- The now-defunct Constitution of our former constitutionally
limited Republic, the latter once described as the "shining beacon
on the hill" signifying a nation and its government established to
maintain the freedom of each and every citizen, and serving as well as
an example for the rest of the world, was the foundation upon which both
our freedom and wealth was assured. Our former republic served as an example
of how governments should relate to their citizens in allowing individual
creativity to generate the economic contributions of one and all thereby
fostering a society ever capable of expanding both that wealth and freedom.
To offer that other nations, especially the individual citizens of those
nations, are jealous of these attributes acquired through the fruits of
our labor and freedom exhibits the ultimate in moronic absurdity.
-
- Yet, the civilian leadership of our state, as well as
the propagandists and charlatans comprising our so-called free and independent
press, continuously cite the greatness of our now-defunct Constitution,
even as they continue to slobber over and praise the "partisan"
political alignments which negated our nation's mission and its rule of
law in the first place. Of particular note is the myth placing civilian
control over our military when it is called upon to serve and protect our
nation. The "wisdom" of the Founders in placing war-making prerogatives
in the hands of the representatives of the people, and control of an activated
and fighting military in the hands of a suit-and-tie civilian leader, is
always celebrated as the epitome of "checks and balances" and
our much-touted "separation of powers."
-
- Where are these checks and balances and their separation
of powers in our now fascist, statutorily limited "democracy"
of today? Our chief of state does not wear a military uniform reminiscent
of so many former authoritarian and totalitarian regimes of the past.
There are neither "uniforms" in charge and standing in review,
nor goose-stepping parades and footfalls, nor saber clinking, nor the glitter
of buttons and medals and such as these on parade as was the case with
the notorious evildoers of past history. Dictators back then, as is still
the case with some today, don military attire to signify their total power
backed by the monopoly of military force. We've witnessed the pomp and
displays of military terror in the personas of Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini,
Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro and their ilk. Our absolute ruler is much more
subdued, but the reason is as much tradition as it is the myth of civilian
control and rule by the people.
-
- Our military began to form up even before the Declaration
of Independence was drafted, let alone upon the establishment of civilian
control over it. When constitutionally defined, our military was not supposed
to be a continuing "standing" or marching army. Anchored in
John Adams' concept of an ever-ready defense of our shores, Adams' vision
for defense consisted of "walls of wood," referring to a strong
navy of wooden frigates, corvettes, sloops, clippers and men-of-war. Evidence
of Early America's sole reliance on a standing/floating navy for defense
can be found in Article I, Section 8, and paragraph 13 of the Constitution.
No funding restraints or limitations were put upon the establishment and
maintenance of the navy, but the preceding paragraph limits the funding
of a "raised" army to only two years. Perhaps this was the basis
for the two-year conscription requirement that my generation of young men
were subjected to.
-
- It is clear that the Founders distrusted a standing army
for the sole reason that it was land-based and could be commandeered by
a corrupt government to enforce tyranny. The Founders felt that a navy
was limited to the sea and required a lot less manpower, and considering
America's armed populace, our nation had the ability to quickly assemble
militias for defense. They reasoned correctly that there was nothing to
fear from a strong navy. But if an army had to be raised in the defense
of our nation, such a standing army of "regulars" was limited
by the Constitution to only two years' funding. The two-year draft was
legitimized as both providing "a well-regulated militia" and
limiting the standing army's funding. Of course, a continuous draft conducted
every month of the year back in my draft days legitimized a constitutional
illegality and extended total military service beyond the limits envisioned
by the Founders. And suit-and-tie standing armies of federal police, FBI,
Drug Enforcement, ATF, TSA, etc., etc., etc., also negate the security
of a free and independent civilian population by subjecting them continually
to a standing land-based federal force.
-
- The concept of a civilian controlled military as a guarantee
of freedom for the American people is, therefore, a myth. It is also even
more of a myth to concern ourselves with a possible military coup. Sure
these have occurred in nations where military dictatorships have flourished
and the fear of militaristic takeover a la Generalissimo Franco-style is
indeed ever present due to the modern intensified centralization of our
federal government.
-
- But how many of such foreign militaristic dictators,
in spite of their fearsome potential, have succeeded in taking away our
rights? What have Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and the vast assortment of
other foreign threats taken away from US? Isn't it now so easily observed
and understood that our elected civilian leadership has stolen more of
our wealth and freedom throughout our history than any foreign dictator
or any foreign or domestic military force? Even the freedom of habeas
corpus guaranteed in the body [Article I, Section 9, and paragraph 2] of
the Constitution has been abolished by Bush and his supporting Democrats
in Congress.
-
- It was, therefore, a great cause for reflection when
I read Dick Eastman's "Why The Zionists [Including Henry Morganthau]
Controlling The Allies Killed General George S. Patton," which was
posted here on Rense.com on February 27th. Digressing for just a moment,
it never ceases to amaze me the number of people who continuously terrorize
themselves into the protective stupor of self-imposed ignorance. It was
well known at the time of Patton's death that something wasn't right.
-
- It was also well known that in spite of his superior
ability and knowledge of both the enemy and the allies, that he had been
thwarted from advancing in Europe, which would have precluded the Soviets
from grabbing most of its nations and throwing up an "Iron Curtain"
around them. The Pulitzer Prize for the best political cartoon featured
in the Encyclopedia Britannica's Book of the Year of 1946 showed Stalin,
Churchill and FDR sitting around a card table, with Stalin starting to
rise out of his chair and putting his arms around all the poker chips on
the table. The caption read: "Pardon my reach!" It was widely
known that the restraints put upon Patton gave Stalin all the chips. And
considering that today against the backdrop of 9/11 and FDR's set-up of
2,400 of our Navy personnel at Pearl Harbor in 1941 is it really all that
hard to believe that Zionist/Communist fingerprints were indeed all over
Patton's untimely death?
-
- Going as far back as the Union Army's General Ulysses
S. Grant during the War of Northern Aggression, Grant had commented and
written very negatively even back then regarding the Jewishness of the
"carpetbaggers" following his Army. The vitriolic observations
uttered and written by Patton almost coincide with those of Grant. Patton
immediately recognized the threat of communism and its enabling Zionists
who so lovingly embraced and advanced it. The communist proclivities of
both Churchill and FDR are now well documented and understood. Most of
our military leaders had always quickly recognized and displayed alarm
concerning Marxism, and Patton came to understand it when he saw it. Our
civilian leaders have rarely been so blessed!
-
- And as Zionism and its international bankers led US to
the slaughterhouse that was World War I, it was none other than USMC Major
General Smedley Butler who so succinctly in five chapters proved that "war
is a racket." Even in Butler's time in the mid 1930s, the small group
of war profiteers cashing in on the suffering imposed upon 4,000,000 Americans
in uniform by Zionist Bernard Baruch to fight Zionism's World War I was
deftly handled by the author and general. Butler cited Bethlehem Steel's
outrageous profits, but not those of its CEO Charles Schwab who violated
international neutrality to earn an unprecedented $61 million. And although
Butler pointed to the enormous profits enjoyed by the bankers, Baruch's
name and his $200,000,000 in profits were also never specifically identified.
Butler clearly laid out the motives of the bankers and the military-industrial
corporate profiteers, but did so in a general and unspecific manner and
avoided naming individuals.
-
- Returning to General Patton, his uniformed superior and
nemesis, General Dwight Eisenhower, the individual who directly ordered
Patton to back off inEurope, was the very individual who coined the term
"military-industrial complex" during his farewell address as
our thirty-fourth president. During my youth and school years, I was told
that General Eisenhower was an "outstanding administrator," which
when now compared to Eastman's analysis, speaks volumes as to his military
deficiencies, especially when compared to the superior military capabilities
of Great Britain's Montgomery, or America's Patton, Marshall andMacArthur.
-
- And since I was only three when Patton died overseas,
my father made sure that the next outstanding American General that had
been thwarted by our communist-supporting civilian leaders would be seen
and heard by me real time. After President Truman fired MacArthur in 1951,
my father took me toManhattan [New York City] and we stood with the multitudes
that honored that great General of the Army, Douglas MacArthur, who appeared
at the podium and addressed the crowd.
-
- As was the case with Patton, MacArthur realized the horrific
threat to human freedom and existence that the scourge of communism represented.
After Truman and MacArthur met at Wake Island in 1950, there seemed to
be a parting of the ways between the civilian leadership of Truman and
that of yet another of America's greatest generals. Just as was the case
with Patton, suddenly another coddling of communism was made evident when
MacArthurwanted to pursue communist forces and North Korean troops al the
way into Communist China after MacArthur's great success at Inchon. It
was even suggested that MacArthur might have supported using the atomic
bomb on the Chinese.
-
- Indeed, Truman hinted that part of the reason for MacArthur's
termination was precisely because of MacArthur's suggestion involving nuclear
weapons. How unbelievably hypocritical! Wasn't it Truman that launched
the nuclear era by unnecessarily, and for reasons obviously racist, bombing
the Japanese civilian populations at Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Yet, when
MacArthur only suggested nuclear weapons as a possible strategy amongst
obviously others, Truman suddenly got religion and became overly conscience
of the great and unnecessary human suffering caused by their use. Why
hadn't such morality on Truman's part revealed itself earlier when so many
lives could have been spared?
-
- It would seem that Patton was thwarted in order to protect
the new communist state on its western flank, and MacArthur was thwarted
to ensure the safety of communism on its eastern flank. The enforcers
and insurers of this communist protectionism were none other than our civilian
leaders supporting political philosophies foreign to our own interests.
Their daunting and constitutionally backed power gave them superior rank,
which they obviously enjoyed lording over our more astute and competent
military leaders. But it would seem that these military leaders also had
it all over our suit-and-tie generals in the very areas where the latter's
expertise in statesmanship and diplomacy should have been far superior.
-
- On CBS' "60 Minutes" back on May 21, 2004,
in a segment entitled, "Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up!'" the
text is preserved on CBS' website and begins: "Retired General Anthony
Zinni is one of the most respected and outspoken military leaders of the
past two decades. From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the
United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the
Middle East. That was the same job held by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf before
him, and Gen. Tommy Franks after."
-
- The article continues: "Following his retirement
from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration thought so highly of Zinni
that it appointed him to one of its highest diplomatic posts -- special
envoy to the Middle East." Can't you already just see where this
is going? Here we have an undisputed high-ranking military leader, a four-star
from the United States Marine Corps. Even the low brows of the Bush regime
recognized his astonishing credentials. Then: "ButZinni broke ranks
with the administration over the war in Iraq, and now, in his harshest
criticism yet, he says senior officials at the Pentagon are guilty of dereliction
of duty -- and that the time has come for heads to roll." Doesn't
this kinda remind you of Patton and MacArthur?
-
- Correspondent Steve Kroft interviewed General Zinni,
the latter stating: "'There has been poor strategic thinking in this,'
says Zinni. 'There has been poor operational planning and execution on
the ground. And to think that we are going to 'stay the course,' the course
is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little
bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course.
Because it's been a failure.'"
-
- How's that for candor? How's that for honesty? And
this was back in 2004! And think of the warnings of former United States
Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki when he warned that hundreds of thousands
of troops would be required to deal with the aftermath of the invasion
of Iraq. Here's a view of the civilian control that former Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld exercised over an outstanding and competent officer,
former four-star General Eric Shinseki, as provided by the Wikipedia website:
"The personality clash between Shinseki and Rumsfeld was well known.
Shinseki had a reputation as a quiet, reserved officer, while Rumsfeld
had a history of his tough questioning and 'wire-brushing' senior officers.
(Esquire contributing editor Thomas Barnett describes wire-brushing as:
chewing [officers] out, typically in a public way that's demeaning to their
stature. It's pinning their ears back, throwing out question after question
you know they can't answer correctly and then attacking every single syllable
they toss up from their defensive crouch.) Shinseki and other army officers
resented Rumsfeld's rough treatment of officers, while Rumsfeld and his
aides felt the military had to be challenged vigorously in order for the
civilians to exercise effective control of the department and steer it
in the right direction."
-
-
- Well how now as to the "right direction?"
Just consider the unbelievable mess civilian leadership has gotten US into
in Iraq. Just as there was once a time when American presidents would
request permission from Congress and request its members to declare war,
there was also a time in these here United States when the civilian leadership
would delegate both military strategy and supportive tactics to the trained
leaders of our superior military. Think of Rumsfeld's personal vendetta
against the Iraqi town of Fallujah and the directed slaughter of about
100,000 Iraqis for the "murders" of four $1000-a-day government-contracted
mercenaries. This can clearly be classified as a tactic, and also as a
war crime! Suspending the Geneva Conventions does not erase the crime.
I doubt that any responsible and high-ranking American military professional
would ever stoop this low.
-
- America has been disgraced by its civilian leaders who
do not even remotely represent the will of the American people. We as
a people have been disgraced. And the duty, honor, and service to
country that has always distinguished our military from all others in the
world, has been betrayed and disgraced by the very civilian leadership
once thought to guarantee and protect its honor best.
-
- © THEODORE E. LANG 3/15/07 All rights reserved
-
-
- Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.
|
