D-Day, a Different Perspective

“You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.” — General Dwight D. Eisenhower, June 6, 1944

Although the term D-Day is used routinely as military lingo for the day an operation or event will take place, for many it is also synonymous with June 6, 1944, the day the Allied powers crossed the English Channel and landed on the beaches of Normandy, France, beginning the liberation of Western Europe from Nazi control during World War II. Within three months, the northern part of France would be freed and the invasion force would be preparing to enter Germany, where they would meet up with Soviet forces moving in from the east.

With Hitler's armies in control of most of mainland Europe, the Allies knew that a successful invasion of the continent was central to winning the war. Hitler knew this too, and was expecting an assault on northwestern Europe in the spring of 1944. He hoped to repel the Allies from the coast with a strong counterattack that would delay future invasion attempts, giving him time to throw the majority of his forces into defeating the Soviet Union in the east. Once that was accomplished, he believed an all-out victory would soon be his.

On the morning of June 5, 1944, U.S. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the supreme commander of Allied forces in Europe gave the go-ahead for Operation Overlord, the largest amphibious military operation in history. On his orders, 6,000 landing craft, ships and other vessels carrying 176,000 troops began to leave England for the trip to France. That night, 822 aircraft filled with parachutists headed for drop zones in Normandy. An additional 13,000 aircraft were mobilized to provide air cover and support for the invasion.

By dawn on June 6, 18,000 parachutists were already on the ground; the land invasions began at 6:30 a.m. The British and Canadians overcame light opposition to capture Gold, Juno and Sword beaches; so did the Americans at Utah. The task was much tougher at Omaha beach, however, where 2,000 troops were lost and it was only through the tenacity and quick-wittedness of troops on the ground that the objective was achieved. By day's end, 155,000 Allied troops--Americans, British and Canadians--had successfully stormed Normandy’s beaches.

According to 2004 Fox News report the number of Americans killed on D-Day is still a question:

“The exploits of D-Day (search) have long been legend: the storming of the beaches, parachute drops into enemy territory. But 60 years later, the number of dead is still unclear.

The chaos of battle and the vast scale of the assault thwarted attempts then -- and now -- to tally how many thousands were killed in the June 6, 1944, landings that sped Nazi (search) Germany's defeat.

Bodies disintegrated under bombs and shells. Soldiers drowned and disappeared. Company clerks who tallied casualties were killed. Records were lost.

"Landing crafts were hit," said Ivy Agee, an 81-year-old from Gordonsville, Tenn., who fought on Omaha Beach. "Bodies were flying everywhere. There was blood on the edge of the water, the beach was just running with pure blood."

Historians say a definitive death toll will likely never be known. Even now, the Normandy (search) soil for which soldiers fought so bitterly offers up new bodies

…

Casualty estimates for Allied forces vary, but range from 2,500 to more than 5,000 dead on D-Day. Adding to the confusion is that D-Day books and histories often count wounded, missing and troops taken prisoner.

On its Web site, the D-Day Museum in Portsmouth, England, says an estimated 2,500 Allied troops died. The U.S. Army Center of Military History (search) in Washington, D.C., numbers 6,036 American casualties, including wounded and missing. The Heritage Foundation in Washington estimates 4,900 dead.

…

"The low casualty rates show the success of the Allied plan of attack."

Calculating German casualties is even harder. The D-Day Museum says the number is not known but is estimated at 4,000-9,000. Kirchmeier at the German graves commission said many records were destroyed in the Allied bombing of Berlin.

D-Day marked only the start of the battle of Normandy, which claimed many more lives as troops fought in the region's hedgerows over the next three months.

More than 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing, the D-Day Museum says. The American Cemetery overlooking Omaha Beach (search) holds the remains of 9,383 servicemen and four women, their white gravestones a permanent reminder of war's terrible costs.

"If you forget what happened here then you're never going to improve things. It's never going to get any better," Donald Null, an 80-year-old veteran from Frederick, Md., said as he visited the American Cemetery. "You must keep it alive."

For their part, the Germans suffered from confusion in the ranks and the absence of celebrated commander Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, who was away on leave. At first, Hitler, believing that the invasion was a feint designed to distract the Germans from a coming attack north of the Seine River, refused to release nearby divisions from Salmuth’s 15th Army to join the counterattack and reinforcements had to be called from further afield, causing delays. He also hesitated in calling for armored divisions to help in the defense. The unhindered P-47 fighter bombers were very effective in keeping the German Panzers and supply convoys off the roads during daylight hours. In addition, the Germans were hampered by effective Allied air support, which took out many key bridges and forced the Germans to take long detours, as well as efficient Allied naval support, which helped protect advancing Allied troops.

Click on the Maps above for a larger image

Though it did not go off exactly as planned, as later claimed by British Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery--for example, the Allies were able to land only fractions of the supplies and vehicles they had intended in France--D-Day was a decided success. By the end of June, the Allies had 850,000 men and 150,000 vehicles in Normandy and were poised to continue their march across Europe.

The heroism and bravery displayed by troops from the Allied countries on D-Day has served as inspiration for several films, most famously The Longest Day (1962) and Saving Private Ryan (1998). It was also depicted in the HBO mini-series Band of Brothers (2001). I will not comment on Band Brothers as it was a mini-series covering the actions of the 101^st Airborne from their inception to the end of WWII. Although the two episodes devoted to D-Day were outstanding, especially their action during Brécourt Manor Assault.

I have had the privilege of interviewing five veterans of the 101^st Airborne who dropped into Normandy on the night of June 5, 1944 — all of them Bronze Star recipients. According to these vets Band of Brothers was about 90% truth and 10% fiction. Be that as it may it is still a series worth watching.

Saving Private Ryan was the first theatrical film to show the absolute horror and carnage that took place on Omaha Beach that 6^th of June. Some people had to leave the theater as these gruesome scenes unfolded. In this sense it was more of an anti-war film. After the beach scenes the film morphed into a very good war film as a squad of Rangers searched for a missing private whose three brothers were killed in action. The film does not give much historical content of the events leading to the invasion or the massive logistics that burdened General Eisenhower or his staff.

If you learn about Operation Overlord I highly recommend the Oscar winning The Longest Day. Released in in 1962 Produced by Darryl F. Zanuck and released by Twentieth Century Fox the film was the first of its genre to accurately portray the events leading to a major battle and the actions thereof. The film covered all five beaches and the three airborne landing zones. It covered the events leading to the invasion and the agonizing decision General Eisenhower had to make on the ambiguous advice of his meteorologist team led by RAF Group Captain James Martin Stagg. Stagg could not give Eisenhower a definite forecast on a storm blowing across the English Channel. He could only give him a 50-50 probability that the skies would be clear on the night of June 5^th and the morning of the 6^th. On this probability Eisenhower gave the order to release the troops waiting in boats and on the airdromes.

The film based on the book of the same name by the Pulitzer Prize winning author Cornelius Ryan who also wrote the screen play, also shows the German side of the events on D-Day and the actions of the French Resistance during the nights prior to the invasion of destroying rail and communication lines — something that hampered the Germans as they tried to assess the situation and respond to it.

Ryan’s book, which I have read several times, is based on oral interviews with those who were involved in Operation Overlord. He interviewed the Generals and Admirals down to the lowly privates. He interviewed the Americans, British, French, and Germans who were involved.

The film employed several Axis and Allied military consultants who had been actual participants on D-Day. Many had their roles re-enacted in the film. These included: Günther Blumentritt (a former German general), James M. Gavin (an American general), Frederick Morgan (Deputy Chief of Staff at SHAEF and chief planner for the invasion), John Howard (who led the airborne assault on the Pegasus Bridge), Lord Lovat (who commanded the 1st Special Service Brigade), Philippe Kieffer (who led his men in the assault on Ouistreham), Pierre Koenig (who commanded the Free French Forces in the invasion), Max Pemsel (a German general), Werner Pluskat (the major who was the first German officer to see the invasion fleet), Josef "Pips" Priller (the hot-headed Luftwaffe pilot), and Lucie Rommel (widow of Erwin Rommel).

The Longest Day is filmed in the style of a docudrama. Beginning in the days leading up to D-Day, the film concentrates on events on both sides of the channel such as the Allies waiting for the break in the poor weather and the anticipation of the Axis forces defending northern France. The film pays particular attention to the decision by General Eisenhower, supreme commander of SHAEF, to go after reviewing the initial bad weather reports as well as the divisions within the German High Command on when an invasion might happen or what response to it should be.

Numerous scenes document the early hours of June 6th when Allied airborne troops were sent in to take key locations. The French resistance is also shown reacting to the news an invasion has started. The Longest Day chronicles most of the important events surrounding D-Day. From the British glider missions to secure Pegasus Bridge, the counterattacks launched by American paratroopers scattered around Sainte-Mère-Église, the infiltration and sabotage work conducted by the French resistance and SOE agents, and the response by the Wehrmacht to the invasion and the uncertainty to whether it was a feint in preparation for crossings at the Pas de Calais (see Operation Fortitude).

Set piece scenes include the advance in shore from the Normandy beaches, the US Ranger Assault Group's assault on the Pointe du Hoc, the attack on Ouistreham by Free French Forces and the strafing of the beaches by two lone Luftwaffe pilots.

I have visited the Normandy beaches and the airborne drop zones four times. The first was in 1976 when the memorials commemorating the 40^th anniversary had not been erected and the beaches were pretty much as they were in 1944 except for a few souvenir and French fry stands. The shell craters on Pointe du Hoc were covered a 6-foot bramble bushes that tore your pants. The German bunkers were decrepit cesspools filled with trepid water and human feces. The roads were not marked well and few signs were present to identify the historic places. I needed detailed maps of the countryside, which fortunately I had acquired prior to my visit. I did not have the Internet to do my research and had to rely mainly on Ryan’s book and a Michelin Guide.

On a subsequent two-day visit with my brother, and avid D-Day history buff as I am, visited the all of the beaches, Sainte-Mère-Église, the Longues-sur-Mer and Merville gun batteries We walked on the bridge over the Orne River Canal known as Pegasus Bridge. We spent time at the Airborne Museum in Sainte-Mère-Église and found General Gavin’s foxhole on the banks of the Merderet River. And we spent time at the American Military Cemetery overlooking Omaha Beach where the remains of 9,387 American soldiers, sailors and airmen who died in the battle for Northwest France are interned

For a short slide show please click here

The final point I would like to make concerns leadership, responsibility and accountability. As mentioned General Dwight D. Eisenhower was the supreme commander of SHAEF and of Operation Overlord. He had overseen the planning, the build-up and the deception tactics of Operation Fortitude. He made the final decision to release the ground and airborne troops on the night of June 5^th. He was aware of the risks and potential causalities — estimated to be as high as 80% for the airborne troops. They were never close to that figure.

On the night prior to the invasion he prepared a statement for the troops and the public. That statement read:

“You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle hardened. He will fight savagely.

But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to Victory!

I have full confidence in your courage and devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full Victory! Good luck! And let us beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.”

Eisenhower had as much confidence in his troops as a military commander could have. They had been well trained, well equipped, and well feed. Their moral was high. But after visiting the troopers of the 101^st Airborne he composed another press release in the back seat of his car returning to his headquarters. This was quite a different statement. It stated:

"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

*He accidentally dated the letter July 5. It should have been June 5. We're sure he had a lot on his mind. Click on the image at the right for a larger view.

You see Eisenhower born and raised in Kansas, the heartland of America, had been raised with the values of honesty, loyalty, responsibility and accountability. He had learned these values from his parents, his schooling and West Point. He could in no way pass this responsibility on to his staff, soldiers, or anyone else. The responsibility and accountability was his and his alone.

This is a far cry for our current commander-in-chief who takes responsibility for nothing. It is not like Hillary Clinton our former Secretary of State who said she was responsible but took no accountability for the fiasco in Benghazi. It is not like Eric Holder who claimed he knew nothing of the illegal actions of the Justice Department in the reading of the e-mails of AP and James Rosen of Fox News. It is not like the former commissioner of the IRS Douglas Schulman who visited the White House 157 times but can only remember the Easter egg roll. It is not like Lois Learner the head of the Tax Exempt Division of the IRS when she invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege in front of congressional committee. In fact it is not like anyone in Washington D.C. today.

So on this 69^th anniversary of the D-Day landings or D-Day plus 25,202 we should not only remember the bravery and heroic actions of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen who took part in that longest day. We should also remember the honesty and integrity of their commander.

Obama’s Media

"Would it not be better to simplify the system of taxation rather than to spread it over such a variety of subjects and pass through so many new hands?" — Thomas Jefferson

As the presidential campaign begins to heat up and the Republican candidates continue to beat each other in their quest for the nomination Obama is gathering his forces, especially those in the media. This includes journalists, opinion writers, TV talking heads, and Hollywood fellow travelers.

For some Washington reporters and media execs, cheering their team from the sidelines just isn’t good enough: Tugging on a red, white and blue Team Obama jersey is the answer.

That’s the case for a whopping 19 journalists and media executives, including five from the Washington Post and three each from ABC and CNN, who’ve gone into the administration or center-left groups supporting the president.

The Washington Examiner ran an article last week stating:

“Those inside the administration hit 14 this month when the Post’s Stephen Barr joined the Labor Department. That’s a record, say some revolving door watchers, and could even be much higher: The Post reports that “dozens” of former journalists have joined the administration, although Washington Secrets couldn’t verify that tally.

Many are in communications and speech writing offices, most prominently Jay Carney, the president’s spokesman who ran Time’s Washington bureau, and husband to ABC’s Claire Shipman. Some joined as the news business collapsed, many to finally voice their politics, and others, notably former Transportation spokeswoman Jill Zuckman, because she liked her future boss, Secretary Ray LaHood, a rare Republican in the administration. That relationship rocked: LaHood broke through the lower-tier Cabinet P.R. ceiling to become one of the most well-known Transportation secretaries ever. She had worked for the Chicago Tribune.

The revolving door isn’t a surprise to critics of the media and Obama. “The number of reporters going into the Obama administration merely confirms what I knew and what most conservatives long believed,” said Noam Neusner, himself one of the few reporters hired as a Bush speech writer. “There is a vast supply of liberals in newsrooms, they are very happy to support Obama administration policies if they can get hired and they barely hide their ideology in the way they cover the news.” Neusner, who I worked with at U.S. News, said that he too might have been guilty of a pro-Bush bias, but said correctly: “My editors and colleagues were surprised to hear that I was a Republican.”

A former GOP Capitol Hill and cabinet spokesman added, “It’s frustrating to see so many reporters that had relationships with trusted sources give up their ‘impartiality’ and start playing for the other side. It does show that the game is stacked in favor of the other side when most reporters still working in their profession remain silent.”

Stephen Hess, a presidential and journalism scholar at the Brookings Institution, said reporters can be “conflicted” when they trade places. “On the other hand,” he added, “reporters going back to journalism after a stint in government are always better reporters in that they now understand how government really works.”

With the so-called journalists getting on the Obama train it was time for the campaigner-in chief to get out to Hollywood and bring the actors and movie moguls on board. Of course he is doing this with your money.

Last week he spent three days in southern California dipping into the coffers of the useful idiots in the film industry with his $35,000 per plate dinners. People like George Clooney, Barbara Streisand, and Steven Spielberg were quick to dole out the cash for these events.

Obama also ventured up the Pacific Northwest where there are no lack cash-rich lefties ready to contribute to his campaign. John Hayward writes in Human Events:

“The Oval Office sits empty, as President Obama invests most of his time in running for re-election. Even his “2013 budget proposal” was nothing more than a campaign document. Any resemblance between that proposal and a serious attempt to perform the duties of governing was purely coincidental. And remember, his previous budgets were equally absurd – not just controversial, but obviously impossible to pass, and packed with delusional assumptions and big-spending wish lists.

Obama also spends a great deal of time on tours to promote D.O.A. legislation he introduced solely for the purpose of demonizing its opponents, like his $450 billion “jobs bill,” which was almost as silly as his budget proposals.

Today finds the President in Seattle for a few more big-bucks events, as reported by the Seattle Times:

President Obama plans to make a cash withdrawal from his base of wealthy Democratic donors in the Seattle area Sunday, popping in for two fundraisers as part of a West Coast campaign swing.

No public events have been announced for the president's visit, but donors who pony up thousands of dollars can get up close and personal.

First up is an exclusive brunch at the Medina home of former Microsoft executive Jon Shirley.

The event costs $35,800 per couple and 100 people are expected to attend, according to a Democratic Party official.

Then Obama will head to a larger fundraiser at the Paramount Theatre in Seattle, with tickets starting at $100 for balcony seats and up to $7,500 for VIP seating and a receiving-line photo with the president, according to event invitations. Up to 400 people are expected at that event, which will include a lunch catered by chef Tom Douglas and a performance by the Robert Cray Band.

This comes on the heels of another $38,500-per-plate extravaganza in California yesterday. Via Twitter, Mark Knoller of CBS News is keeping score: “In Seattle, President Obama does 2 more fund-raisers - bringing 3-day total to 8 & total since filing for re-election to 92.” Obama filed for re-election on April 4, 2011. That’s 92 fundraisers in a little over ten months.”

National elections are expensive, and even with all the advantages of incumbency, a President seeking re-election would be obliged to spend some time raising money. Byzantine campaign finance laws increase the amount of time a candidate must devote to such activities. But at some point, the amount of time spent on campaigning and fund-raising becomes excessive - especially when coupled with a willingness to twist the duties of the President’s office, such as providing leadership on the federal budget, into campaign tools.

It’s also food for thought when assessing the viability of various Republican campaign strategies against the President. No one is going to be able to out-spend him. In fact, the ability to prevail despite a massive imbalance in campaign spending should be a top item of interest in any Republican resume.”

And then of course there is the case of Media Matters, the left-web site that promotes Obama and his radical agenda. The Daily Caller has been running a series of articles on Media Matters’ financial backers and how they are attempting to demonize conservatives.

Media Matters has raised millions of dollars from major liberal foundations since its inception, benefiting from heavyweight organizations like the Tides Foundation and George Soros' Open Society Institute.

A report Friday in The Daily Caller detailed the sources of about $29 million in Media Matters donations dating back to 2003. Though much of the group's finances are secret, the $29 million represents more than half of Media Matters' total funding in that time.

The left-wing Tides Foundation accounted for $4.38 million of the sum. According to the Caller, more than half of that contribution was in place before the Media Matters launch in 2004. The Open Society Institute also donated more than $1 million, in installments over three years.

Funding for the liberal media advocacy group comes from dozens of other organizations. Among them, according to the report, are the anti-war MoveOn.org, the Barbra Streisand Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the Joyce Foundation. President Obama sat on the board of the latter until 2002.

According to the Caller, Media Matters has received nearly $1 million from the Ford Foundation since 2010 — even though the group reportedly was planning to run an ad against Ford as part of its campaign against Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs when he was with CNN, because Ford was advertising on his show.

This brings me to the point I want to make concerning the involvement of the media, especially the film industry, in progressive, left-wing politics.

Back in the mid-1980s I took several courses in film making believing these courses would help me with my presentation skills. During these courses we viewed and then discussed films like The Red Balloon, Battleship Potemkin, Olympia, and Triumph of the Will.

The Red Balloon demonstrated the use of a simple object in a film to draw the viewers’ attention to the adventures of a young boy as he journeyed the streets of Paris. The 1925 silent film Battleship Potemkin, by Sergei Eisenstaedt, presents a dramatized version of the mutiny that occurred in 1905 when the crew of the Russian battleship Potemkin rebelled against their officers of the Tsarist regime. It was the first film to use cut-aways and inserts such as close-ups, a broken pair of eyeglasses, a baby carriage bouncing down the stairs, and a dead child, to invoke feelings for the demonstrators being chased down by Tsarist troops.

Olympia and the Trump of the Will were documentary and propaganda films made by the Nazi filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl. Olympia was made in 1938 and depicted the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games. It was the first documentary feature film of the Olympic Games ever made. Many advanced motion picture techniques, which later became industry standards but which were groundbreaking at the time, were employed — including unusual camera angles, smash cuts, extreme close-ups, placing tracking shot rails within the bleachers, and the like. The techniques employed are almost universally admired, but the film is controversial due to its political context. Nevertheless, the film appears on many lists of the greatest films of all-time, including Time magazine's "All-Time 100 Movies.

Triumph of the Will was a pure propaganda film. It chronicles the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg, which was attended by more than 700,000 Nazi supporters. The film contains excerpts from speeches given by various Nazi leaders at the Congress, including portions of speeches by Adolf Hitler, interspersed with footage of massed party members. Hitler commissioned the film and served as an unofficial executive producer; his name appears in the opening titles. The overriding theme of the film is the return of Germany as a great power, with Hitler as the True German Leader who will bring glory to the nation.

Triumph of the Will was released in 1935 and rapidly became one of the best-known examples of propaganda in film history. Riefenstahl's techniques, such as moving cameras, the use of long focus lenses to create a distorted perspective, aerial photography, and revolutionary approach to the use of music and cinematography, have earned Triumph recognition as one of the greatest films in history. Riefenstahl won several awards, not only in Germany but also in the United States, France, Sweden, and other countries. The film was popular in the Third Reich and elsewhere, and has continued to influence movies, documentaries, and commercials to this day.

So with all this in mind I am composing a letter from Fräulein Riefenstahl to Barack Obama with some advice on how to dazzle the electorate with his message of hope and change.

Schatzi, it's been over a year since I last wrote you. Please forgive me. It's been so hot here I can barely stand to touch the keyboard. Not that I don't appreciate the green energy projects you funded to cool off this place, but dear, you know even with the trillions you spent, those projects just keep going under. Yes, I know it helped put billions in the pockets of your donors, but hell is not freezing over you know and we could use energy for the air conditioners.

Anyway, I forced myself to endure the scorching temperatures and pitchforks to congratulate you on those brilliant HHS regulations forcing people to fund insurance coverage for abortions, sterilizations and birth control against their consciences.

Darling Adolf just loved to do that sort of thing. Remember — are you old and well-read enough to remember? He figured out that if he could get people to operate against their conscience on small things, big things like Judenrein (Clean out the Jews) would be easier. Of course, that was just a start.

Martin Bormann said it just right: "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable." For the party to rule, he said the Churches' influence in the leadership of the people "must absolutely and finally be broken." He was taking about the Nazi party, but heavens, Progressives, Democrats, and Nazis — state control is state control.

So, this move by your Administration is just a great first step. You had all the social justice crowd in the church supporting you, and now those wicked bishops — how many divisions do they have anyway? — had to step in to try to put a stop to this.

Well, the match is set.

On your side you have some real geniuses. I mean all the media is helping you sell the fairytale that you are battling people who want to force women to forego contraceptives. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a real feather in your cap; arguing that all women deserve free contraceptives and that religious institutions shouldn't be imposing their values on their employees is, you should pardon the expression, pure Göbbels. And you can count on the press to let her get away with this big lie. After all isn’t Media Matters, MSNBC, and NBC the same as Der Strümer?

The media want to replace old fashioned religion with civic religion as much as you and I do. So, some Catholics have and continue to threaten to shut down their social welfare services rather than comply with such things? Great! The sooner the people learn that the state is the provider of all things, the better — for you and your party. Of course, not necessarily better for them or their country, but that's not the point, is it?

I suppose you have some other good ideas in the wings at HHS. Off the top of my head here are some ideas for you: Make public schools serve pork and require all kids to eat it; force Christian Scientists to see physicians and take medicine; make the Mormon Tabernacle Choir admit Moslems; ban religious circumcisions of males; draft the Amish into the military; outlaw Lutheran lutefisk parties and bake sales.

My goodness, the possibilities once you control the levers of power! And what could possibly give you more power than controlling healthcare delivery? Imagine the rake offs, too. Plastic surgeons want liposuction and botox coverage? Let them kick in to your party. Somebody's poor mom is too old for treatment, cross your palm with silver and a hospital bed becomes available. Why am I telling you this, you of all people? I mean Mr. President Chicago Way, right?

And then your opponents are playing this rather stupidly. Letting you and the press frame this as a women's rights issue, not a Constitutional issue. (Is it just gossip or is it true that Harvard Law School where you attended and the University Of Chicago Law School where you were a lecturer, are mortified? Who cares? That Constitution is so old and updated anyway. Ask Justice Ginsburg, even she's not crazy about it.) Maybe next year you can wait until Congress is in recess and replace it with something newer from Zimbabwe. Well, you certainly don't need me to advise you on how to destroy religion or the Constitution.

I was delighted to see how you are reviving the Sturmabteilung. Of course, you can't credit us — we all discussed it here and understand. Calling it a Truth Team, a "grassroots communications team" will go over much better, but, schatzi, we all know where you got that idea. The explanation is another bit of brilliant propaganda: "The goal is to ensure that when Republicans attack President Obama's record, grassroots supporters can take ownership of the campaign and share the facts with the undecided voters in their lives."

I mean even Michelle Obama's Mirror calls it the "SS. See something, Say something." I think she means it sarcastically but check out the great logos she's come up for the Truth Team!! We couldn't do better and we tried in between KZ camp roastings.

She didn't even get to Project Narwhal, a data-mining outreach operation designed to snare even more low information voters than the media can rope in.

And it's working on ill-educated single women, who'd apparently gladly give up their right to worship as they choose in order to get someone else to pick up their contraception tab, never realizing they're giving up something for nothing, because there really is no free lunch.

I figure a couple years of this and there will be no private insurance companies because they'll be run out of business, or employer provided health insurance because it's all going to be too expensive. And then you'll have the entire country in the palm of your hand. Don’t forget Adolph’s Germany had free health care, except for Jews and other untermensch.

If I had a heart, liebchen, it would be singing right now.

P.S. I keep meaning to tell you — when you tilt your chin skyward like that, you remind me so much of the Italian heart throb Benito.

Gates Blasts NATO

"An association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which has never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry." — Thomas Jefferson

I have written several blog posts on the ineffectiveness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and that the alliance has pasted its useful shelf life. Today I feel vindicated by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

The ongoing involvement in Libya and the inability of the NATO members to mount a unified campaign against Muammar Gaddafi has proven to be the death knell of the 62 year old alliance.

The Treaty of Brussels, signed on March 17, 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defense Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary in order to counter the military power of the USSR, and therefore talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately.

These talks resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states, as well as the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland. Popular support for the Treaty was not unanimous; some Icelanders commenced a pro-neutrality, anti-membership riot in March 1949. The NATO mission statement was as follows:

“The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America^[ shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

“Such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force" does not necessarily mean that other member states will respond with military action against the aggressor(s). Rather they are obliged to respond, but maintain the freedom to choose how they will respond. This differs from Article IV of the Treaty of Brussels (which founded the Western European Union) which clearly states that the response will be military in nature. However, it is often assumed that NATO members will aid the attacked member militarily. Further, the North Atlantic Treaty limits the organization's scope to regions above the Tropic of Cancer, which explains why the Falklands War did not result in NATO involvement.

Greece and Turkey also joined the alliance in 1952, forcing a series of controversial negotiations, in which the United States and Britain were the primary disputants, over how to bring the two countries into the military command structure. The incorporation of West Germany into the organization on May 9, 1955 was described as "a decisive turning point in the history of our continent" by Halvard Lange, Foreign Minister of Norway at the time. A major reason for Germany's entry into the alliance was that without German manpower, it would have been impossible to field enough conventional forces to resist a Soviet invasion. Indeed, one of its immediate results was the creation of the Warsaw Pact, signed on May 14, 1955 by the Soviet Union, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, and East Germany, as a formal response to this event, thereby delineating the two opposing sides of the Cold War.

The unity of NATO was breached early in its history, with a crisis occurring during Charles de Gaulle's presidency of France from 1958 onwards. De Gaulle protested at the United States' strong role in the organization and what he perceived as a special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. In a memorandum sent to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Prime Minister Harold Macmillan on September 17, 1958, he argued for the creation of a tripartite directorate that would put France on an equal footing with the United States and the United Kingdom, and also for the expansion of NATO's coverage to include geographical areas of interest to France, most notably French Algeria, where France was waging a counter-insurgency and sought NATO assistance.

Considering the response given to be unsatisfactory, de Gaulle began to build an independent defense for his country. He also wanted to give France, in the event of an East German incursion into West Germany, the option of coming to a separate peace with the Eastern bloc instead of being drawn into a NATO-Warsaw Pact global war. On March 11, 1959, France withdrew its Mediterranean Fleet from NATO command; three months later, in June 1959, de Gaulle banned the stationing of foreign nuclear weapons on French soil. This caused the United States to transfer two hundred military aircraft out of France and return control of the ten major air force bases that had operated in France since 1950 to the French by 1967.

Though France showed solidarity with the rest of NATO during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, de Gaulle continued his pursuit of an independent defense by removing France's Atlantic and Channel fleets from NATO command. In 1966, all French armed forces were removed from NATO's integrated military command, and all non-French NATO troops were asked to leave France. This withdrawal forced the relocation of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) from Rocquencourt, near Paris, to Casteau, north of Mons, Belgium, by October 16, 1967. France remained a member of the alliance, and committed to the defense of Europe from possible Communist attack with its own forces stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany throughout the Cold War. A series of secret accords between U.S. and French officials, the Lemnitzer-Ailleret Agreements, detailed how French forces would dovetail back into NATO's command structure should East-West hostilities break out.

Over the years NATO thwarted the advances of the Soviet Union into Western Europe and Turkey. The alliance first began to crack when not every member became involved in the crisis in the former Yugoslavia and he bombing war of Kosovo. Neither had posed a direct threat to the security of the NATO nations.

By the time the United States became involved in Afghanistan in 2012 not every NATO member put troops into the field yet Afghanistan’s role by harboring the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, was considered an attack against the United States. Countries such as Spain, Greece, and Turkey refused to engage in combat operations against the Taliban with Germany offering only non-combat logistical support.

By the time France and Italy convinced the United States to support their “No Fly Zone” and bombings in Libya less than half of the Alliance members were participating. Germany out rightly refused to participate in any way and Turkey was strong-armed by France and Italy to provide some logistical support.

Over the ensuing years the role of the United States increased to the point where by the beginning of 2012 the U.S. was paying 40% of the bill for NATO.

Yesterday Secretary of Defense Robert Gates gave his final speech to the Security and Defense Agenda think tank in Brussels by saying, “NATO was facing collective military irrelevance after years of inadequate defense spending by most of its members.”

The Los Angeles Times reports:

“In one of his last major addresses before his retirement this month, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Friday that NATO's sometimes shaky air campaign in Libya had "laid bare" the shortcomings of the alliance, which he said was facing "collective military irrelevance" after years of inadequate defense spending by most of its members.

In March, the alliance unanimously backed the decision to go to war in Libya to protect civilians from forces loyal to Moammar Kadafi,[sic] but Gates noted that less than half of NATO's 28 members were participating in the military operation and fewer than a third are conducting airstrikes against ground targets.

"Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they cannot," Gates said. "The military capabilities simply aren't there."

The assessment of NATO's capabilities came at the end of an 11-day around-the-world trip that included stops in Asia and in Afghanistan, during which Gates said goodbye to U.S. troops after four and a half years in office. A former CIA analyst, Gates has used the trip to review America's place in the world, including the state of the transatlantic security relationship that has been at the center of his four-decade long career in government.”

The Los Angeles Times report continues:

“In recent weeks, the U.S. has stepped up its involvement by providing nine additional aerial refueling aircraft, according to the senior American official. Overall, U.S. aircraft are flying roughly 75 percent of the sorties, Gates said.

Gates praised the role in Libya of Norway and Denmark, which he said had provided 12 percent of the strike aircraft for the operation but had carried out one-third of the airstrikes.

Even after years of public and private pressure by Washington on NATO allies to increase military spending, Gates conceded that there was little prospect of that happening, especially with the intense fiscal pressure many governments in Europe now face.

He called instead on NATO countries to allocate their limited military budgets more wisely, on weapons and other capabilities that complement, rather than duplicate, spending by other members of the alliance.

Gates said that the U.S. share of NATO military spending has risen to more than 75 percent, while there were only four other members of the alliance -- Britain, France, Greece, and Albania -- whose military spending now exceeds 4 percent, the target set by NATO.

As a generation of American leaders whose outlooks were not formed during the Cold War come to the fore, Gates warned that there would be "dwindling appetite and patience" for the U.S to expend the funds on nations "apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reduction in European defense budgets."

Gates has made no secret of his frustration with NATO bureaucracy and the huge restrictions many European governments placed on their military participation in the Afghanistan war. He ruffled NATO feathers early in his tenure with a direct challenge to contribute more front-line troops that yielded few contributions.

Even so, Gates' assessment Friday that NATO is falling down on its obligations and foisting too much of the hard work on the U.S. was unusually harsh and unvarnished. He said both of NATO's main military operations now — Afghanistan and Libya — point up weaknesses and failures within the alliance.

"The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress — and in the American body politic writ large — to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense," Gates said.

Without naming names, he blasted allies who are "willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets."

The U.S. has tens of thousands of troops based in Europe, not to stand guard against invasion but to train with European forces and promote what for decades has been lacking: the ability of the Europeans to go to war alongside the U.S. in a coherent way.

The war in Afghanistan, which is being conducted under NATO auspices, is a prime example of U.S. frustration at European inability to provide the required resources.

"Despite more than 2 million troops in uniform, not counting the U.S. military, NATO has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a deployment of 25,000 to 45,000 troops, not just in boots on the ground, but in crucial support assets such as helicopters, transport aircraft, maintenance, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and much more," Gates said.

For many Americans, NATO is a vague concept tied to a bygone era, a time when the world feared a Soviet land invasion of Europe that could have escalated to nuclear war. But with the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO's reason for being came into question. It has remained intact — and even expanded from 16 members at the conclusion of the Cold War to 28 today.

But reluctance of some European nations to expand defense budgets and take on direct combat has created what amounts to a two-tier alliance: the U.S. military at one level and the rest of NATO on a lower, almost irrelevant plane.

On a political level, the problem of alliance purpose in Libya is even more troubling, he said.

"While every alliance member voted for the Libya mission, less than half have participated, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission," he said. "Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can't. The military capabilities simply aren't there."

Afghanistan is another example of NATO falling short despite a determined effort, Gates said.

He recalled the history of NATO's involvement in the Afghan war — and the mistaken impression some allied governments held of what it would require of them.

"I suspect many allies assumed that the mission would be primarily peacekeeping, reconstruction and development assistance - more akin to the Balkans," he said, referring to NATO peacekeeping efforts there since the late 1990s. "Instead, NATO found itself in a tough fight against a determined and resurgent Taliban returning in force from its sanctuaries in Pakistan."

He also offered praise and sympathy, noting that more than 850 troops from non-U.S. NATO members have died in Afghanistan. For many allied nations these were their first military casualties since World War II.

For years NATO has been a paper tiger and it was only the threat of the use of nuclear weapons that kept the Soviet Union at bay throughout the Cold War. I can recall many conversations with my German friends from 1985 through 1998 while traveling in Germany and doing business. Not one of them was committed to NATO. They did not want to spend the required 4% of GP on defense and many were committed to pacifism. The believed they were doing “good” in Bosnia-Herzegovina as they perceived they were preserving the peace in Europe, yet reluctant to use troops in combat for any reason.

Today’s Eurocrats have no stomach for defense or the money to pay for it. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union Western Europe has been spending its “peace dividend” on their social welfare programs — a peace dividend they got by living under the security umbrella of the United States for 62 years. It’s time for the U.S. Congress to come to its senses and reexamine in role in Europe’s defense and let them spend their own money to fight their battles and exert their influence, Just as we should with the United Nations it’s time for Uncle Sugar to pull the plug and defend our national interests with our troops and our money. If the Canadians and Brits want to come along, fine, but they will need to pull their share of the wagon.

Our Most Dangerous Enemy

“We have met the enemy and he is us.” — Walt Kelly

Walt Kelly was an American animator and cartoonist, best known for the classic comic strip, Pogo. Probably the most known saying of his cartoon character, Pogo, is “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

While some conservative commentators are on the right side of most issues, they are careful to stay “in bounds.” The last thing in the world any political pundit wants is to be seen as an extremist by his colleagues. Note Charles Krauthammer.

Recently, I watched a panel of think-tank experts debate how best to solve our country’s fiscal problems. What caught my attention was that no one — not even the free-enterprise spokesmen from the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation and the Free Enterprise Institute — so much as alluded to the unconstitutionality of any of the myriad government programs that have caused these problems.

What does this mean? Simply that the far left in this country has, for all practical purposes, already succeeded in fundamentally transforming America, regardless of who the next President is. The problem is that even though many conservatives are experts when it comes to debating the factual side of fiscal issues, they seem to accept — by default — the false premise that government transfer-of-wealth programs are Constitutional.

At least one motivating force behind this sad situation is pragmatism. For example, both Dick Morris and Donald Trump have opined that Republicans are committing suicide with Paul Ryan’s proposed plan to overhaul Medicare. And they could very well be right.

Morris is a strategy genius when it comes to elections, so it’s no surprise that his opinion is based on what he believes is necessary to win the next election. I get it.

But if conservatives fear that Ryan’s addressing the single biggest fiscal problem facing the U.S. will result in re-electing a Marxist President, it says a lot about the decline of America as a virtuous nation. More to the point, it means most voters are so addicted to our redistribution-of-wealth culture that they will vote against anyone who dares to threaten that culture.

Thus, the question of Constitutionality increasingly appears to be off the table when it comes to debating major fiscal issues such as the deficit, the debt ceiling, unfunded Medicare and Social Security liabilities, and redistribution-of-wealth programs ranging from unemployment benefits to food stamps.

I was again reminded of this while watching another recent debate on the aforementioned Medicare issue, this one between Ryan and Democrat Chris Van Hollen. These two men know the numbers on Medicare inside and out, but Ryan’s approach to solving the Medicare crisis is based on free-market solutions, while Van Hollen believes in government solutions.

I have great respect for Ryan, but I was disappointed that he didn’t address the question of whether Medicare is even constitutional. It’s as though the default position in every debate is that the program being discussed is Constitutional — even if it’s not.

Put another way, regardless of how conservative any particular participant may be, political debates are almost always based on the false premise that the Constitution is irrelevant. And as polling numbers regarding Ryan’s Medicare proposal demonstrate, more than half the nation’s voters agree with that false premise.

But there’s another subject that is avoided even more than the question of Constitutionality. In fact, it is virtually never mentioned by politicians or commentators. The subject I am referring to is dictatorship. Even if some members of Congress are knowledgeable enough about world history to be concerned about the dangers of a dictatorship befalling the U.S., they dare not mention the word out loud for fear of being labeled an alarmist or conspiracy nut.

And yet, as President Barack Obama and others on the far left know full well, that is precisely what unsustainable debt and a collapsed economy can lead to. One of the surest ways to bring about a dictatorship is through runaway inflation, which is caused by massive increases in the money supply (popularly referred to inside the Beltway as “quantitative easing”) in a frantic effort to continue paying for unsustainable government programs. This is what happened in the 1930s to the German Weimar Republic.

Although the inflation ended with the introduction of the Rentenmark and the Weimar Republic continued for a decade afterwards, hyperinflation is widely believed to have contributed to the Nazi takeover of Germany and Adolf Hitler's rise to power. Adolf Hitler himself in his book, Mein Kampf, makes many references to the German debt and the negative consequences that brought about the inevitability of "National Socialism". The inflation also raised doubts about the competence of liberal institutions, especially amongst a middle class who had held cash savings and bonds. It also produced resentment of bankers and speculators, whom the government and press blamed for the inflation. Many of them were Jews, and some Germans called the hyper-inflated Weimar banknotes Jew Confetti.

Additionally, later German monetary policy showed far greater concern for maintaining a sound currency, a concern that even affects Germany's present attitude in Eurozone debates concerning bailouts of failing national economies today.

Ultimately, people become panicked, and anarchy and chaos result. The government then “has no choice” but to resort to strong-armed totalitarian measures to “restore order.”

When pundits and politicians say things like “Barack Obama will have no choice but to start dramatically cutting back on spending,” “the President is going to have to come to grips with the reality that market forces always prevail,” etc., they ignore the fact that a dictatorship can override reality with an iron fist.

For example, under a dictatorship, oil prices can be whatever the dictator (or oligarchy) wants them to be. And anyone can own a house if the government mandates that others give it to him free of charge. Just about anything is possible through the use of force.

Roll your eyes if you wish, but do yourself a favor and stay alert for a possible drastic change in the American way of life as we continue to move briskly down the road to financial ruin. Do not be deluded into believing America is immune to the same consequences that have destroyed so many other nations.

Having said this, I hasten to add that Obama and his progressive allies are not our biggest threat. In fact, they would be as hapless as were Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels if it were not for the avarice of benefit-addicted voters who have no desire to compete in the free market for their livelihoods. With this in mind, I would argue it isn’t so much that people get the government they deserve. Rather, they get the government that reflects their own values. If a majority of Americans are willing to ignore the Constitution and demand that their transfer-of-wealth largess remain intact no matter how obvious the cataclysmic long-term consequences may be, they will vote for politicians they believe are most likely to keep the government redistribution-of-wealth machine well-oiled and running.

Thus, instead of complaining about corrupt politicians, Americans need to take a good look in the mirror and start thinking long and hard about their own tainted morals, as well as what kind of nation they want to leave their children and grandchildren. While the far left is certainly an enemy of freedom, if Americans are willing to look in the mirror, they might just recognize that (to put a twist on comic-strip character Pogo’s famous quotation) the most dangerous enemy is us.