Our Military Being Pulled into A Political Tug of War

Members of the United States Military Paying Close Attention To a Speech Being Made. (Photo: Public Domain)

Members of the United States Military Paying Close Attention To a Speech Being Made.
(Photo: Public Domain)

August 3, 2016

By Lorra B.

The political presidential tug-of-war between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton has spilled over into the military arena and the results of that may have an impact on the military’s ability to serve under the future president of the United States and the way it is viewed by the American people.

Perhaps for all the wrong reasons, presidential politics have centered around military staff, veterans and their families.

Bill Rausch, executive director of Got Your Six’s advocacy group, stated, “Yes, we’re talking about military families and veterans on the campaign trail, and that’s normally a great thing. But we’re not talking about anything of substance. If we can’t talk about veterans’ health and…military transition issues, then this is a wasted opportunity.”

“Instead, campaign officials and many media outlets have highlighted the latest series of military-themed scandals surrounding Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump,” reports Military Times.

Because both Trump and Clinton have given prominent roles to retired military officers and critics believe the military’s position to serve the next president, regardless of party affiliation, is jeopardized.

According to The Hill, there are officers in the military, both past and present, that don’t like what they are seeing politically.

In a letter to the editor of the Washington Post, Retired Gen. Martin Dempsey, previous chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated, “The military is not a political prize. Politicians should take the advice of senior military leaders but keep them off the stage.”

Instead of keeping the military off of the political stage, media and campaign officials have placed them front and center in a series of scandals, most lately surrounding Trump.

Americans are bombarded with images of Trump having words with the father of an Iraqi fallen soldier and Obama saying he is unfit to serve because of a joke about a Purple Heart. And let’s not forget about the booing mother of a deployed airman at a Nevada rally.

 

These incidents all have one thing in common, to take the spotlight off of the real military issues being discussed by our presidential nominees.

Very little about our military and veteran reform strategies that have been proposed by either candidate have been discussed in the media. The strategies by both parties include overhauling veterans’ healthcare, defeating both terrorism and the Islamic State, and vowing for a stronger military.

Where is all the media coverage about our political parties plans? They are being upstaged by Democratic and Republican controversies.

This has a direct effect on our military and how American’s view them.

Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, stated that the next commander in chief needs to be confident that the military “is completely loyal and completely prepared to do what must be done.”

“Importantly, as an institution, the American people cannot be looking at us as a special-interest group or a partisan organization,” Dunford said.

American’s and politicians need to know that the military is politically color-blind, that they can unbiasedly carry out their missions. Americans also need to hear about the real issues plaguing our military and our veterans. Turning political conventions into military-themed scandals does nothing more than divert attention and up ratings.

Rausch stated that all the latest military attention isn’t really getting the important issues emphasized.

“In a vacuum, theses [conventions] have been good events to start the conversation,” he said. “But if starting to talk about military strategy and veterans issues was two steps forward, all of these controversies are at least one big step backwards.”

Related Video: 

By Lorra B.

 

YOUR GOVERNMENT IS LYING

d

January 29, 2015

A MONTPELIER VIEW: by

Government is not reason; it is not eloquence—it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment must we allow it irresponsible action.

dWhether President George Washington actually said this is a matter of some disagreement, but also, quite beside the point. Government is a fearful master; were this not so —and were this not the predominant opinion among our founding fathers, the structure of our government would be quite different.

I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

—Thomas Jefferson

Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency sent a memo throughout its numerous (and costly) departments imploring everyone to “build support for its agenda” by tying its regulatory agenda to the personal worries of most Americans [1]. Most people would call this sort of thing manipulative. Thinking people might wonder why manipulation is even necessary within an honest government, and one that is genuine in its effort to guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to its citizens. The memoranda reads, in part, “Unfortunately, climate change in the abstract is an increasingly —and consistently— unpersuasive argument to make.”

Indeed it is—and for a very good reason.

I believe mankind has a responsibility to care for our planet. I believe that planet earth is God’s own creation; we must care for it in the same way we care for our own offspring —and for the same reasons. Protecting earth and preserving our ecosystems is a worthy and necessary mission. There is one caveat, however: publicly funded scientists must communicate their findings honestly to the people who pay for them.

Among those of you who are capable of critical thinking, climate change is not the issue. It is the false claim that these changes are the proximate result of human activity. Here I should note that the American people might judge more seriously all such claims if the people making them were not jetting around in private gas-guzzling super-sonic luxury aircraft [2].

Muppet BeekerThose who make the alarmist claims, based entirely on junk-science, are also those who have a firm grasp on such programs asSustainability and the globalist Agenda 21. Read these with some attention, and note how in order to thoroughly implement such programs, it will be necessary to curtail certain human rights. With reflection back to the initial assertion, that government is force, a freedom loving person should have concerns about the leftist agenda.

What I expect from publicly funded scientific investigation is —well, real science. By this I mean the development of hypotheses based upon the scientific method of investigation. This is absent from the claims of alarmist environmentalists.

Do you agree? If the answer is yes, then you might want to query your senator about where he or she stands since the US Senate recently voted on this; a majority of Senators concluded that the claim is real [3]. For a list of nitwits siding with junk scientists, click here.

Notes:

[1] Michael Bastach, The Daily Caller: Exposed EPA Memo

[2] Kevin D. Williams, National Review Online: Davos’s Destructive Elites

[3] Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times: Climate Change is Real/Majority Senators Believe