Bill Smith

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Before proceeding it is only right to say that as a 22 year veteran, I am by nature a "hawk" and support all efforts to stop the enemies of America. However, I already saw one war - the Vietnam War - mired down by bureaucracy and lack of direction. [For those who prefer using the term "Vietnam Conflict," tell it to the American families, friends of the veterans who served and lost 58,159 comrades in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia plus all those who died from war related issues after that "conflict."]

Most career military have served under Presidents with whom we did not politically agree. Some Presidents were more competent than others. Most Presidents and Defense Secretaries who had not served in the military have made decision or failed to make decisions that resulted in the wasting of military resources and lives. Although not always understood by the general population, military leaders clearly understand that the military is both a tool in defending America including America's economic interests and a tool of diplomacy. However, when a president lacks declared interest or focus during a time of war - or major deployments with people at risk, military casualties increase and troop morale suffers and leads to more losses.

The Times Online is reporting a story about "American troops in Afghanistan losing heart." It is like "deja view" - a scene from the past when leadership and adequate direction was not shown by prior Commander-in-Chiefs and Secretaries of Defense. A few excerpts from the article:

American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban [sic, Taliban]. Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, . . . “They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” . . . “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The soldiers are, by nature and training, upbeat, driven by a strong sense of duty, and they do their jobs as best they can . . . admitted that their morale had slumped.

“We’re lost — that’s how I feel. I’m not exactly sure why we’re here,” . . . “I need a clear-cut purpose if I’m going to get hurt out here or if I’m going to die.” . . . Asked if the mission was worthwhile, . . . “If I knew exactly what the mission was, probably so, but I don’t.” The only soldiers who thought it was going well “work in an office, not on the ground”. In his opinion “the whole country is going to s***”.

The battalion’s 1,500 soldiers are nine months in to a year-long deployment that has proved extraordinarily tough. Their goal was to secure the mountainous Wardak province and then to win the people’s allegiance through development and good governance. They have, instead, found themselves locked in an increasingly vicious battle with the Taleban [sic, Taliban].

They have been targeted by at least 300 roadside bombs, about 180 of which have exploded. Nineteen men have been killed in action, with another committing suicide. About a hundred have been flown home with amputations, severe burns and other injuries likely to cause permanent disability, and many of those have not been replaced. More than two dozen mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs) have been knocked out of action.

Living conditions are good — abundant food, air-conditioned tents, hot water, free internet - but most of the men are on their second, third or fourth tours of Afghanistan and Iraq, with barely a year between each. . . . The men are frustrated by the lack of obvious purpose or progress. “The soldiers’ biggest question is: what can we do to make this war stop. Catch one person? Assault one objective? Soldiers want definite answers, other than to stop the Taleban [sic, Taliban], because that almost seems impossible. It’s hard to catch someone you can’t see,” . . .

“It’s a very frustrating mission,” . . . “The average soldier sees a friend blown up and his instinct is to retaliate or believe it’s for something [worthwhile], but it’s not like other wars where your buddy died but they took the hill. There’s no tangible reward for the sacrifice. It’s hard to say Wardak is better than when we got here.” "We want to believe in a cause but we don’t know what that cause is.” . . . The soldiers complain that rules of engagement designed to minimize civilian casualties mean that they fight with one arm tied behind their backs. . . “You get shot at but can do nothing about it. You have to see the person with the weapon. It’s not enough to know which house the shooting’s coming from.” . . .

The constant deployments are, meanwhile, playing havoc with the soldiers’ private lives. “They’re killing families,”. . . “Divorces are skyrocketing. PTSD is off the scale. There have been hundreds of injuries that send soldiers home and affect families for the rest of their lives.” The chaplains said that many soldiers had lost their desire to help Afghanistan. “All they want to do is make it home alive and go back to their wives and children and visit the families who have lost husbands and fathers over here. It comes down to just surviving,” . . . “If we make it back with ten toes and ten fingers the mission is successful,” . . . “You carry on for the guys to your left or right,” . . .

Lieutenant-Colonel Kimo Gallahue, 2-87’s commanding officer, denied that his men were and insisted they had achieved a great deal over the past nine months. A triathlete and former rugby player, he admitted pushing his men hard, but argued that taking the fight to the enemy was the best form of defense. . . . Above all, Colonel Gallahue argued that counter-insurgency — winning the allegiance of the indigenous population through security, development and good governance — was a long and laborious process that could not be completed in a year. “These 12 months have been, for me, laying the groundwork for future success,” he said. . . .

These reported comments depict more than just complaints by G.I.s. They are a clear signs of bigger issues both at the DOD, in the force structure and support of today's military, and with the direction of the war as defined by the President of the United States. As for the field commander on the record comments about his belief in the mission, this was expected but it is not a measurement of success. However, while failing morale and expressions like "you carry on for the guys to your left or right" are both true and admirable, they are also a definite indicator of failed purpose and direction.

As heads up, the following comments are directed to what appears to be an often AWOL (absent without leave) Commander-in-Chief: Mr. Obama, you choose to run for President of the United States. And, the American people elected you to be president. Most Americans know that a "chief" responsibility of the president is being Commander-in-chief of the military. It is not being the commander of the American people. While you have "fiddle around" tripping off to other countries expressing your regrets about the United States or to another location to promote or sign a bill that could have been done efficiently right in the Oval office; while you wasted time trying to recruit the Olympics or taking time for another sports event or White House party; while you expend a disproportionate amount of your time on agendas which have or will send the United States further into debt and on efforts to reshape the social fabric of America, you are not focused on your primary responsibility of being Commander-in-Chief.

American military are dying or at risk because of your lack of leadership. Members of the military understand sacrifice and giving their lives for a greater cause. However, they do not understand dying without purpose or a clear objective. Often they die for their comrades but they do not wish to die for absentee leadership or an undefined mission.

Mr. President, above all else, (except possibly for those who feel they must engender themselves to you for their jobs and their agendas or who happen to hate America) people on both sides of domestic issues expect you to complete your primary duties as president. The United States of America has men and women in harms-way risking America's chief treasure - American blood. For "Pete's sake" - Wake-up! You are the Commander-in-Chief! It cannot be delegated; nor should it continue to be ignored! It is a lonely sacred responsibility. Mr. President, no matter how important you believe your other agendas to be, you must focus on your primary responsibility as Commander-in-Chief!

by Bill Smith, ARRA News Service: While I wouldn't trust the leftist biased DailyKos polling numbers, I found it interesting that they polled Arkansas on the following Question: Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America or not?
      Yes    No    Not Sure
All   63     17     20
Dem   84      8     8
Rep   33     29     38
Ind   68     16     16

DailyKos added their opinion that "Two-thirds of Arkansas Republicans are deluded conspiracy theorists." Their polling numbers identify that 37% of those polled said no or not sure regarding Obama being born in the United States of America.

As with many polls, the DailyKos sought to highlight what we all already know. While it was interesting to poll what "what one believes." that is not the important issue. The important issue is "Was Barack Obama born in the United States of America?" A president should not leave 37% of those polled in doubt. Omitting even those classified as "birthers," a properly designed detailed polling question would yield a significantly higher percent for those in doubt of his citizenship. For example, the following question would yield a different results: "President Barack Obama has never allowed public access to his birth certificate by even the press and election officials to validate that he was a natural born American Citizen (born in Hawaii verses a foreign country or territory). This situation has caused some people to be concerned about Mr. Obama meeting the requirement of being a natural born citizen to be qualified to be the President of the United States as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. This issue has not been an unresolved issue previously in U.S. history. Note: that all citizens of the United States are required from time to time to provide their birth certificate to meet legal requirements or to obtain benefits and services. Do you believe that Barack Obama should make his birth certificate public to alleviate the unanswered question concerning his meeting the requirement of the U.S. Constitution and thereby allow the citizens of the United States of America to resolve this issue for all time?"

Like other citizens, I have been required to present my birth certificate on numerous occasions. For example, to be sworn in as a commissioned "regular" military officer, I had to provide my birth certificate to prove that I was born in the United States of America. To receive a Top Secret clearance, the U.S. Government investigated to see if I was born in the United States of America. For one of my sons to be validated as a natural-born American, both my wife and I had to provide proof to the State Department overseas and before a Federal Judge in the United States that we were both born in the United States of America. To get my previous diplomatic passport, I had to provide my birth certificate. And there are other situations for which I had to prove that I was born in the United States of America! They same is true for all other U.S. citizens.

While I am not part of or pursuing the interests of the "birther movement," both as a citizen and commissioned military officer, I expect President Obama to do no less than I have done. Mr. Obama is not a potentate but a citizen servant. I would expect him to resolve this issue by demonstrating leadership and by presenting any and all documentation to remove all doubt by citizens of the United States as to his being a natural-born citizen of the united States.

Like many others, I am disappointed that the traditional media failed to do their job and to address this issue prior to the primary so that this issue would not be an issue. They clearly showed a bias unequaled in history and their failure to do so will be judged by history. It has been almost nine months since Barack Obama took the following oath of office to be President of the United States:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He previously, took the following oath as Senator:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

By the taking both of these oaths, President Barack Obama has a responsibility to resolve this issue by laying before American citizens his birth certificate and by allowing the press public access to his original birth certificate. This issue will never be hidden in history by the things which Mr. Obama hopes to achieve as President or even by the things he does later in life. If not resolved, Mr. Obama will go down in history as the "Unnatural President" and his actions and his programs will be tainted in history. This can be easily resolved by Mr. Obama presenting his birth certificate as other Americans have done on numerous occasions.

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: The Cato Institute has been following the Citizens United v. FEC case, in which the Supreme Court is set to rule on whether an organization can use speech about a political candidate in the days leading up to an election. The Federal Election Commission banned Citizen United from showing a film against Hillary Clinton on a pay-per-view basis shortly before the last year’s election.

The so-called Citizens United case offers the Supreme Court a chance to severely curtail the free speech abuses of the Federal Election Commission. If the government can ban broadcasts under federal law, that else can they ban? Books? Commercials? In the following CATO video, campaign finance law and free speech experts discuss the case, and what it means for the future of free speech. The Supreme Court is set to rule on it in the next few weeks. John Samples, Director of the Cato Institute's Center for Representative Government, Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Steve Simpson and George Mason University law professor Allison Hayward weigh in.

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: A source at the Americans for Limited Government in Washington D.C. called my attention to a dangerous piece of legislation that is working its way to the floor of the House of Representatives. This bill would restrict your rights as never before. Simply put, this would legislate that the Government could take an industry and slaughter it! And that is the least of the powers that they will gain if this is allowed to pass.

Left wing extremist, Henry Waxman and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce is set to vote on legislation that would place tobacco products under the authority of the FDA. The bill could be on the President's desk as soon as this Summer. While I am not a smoker nor do I even support smoking in general, one does not have to agree with smoking to see that this bill only serves to further centralize government authority over our daily lives. Through classifying tobacco as a drug under the authority of the FDA, the Government then can force people to do as they say, and as a result, put thousands of people out of work and block new proven smokeless products from entering the market.

Instead of helping to fix the problem, the government will use force and coercion to influence the change that they want. They are gaining power to influence your daily life, and do not think for one second that they will not exploit this for their own benefit. Although the ears of the Arkansas and other Blue Dogs democrats appear to have been clipped by Speaker Peloisi, if they don't stand up soon for against the continued onslaught of centralized government authority, they will become totally co-opted by Pelois' liberal cronies. As for Arkansas Vic Snyder, no need seek help since he represents the liberal extreme interests. And as much as I would like to ask "former" blue dog Marion Berry, he appears to be out for nap most of the time.

But I am going to plead with the one able minded Arkansas Blue Dog congressman who in the past has taken stands for his Arkansas constituents. That Congressman is Representative Mike Ross of Arkansas' 4th Congressional District. So here goes: Congressman Ross, please do not support legislation that would restrict liberty and freedom. As long as people are not restricting the liberties of their neighbor, there exists no need to punish them. It is not the job of the Government to tell people how to live their lives, rather, it is the job of the government to defend us from those who would restrict liberty. Congressman Ross protect our liberty and freedom. We are all watching and hoping! Join me and Contact your representatives!

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Over the past year, while participating in several national conservative events and serving as the national political director of Conservative Solutions ("Let's Get This Right") in the support of the republican presidential campaign and 23 races for Congress, I met many committed young conservatives working and supporting the Republican Party. In their exuberance and excellent online efforts, they have invested themselves in Rebuilding the Party. They also wish to see a change in the leadership of the GOP. However, even if they are correct that the Republican National Committee (RNC) needs new leadership, it will be the delegates ("old timers") who will decide the fate of the Republican Party.

As detailed in prior articles, the Republican Party needs a person who is able and willing to be the conservative spokesman for the values and principles of the Republican Party. The Party does not need a leader who bends to pressure from incumbent elected republicans. If we stopped and asked people on the street "who is the Chairman of the Republican Party," very few people, even republicans, could answer the question. However, if we asked"who was the Chairman of the Democratic Party" more people could have answered the question. Why? Because the democratic chairman was more visible and outspoken than Republican Chairman Mike Duncan.

This year, let's hope that the RNC delegates will look seriously at the other exceptional candidates for chairmanship of the RNC. We need a person who 1) is a skilled spokesperson capable of challenging the democrat incumbents and their positions and espousing conservative principles, 2) understands web 2.0, social networks, working with the new media (bloggers, vbloggers, et ál) and the power of an independent free market Internet and does not try to controll all communication solely through the RNC website, 3) is visible and inspiring thus able to recruit others to join and work with the party, and 4) is honest and open in calling out Republicans when they fail to live up to written Republican Party principles and the Party's platform.

Today's 16 year-olds will vote in 2 years and the 14 year-olds will vote along with their older peers in the next presidential elections. These young conservative voters are active in the new media and social networking. The number of young voters either lost or gained to the GOP will be influenced by the person chosen to be the new RNC Chair. While having willingly supported the current chair, I also agree with a majority of conservatives that it is time for a change in the leadership of the RNC.

 However, CNN reports:

For the third straight day this week, incumbent chairman Mike Duncan picked up backing from the party membership, earning the support of Arkansas committee members Jim Burnett and Reta Hamilton. In a letter to party members, Burnett insisted that Duncan not be blamed for the party’s electoral drubbing in November. Instead, he wrote, Duncan managed to raise a record amount of money and compile a substantial e-mail list in the face of a Democratic headwind. Meanwhile, Michigan GOP chairman Saul Anuzis scored the support of Rhode Island GOP chair Giovanni D. Cicione, who published a letter on Anuzis’ blog praising the Michigander’s energy and commitment to technological innovation. Duncan leads his opponents with 22 public endorsements, followed by Anuzis, who has 13. South Carolina GOP chairman Katon Dawson and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell each have 12 endorsements. Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele has nine pledged votes, and former Mike Huckabee campaign manager Chip Saltsman has none.

The Tolbert Report identified:

Raising money and compiling email lists are certainly important; however, many younger members of the party are looking to candidates such as Chip Saltsman, Ken Blackwell, Michael Steele, or Saul Anuzis to bring a fresh focus to the party, one that welcomes new members and embraces new technology (two areas where the party did not do well in 2008.) But with few Young Republicans represented on the RNC, there may be little chance of having this concerns considered. As of this posting, Chairman Doyle Webb (the only other Arkansans having a vote on the RNC) has not yet committed to any one candidate. By all reports, the race is still wide open with the vote to take place on January 28. The question remains will the members of the Committee stick with Duncan out of loyalty to him or will they listen to many party members who are looking for a change.

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: With the presidential election upon us, many people are also focused on the economy. However, we know from history that we will be able to correct our economic problem even if it takes longer than our American tendency to want instant solutions for everything. However, because of the economic crisis, many voters are ignoring the most significant issue that our next president is directly responsible to address. That issue is the very real global threat to America's very survival. Since confronting this threat every day is not part of our personal daily routine and responsibilities (until it is too late), we tend to be myopic and look at the "me things."

If inexperienced or burdened down with domestic and economic cares, voters may not comprehend or may even forget the bigger picture -- surviving the very "real" foreign enemies that literally hate our culture, democracy, traditions, freedoms, religions, materialism, and way of living. In fact, they hate us (i.e., you). In our daily bickering over small things, we tend to ignore the big dangers because we can we do nothing about them individually.

To put "just one" of the threats into perspective, consider an article in the October issue of Imprimis published by Hillsdale College that addresses Iran. The article was adapted from a speech by Michael Ledeen. Michael Ledeen is the Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a contributing editor at National Review Online. Previously, he served in the White House as a national security advisor and in the Departments of Defense and State. He is author of more than 20 books, including The Iranian Time Bomb. His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the American Spectator, International Economy, Commentary, and the Washington Times.

The article is too long to quote here so I encourage you to visit and the read the article online. However, below are Lendeen's closing words which highlight just one of the many countries whose government leaders hate America and who wish our demise as the principle leader of the 'free world":

"The bottom line is that Iran is our principal enemy in the Middle East, and perhaps in the entire world. It is also a terribly vulnerable regime, and it knows that—which is why it makes up stories about airplanes and missiles that it doesn’t have. As for the question of nuclear weapons, it seems hard to imagine that Iran does not already have them. Iranians are not stupid, and they have been at this for a minimum of 20 years in a world where almost every major component needed for a nuclear weapon—not to mention old nuclear weapons—are for sale. A lot of these components are for sale nearby in Pakistan. And if the Iranians do have a weapon, it is impossible to imagine that, at a moment of crisis, they will not use it. The point is, we have an implacable enemy which has no intention of negotiating a settlement with us. They want us dead or dominated, just as our enemies did in the 1930s and ’40s. You can’t make deals with a regime like that.

Our choices with regard to Iran are to challenge them directly and win this war now, to do so only after they kill a lot more of us in some kind of attack, or to surrender. There is no painless way out, and the longer we wait, the greater the pain is going to be."

So, who is best to challenge Iran and other enemies of our Nation - Obama or McCain? The most critical and therefore, important issue is not "change" but survival -- how will America continue to physically exist as a country and a democracy with guaranteed individual freedoms and rights. Who will be the best president to protect us from our foreign enemies (even while we continue our internal domestic bickering over almost everything)?

Do we pick Obama - a younger inexperienced (i.e., non-experienced) smooth talking candidate who is an anti-traditional family values advocate and unfortunately already has a past full of bad choices and savory associations? Following the mantra of "Change" is not the answer because the issue is then "change from what and to what" and importantly, the consequences of the "change." Change can mean a lot of things. We have recently experienced a lot of negative economic change which can be directly associated with Obama's associates in and out of Congress. And how can a person who voted "present" verses "yes or no" on a majority of his votes in the Illinois and US Senates be prepared to address the most important issues of our time? Voting present is not good enough when dealing with threats to America. Obama promises talk and compromise and appears willing to concede ground to our enemies (i.e., using an appeasement approach).

Or, do we pick McCain -- an older but scarred and proven warrior who is the straight talking man who is called a maverick for taking consistent stands and speaking the truth even within his own party? An experienced candidate who understands the threats to our country from outside our borders. A man who served his country in war and understands the pain and suffering. A man who while addressing the enemy understands compassion and forgiveness towards those who even tortured him. McCain is willing and able to clearly detail to our enemies (those who wish us harm and / or even destroy us) the limits of our tolerance and a clear understanding of the consequences for pursuing further aggressive acts, actions that threaten America.

The American people have voiced poll after poll their continued negative opinion of the present Congress lead by Democrats and have given the Democrat leadership the lowest ratings in history. It is from this pool of Democrats that a junior inexperienced member has come forth to be their candidate for president. Not a person who stood on principles against his own failing political party leadership but instead pandered for items he wished and voted absent or present on the other issues. If Obama were to become president, he will be again supporting these same failing "tax and spend" liberal leaders: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. And then who will save us from our enemies?

Bill Smith, Editor: Like most Americans, I identify with Joe the Plumber who wants to work, invest, own and seek the American dream of being successful. But, we are faced with a government that wants to tax our success for working hard to support others who have settled for less - government handouts - and thus live off the labors of "us." I'm not talking about those who can't work or are temporarily down on their luck through no fault of their own. But I am tired of government people, like Sen. Barack Obama, who want to to take my money and then redistribute (give) my money to those who can work to provide for themselves and those under their care. I especially don't like their giving my money to those who made past mistakes, made poor decisions or are just plain are lazy and now want to avoid the consequences of their actions, laziness, mistakes or poor decisions. Also, have you noted that while taxing "us" for working, the government keeps their "operational cut" which tends to grow over time. I join Joe the Plumber is saying Don't tax me for working hard or for having worked hard to save for my family's future!

Bill Smith, Editor, ARRA News: I received these first words from a reader and wondered how I could use them. Well this weekend's news provided the opportunity.

"Something to think about. Just a few points to ponder. Anyone who's gone through the Security Clearance procedures in the Military" (even Gen. Colin Powell), FBI, CIA, Secret Service or other agency requiring securing, processing and handing of classified information and documents "can verify that this is a valid point to ponder: If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, he would be disqualified because of his past association with William Ayers, a known terrorist. If he is elected President he would not qualify to be his own body guard!"

Kind of makes you wonder where General / Former Sec. of State Colin Powell's head was at when he endorsed Obama. Powell didn't resign his commission and therefore he is still responsible to his oath of office. Upon what valid basis did he support a person for Commander-in-Chief who may well have been disqualified for military service, etc. A man who used hard drugs which would not be waived for a commission as an officer. A man who has been associated in his past and present life with a former anarchist, shady Chicago back room deals, a black supremacist pastor, a communist mentor, and close family (blood) relatives and foreign leaders in an African country with ties to radicals and terrorists. It is beyond reasonable belief that one of our former popular Generals who served as a Republican leader and was sought by his party to consider running for president would now endorse Obama.

Obama's stated beliefs and principles are so diametrically different from those previously espoused by Powell. Also, Obama's actions and associations would not have been "becoming for a junior officer" under Powell's command. As a retired officer, I am still reeling from the above thoughts. Surely race could not have been a factor in Powell's decision. And yet, Powell related in his public endorsement that 'the prospect of Obama becoming the first African American president would 'electrify the world.'" More disturbing is the fact that Powell "expressed disappointment" of McCain's selection of a woman - Gov. Sarah Palin - to be his vice presidential running mate. In 2000, Powell campaigned for John McCain for President and may very well feel betrayed for not being selected for the VP nomination. One wonders at this late endorsement about Powell's feelings on a woman being selected over either Powell or another a person Powell would have approved of as VP. Powell calls Biden a good choice, when Biden and Powell were seldom on the same page on core issues or values.

Powell became a 4-star General, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, national Security advisor and Secretary of State under Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W, Bush. Now this singular decision made by Powell to publicly influence voters for Obama over McCain, a fellow military man who "really served" his country, is almost too much to take-in. And the alleged reason for Powell's endorsement - McCain selected a woman for VP and Obama as a black president may electrify the world. Powell's decision left many feeling like the people must have felt when their "Knight" lost their "shining armour."

Yes, Powell has the right to vote and support whoever he wishes but now he joins the ranks of people like Wesley Clark, as empty suits seeking another moment of fame. My suggestion to all is "THINK, Before YOU VOTE!" The choice: Obama the young smooth talking inexperienced socialist who is also an anti-traditional family values advocate or McCain the older but scarred proven warrior who is the straight talking man who is a maverick by speaking the truth even within his own party. A maverick who chose a person - yes a woman - outside of Washington politics to help him stand firm for the American people against the onslaught of a Democrat controlled Senate and House led by an inept Harry Reid and the "beyond the pale" Nancy Pelosi. Again, "THINK -- THINK, Before YOU VOTE!"

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Why are the liberal media and Obama supporters promoting racism? If I said whites are voting only white, I would be using race to influence the election and could well be called a racist. The liberal news media and supporters of Obama’s campaign have repeatedly reported that black Americans will be voting for Barack Obama. They continue to say this because Barack Obama is black. This is classic racism!

In the United States, we have a problem of labeling of our fellow citizens. The government has aggravated this problem by creating reporting classifications. It is understandable that a person may seek out their genetic cultural ancestry / heritage. Barack Obama may have more right under our present classification system to call himself African American since his father was actually from Africa. But if born in the Unites States, what does this have to do with running for office? Calling someone African American is somewhat confusing in that a native born American descendant of someone from Morocco or South Africa could rightly be called African American even if white or black.

Years ago while stationed in Belgium, I attended an international church which had members from 22 countries (nations), 11 of which were African countries. One of my American military co-workers was a fellow member in the church. He said that several church members from the African countries had told him to stop calling himself an African American. They told him that he was not African and should feel blessed to be an American. What an eye opener and an opportunity for us to discuss at length the complex labeling system that we have in the United States. What was even more interesting is that these African brothers said if we were going to hyphenate our heritage, we should call ourselves US-Americans. None of the members from African countries called themselves African. Yes, they obviously knew that their countries were on the continent of Africa. Each of them identified themselves with their specific country and often with their local tribal or people group. Regardless of our countries of origin, we found a solid foundation upon which to build friendships and relationships.

Back to the subject of the biased liberal news media which appears to constantly promote racial bias for or against a candidate. Obviously, the media could “not” get away with saying all Iowans are voting for a specific candidate. However, they have no problem stating that almost all blacks are voting for Barack Obama. What they really are presumptuously saying is that blacks will be voting for Obama because he is black! Hogwash!

Some of the most ardent conservatives I know are black. I can assure you they will not be voting or supporting Barack Obama. Does the media believe that Thomas Sowell, Dr. Walter E. Williams, Ken Blackwell, Erik Rush, Larry Elder, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Michael Steele, Gen. Colin Powell, Star Parker, Alveda King, Michael L. Williams, Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Alan Keyes, the black members of conservative think-tanks and conservative political groups, the elected black Republicans, and a multitude of black evangelical pastors and all the people they reach and influence regardless of skin pigmentation will be voting for Obama? To the liberal media, only their biases matter and they believe blacks should vote for a black. It makes me wonder where the liberal media acquired its Southern plantation mentality. By their actions and statements, the liberal elites appear to be people that would be fine measuring the shapes of people’s heads and claiming that only their criteria results in an acceptable outcome. I believe the world has seen this failed approach before.

The biased liberal media hopes that the voting public doesn’t notice that it should be character, past performance, beliefs and ideals that should be considered. The liberal media uses its position to "bully" people to vote the way that they the liberals wishes for them to vote. The liberal media is not reporting but is actively endorsing and promoting a candidate for the president of the Unites States. Why? Good Question! The programs of socialism being pushed include the redistribution of wealth, limiting free speech, controlling banking, business, employment, housing, medical, retirement, etc. All of these lead to a socialist “womb to tomb” control with no one having the individual right to be oneself and to control one’s own destiny. We all become enslaved to those controlling the socialist structure. Man’s free choice dies and with it the real hope of mankind.

Below are interesting posts written by fellow conservatives and recommended by a fellow conservative Frances Rice, Chair, National Black Republican Association:
Lewis, A Lazy Media, And Their Race Cards by Bob Parks
WSJ - Whitewash - The racist history the Democratic Party wants you to forget by Bruce Bartlett
WSJ - The Democrats' Missing History By Jeffery Lord
Democrats refuse to apologize to blacks By Frances Rice
Will Republicans Wimp Out On Race? By Clarence V. McKee

Dr. Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Is the doctrine of Posse Comitatus coming to an end? The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 and has been an important law. Wikipedia reflects:

"The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services ... from exercising nominally state law enforcement police or peace officer powers that maintain 'law and order' on non-federal property. . . . The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. . . . The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement."

Gina Cavallaro at the Army Times announced reports: 3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army.

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys. Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home. Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or man made emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas. But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities. . . .

“Right now, the response force requirement will be an enduring mission. How the [Defense Department] chooses to source that and whether or not they continue to assign them to NorthCom, that could change in the future,” said Army Col. Louis Vogler, chief of NorthCom future operations. “Now, the plan is to assign a force every year.” . . . they’ll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it. They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack. . . .

Obviously, we would appreciate the military's assistance if we had a massive terrorist attack in the United States; especially with the taking out the "bad guys."  But do we want the military doing police actions related to routine national, regional or even local "civil unrest and crowd control"? When did the transfer of authority occur which granted military control within the the borders of the Unites States? Before proceeding, let me note that military officers take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. In the study of military doctrine and history, military officers confront the theory and past applications as to the extent military officers and the people under their command may be or have been called upon to intervene in domestic affairs. However, Posse Comitatus has provided a clear line in the sand.

Presidents have used the military to enforce their will within the United States. For example George Washington, our first president, used his authority as commander-in-chief in 1794 to call out the militia to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion. President Andrew Jackson ignored the 1832 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and forced removal of Native Americans from East of the Mississippi which lead to the infamous Trail of Tears. In 1878, after the bitterness of the Civil War and the quartering of Union troops in the South, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act. However, Presidents continued to use the military and the National Guard to enforce their will on the citizens of the Unites States.

One of the worst examples of the use of the military was in the summer of 1932 against 43,000 fellow military veterans, their families and affiliated groups who had assembled in Washington D.C. in what became known as the famous Bonus March. Skipping the merits of the Bonus Army and moving to the conclusion, we find President Herbert Hoover using the military led by General Douglas MacArthur to suppress and disburse fellow veterans. By the time the events ended, hundreds of veterans were injured and several were killed. In this situation, "The Posse Comitatus Act — forbidding civilian police work by the U.S. military — did not legally because Washington, D.C. is a federal district directly governed by the U.S. Congress (U.S. Constitution, Article I. Section 8. Clause 17)."

In 2005, we saw National Guard assist in the aftermath of Katrina in Louisiana and Mississippi. However, the National Guard and the New Orleans police overstepped their legal authority, per the U.S. District Court, and illegally confiscated the personal firearms of vulnerable civilians after the hurricane's devastation left property and lives subject to looters and other criminals. Have we and our leaders accepted that Constitutional Rights granted by the US constitution are sacrosanct?

Apparently not! Currently, individual rights may be more at risk as we address the potential of terrorist threats against the United States. The effects of the infamous terrorists attacks on 9-11 continue to ripple through our country. For example, in 2006, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 passed and was signed into law. The Act included a section titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies." This section provided that "The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines...." However, in 2008, Congress while passing the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, restored the restrictions of Posse Comitatus. President George Bush signed the Act into law but he also attached an Executive Order identifying that the Executive Branch does not feel bound by the changes enacted by the repeal of the use of armed forces to restore public order in the United States. As previously presidents have done, Bush signaled that he does do not feel bound by Posse Comitatus.

We are now brought full circle to the announcement of the assignment of an Army brigade as well as other service units to enforce the will of the President and or the Department of Defense with regard to homeland security. Even if military units are not used for several years to respond to domestic threats and are not used in any way for several years to restrict the rights of Americans, the result will still be the continued implied transference of authority as troops continue to be assigned to a domestic charter and the leaders of these units develop a comprehensive doctrine designed to cope with domestic situations. Historically, the year 2008 may become identified as the year that the doctrine of Posse Comitatus ceased to have authority.
---------------
William (Bill) Smith, Ph.D. is editor of the ARRA News Service and National Political Director of Let's Get This Right. He is a conservative political activists working for limited government, traditional family values, individual freedom and responsibility. He is a retired Air Force officer who served as Director of the $2 billion European F-16 co-production program. In his career, he also taught military political science and spent a 3 year tour with the U.S. Army. After retiring, he was a graduate professor and held varied administrative and faculty positions. He has authored professional journal articles on varied topics. He also blogs as Ozark Guru.