, bought or sold at flea markets, historical and military events---including gun shows (Louisville being one of them). We already have seen where some states have betrayed their history by removing elements of the Confederate flag from their state flag without asking those they were elected to represent.

True, the Confederate flag has been appropriated by certain hate groups, but that can't be helped. These same hate groups also fly the Nazi Swastika flag alongside the US flag. Some have started showing up with the Gadsden "Don't Tread on Me" flag. Black power and Hispanic groups often show up with their respective tri-color red, black and green flags and the Mexican national flag at protests (some have dared to fly it over the US flag, an open and direct insult to America and all Americans). Should all these be banned? As it is, anybody can display any flag they want. During the Vietnam War, anti-war students often flew the North Vietnamese flag during their protests. They also waved the USSR "Sickle and Hammer" flags and wore t-shirts with images of Che Guevara on them.

It's often said that those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it. It's also said that a nation which forgets its history forgets it ideals and ceases to become a nation. Political correctness is destroying this nation. Changing the emphasis from a melting pot where we absorb the best each culture has to offer, which in turn makes us stronger, the liberal mindset has promotes multiculturalism whereby individuals are encouraged to stand apart; to remain separate. It's not that anyone wants to take away their customs or traditions. It's that they should not expect---or demand--that others conform to them. It's fine that they continue to speak their own language, however, they shouldn't expect others to adopt theirs nor for taxpayer's dollar to make it easier for them not to adapt to their new home. A common language and shared customs and traditions are the threads that weave together a common heritage and make a nation strong. We have lost that. The courts have told us that separate but equal are inherently wrong, yet we've allowed this to become the norm of our society.

People today claim to be "offended" the way most order a glass of water. College (and even high school) students demand "safe places" where they won't be "offended". Well, I've got news for you. The 1st Amendment of the Constitution guarantees your right to be offended. In fact, it practically assures you that you will be offended by something at sometime during your life, but then that's life. As hard as it is for some people, or some groups, the world doesn't revolve around them. The rest of us aren't here to cater to their whims or shelter them from getting upset. Diversity, for which we strive, is about accepting every point of view, not just the one's you agree with. It doesn't mean you have to agree with it, or even like it. In fact, you can hate it all you like, but in America, we each have the right to our opinions. We don't have the right to impose those opinions on others however. That's what tolerance is all about.

Right now we're dealing with an enemy who would like to impose their religion and values on us and if possible, the rest of the world. From their perspective, you have the right to adopt the cultural and religious world view...or die. Your choice. Europe is now learning the hard way that no good deed goes unpunished by accepting millions of colonists...err...I mean "refugees"...who seem to be under the misconception that they are guests in host countries; that these host countries are not going to adopt their religion, no matter how much they protests, or accept their customs such as gang raping (and murdering) women who are "improperly dressed or unescorted by a male relative, or even that---for some unexplained reason---they are "entitled" to free furnished housing, free food---Halal naturally, free medical care, free transportation, free house cleaning (by non-Muslims of course), free education, separation of men and women in public places, demanding that all pork, tobacco and liquor sells stop "or else" and, well, you get the idea. We are dealing with a similar situation with illegal immigrates regarding taxpayer based services and a oblivious government which has completely ignored the demands of its citizens (such as their lack of fear of the ballot box).

This is what happens when a nation or society loses pride itself. When it loses it sense of identity. When a People loses their moral and cultural direction, they begin to forget who they are and what they represent. That's the sickness which begins with "political correctness" and the misplaced belief that everyone can be appeased, but in doing so, others must be persuaded or, eventually, coerced into silence. Being "offended" once meant that something presented a indirect or implied moral threat. Now, it means being a afraid and demanding someone else take your fear away. I see it as having a lack of self confidence and self conviction.