IRS Fast-Tracks Questionable Foundation of Obama's Brother

There has been a lot of action lately on the various scandals du jour involving the Obama administration.  The latest shoe to drop shows what I expected from the administration targeting AP correspondents: that the administration did not limit itself just to the AP, but have been targeting Fox News as well.  I wouldn't be surprised if the target list expands still further.

 Jay Carney at press briefing.  The sign says it all.

The main movement of the administration is to ensure that everything stays right where it is.  After all, stonewalling has worked just fine in the cases of Fast & Furious and taxpayer-funded scams for green cronies like Solyndra, so that remains the reaction of choice.  As for their critics, the administration plays by the Alinsky playbook, most commonly the idea to "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it".  (Many people believe that this is the whole Alinsky strategy.  Actually, it is only one rule of twelve.)  Dan Pfeiffer makes the rounds to say that the question of the legality (much less the constitutionality) of the IRS over-reach is "irrelevant", and the accusations about Benghazi "offensive".  (Imagine how offended are the families of the victims.)

The IRS case involves high-level agency managers (again, you know that it couldn't have been a couple of low-level flunkies) targeting conservative  groups yet showing  favoritism toward liberal ones.  (Look for the name of Cindy Thomas to start showing up as we climb the chain of command.)  You likely will not be surprised (I wasn't) to learn that veterans are in their cross-hairs too.  A very illustrative example, which hasn't yet received the publicity that one would expect, involves the Barack H Obama Foundation (name ring a bell?).

This 'foundation' drew the suspicion of the National Legal and Policy Center, which first noticed that it was "promoting itself as a charity and seeking donations that it said would be tax-deductable, but it lacked the required tax-exempt status."  Once caught, the foundation quickly applied for the status and was approved within 34 days, far shorter that the average five or six months, and certainly shorter than the many months – or years – of investigations for conservative organizations, asking (as one example) for lists of donors, transcripts of speeches, copies of all newsletters, and how they prayed, among the 55 exhaustive questions required of them.

Not only did the foundation, named after the father of the President, receive an unusually rapid turn-around, its new status was backdated to December 2009, which covers the time period of the complaint of the NLPC, despite the fact that the foundation never requested it.

The purported foundation has Abon'go Malik Obama as its director.  Abon'go is a half-brother to Barack Obama by the senior Obama's first wife.  Barack's interlocutors have remained mum on the embarrassing connection, and apparently hope that it receives as little attention as the news concerning the President's aunt Zeituni and (separate) uncle Onyango, both of whom reside in the US illegally and have remained fraudulently, though both cases are now "under review".  Charles Dickens said "It is a melancholy truth that even great men have their poor relations", and the administration's actions (or lack thereof) give the impression that these are simply distant relations with whom the President has lost touch long ago.

In the case of Abon'go, though, the two of them were close enough that Abon'go served as best man at the marriage of Barack and Michelle.  For that matter, Barack served in the same capacity for Abon'go, though it is not clear which of the twelve wives of Abon'go this applies to.

 Abon'go and Barack, wedding picture

The foundation states that it has built a madrassa in Kenya (though that has recently been deleted from its internet site) but otherwise uses airy phrases about improving the "food, water, and shelter" in order to "elevate the human condition" and "dignity" in his local area.  No specifics are given.

This so-called charity lists two addresses, one of which turns out to be a post office box at a UPS location in Alexandria, Virginia.  The physical address in the IRS filing is occupied by a drug and alcohol recovery service, and has been for "a couple of years" according to its receptionist, which extends back to the date listed on the IRS filing of May 2011.  Nobody at that recovery service has ever heard of the Barack H Obama Foundation.

This is just one of the elements of the IRS investigation into its abuse of conservative groups, including handing over tax documents on the groups to "liberal news organizations".  Lois Lerner, the IRS official who rapidly signed off on the foundation's application and who is neither "good at math" nor answering questions from the press, is under increasingly scalding water of her own, so much so that the Washington Post Fact Checker stamped her with the Four Pinocchio grade of untruthfulness, though its headline says that she deserves a "bushel" of them.  Taking her cue, Lerner has now invoked the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination for her scheduled testimony before Congress.  This should prove to be about as productive as the testimony of the two previous IRS commissioners.

 IRS Commissioner Steve Miller in Congressional testimony (Do I look like I care?)

Have we finally arrived at the time where even the MSM is past the tipping point and actually begins to criticize Obama?  Diehards are still demanding that this series of offenses not be compared to Watergate, but that crisis took some time to get going too.

Umbrella-gate? Silly, But Some Thoughts on the Umbrella in Military History

No, seriously – why not?  Let's put this to rest and get back to some serious issues. 

Last Thursday's Rose Garden presser with Prime Minister Erdoğan of Turkey has become an issue because Obama, noting the beginning of some sprinkles, called hither a couple of Marines in ceremonial attendance to hold umbrellas over the heads of the Presidential Presence and the Prime Minister.  Some Conservatives are aghast but much of the bluster misses the mark.

The expression says it all ... both of them

A portion of the criticism falls on the idea that Obama violated the Marine Corps dress code, in that Marines do not carry umbrellas under any circumstance (Marine females, however, are allowed the option).  The hubbub amounts to a tempest in a thimble. 

I spent a good deal of time as a Marine and otherwise in joint and combined postings (before it was cool) and I was well aware of the uniform requirements and allowances in those situations.  For example, a Marine should always be 'uncovered' when indoors (civilianese: 'take off your hat') unless he is 'under arms', which means carrying a weapon (rifle, pistol, ceremonial sword – Marine swords are the oldest weapons in the US inventory – or even the fiction of a pistol belt because the Marine in question is on guard duty).  It is also a requirement that a Marine can salute only when covered.  Thus, using the transitive property of logic, Marines do not salute when reporting to a superior indoors.  The Army, however, does – that is their tradition. 

But lest we push the envelope of decorum too far, a Marine is expected to conform to the requirements of his host in a joint posting to avoid compromising situations that would result in confusion or embarrassment.  So for those times when I was the only Leatherneck amidst my cohort of Troopers, I would conform to their saluting norms.  It is the polite thing to do. 

So technically this whole Marine/Rose Garden/umbrella story is a wash, over and above the fact that Obama is the Commander-in-Chief and can tell any member of the Armed Forces what they can reasonably do with an umbrella. So can any President, and most of them have.  For example:

(Sense of Events)

An Air Force Lieutenant Colonel in lieu of a Marine Corporal – sounds about right. 

But for someone so exquisitely attuned to form over substance, the 'optics' of the situation were far off the mark.  It just looks bad, and it adds to the accumulated baggage of his previous arrogant remarks and l'etat c'est moi attitude: get some "folks to get a couple of Marines" who will "look good next to us".  Not even a rim-shot would save that feeble attempt at humor.

The focus is misplaced, and instead should be devoted to his next statement in response to the reporter's query that sought assurance that "nobody in the White House knew about the [IRS] agency's actions before your [White House] counsel's office found out on April 22nd, and when they did find out, do you think that you should have learned about it before you learned about it from news reports as you said last Friday?"  After expressing a need to "make sure that [he] answer a specific question", he instead says, "I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press."  Quite the Inartful Dodger.  [emphasis mine] 

So, my advice about Umbrella-gate?  Drop it, move on to the long list of real abuses like the IRS targeting conservatives and giving breaks to 'progressives' (which amounted to an impeachable offense for Nixon), investigating AP reporters and their contacts (reports are surfacing this morning about contacts drying up as a result of the chilling effect), and the black hole surrounding the deadly terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate just before the last election.  And that is just the recent ones – does anyone remember the swindle of GM stockholders in favor of the unions, the billions of taxpayer dollars given to the variety of 'green energy' cronies, or the Fast & Furious scandal, which to date have all been successfully stonewalled? 

But the story brought to mind that this constitutes a rare juxtaposition of the topic of umbrellas and the military.  There are only two such instances of which I am aware. 

First of all, the proscription of umbrellas from the military occurs because of the obvious insight that a warrior considers a bit of rain to be inconsequential to the questions of life and death, as well as the myriad other vital considerations, swirling about him.  Patrolling through enemy territory during a rain shower is simply a state of mind: ponchos are practically useless since you will be soaked within a few minutes anyway.  Focus should be on protecting your gear, not so much your skin, and your appearance is immaterial to your mission or each other.  Besides, in areas of forested or tropical growth, the sound of the rain helps mask the sound of your movement.

"Embrace the suck"

In garrison, there are overcoats and protective coverings for headgear, providing a means for staying relatively dry without resorting to such an apparently epicene measure. Oddly (or some would say 'appropriately'), the Air Force and now the Navy have approved the use of umbrellas in service dress uniform (civilianese: coat and tie, or office casual).  Surveys of Pentagon staff and those at large installations are typically taken because those in the field are … well, they're off in the field.  Thus burning questions on the topic of umbrella availability are heavily skewed in favor of those whose career is focused on remaining far from the pointy end of the spear.

Some garrison duty requires more stamina and commitment

By tradition, it is held that it was the Duke of Wellington who laid down the commandment that banned officers from carrying umbrellas in the field, during the Peninsular Campaign.  History does not record his opinion about its use by Lieutenant General Sir Thomas Picton, who arrived at Waterloo in such haste that he arrived in civilian clothes, complete with top hat, and led his division on the battlefield brandishing his umbrella like a saber until mortally wounded.

Sir Thomas Picton, Peninsular Campaign

The other such mention of a military umbrella comes in World War II with Major Allison Digby Tatham-Warter of the British (naturally) 1st Airborne Division at the Battle of Arnhem, the unfortunate result of Operation Market Garden and its Bridge Too Far.  He ended up being the second in command (the 2IC) of the 2nd Battalion in its forlorn hope of capturing and holding the bridge for the Allied advance.

Major Digby Tatham-Warter

He carried an umbrella much like he would a riding crop because he said that he had an unfortunate tendency to forget the password.  He knew that his men were convinced that only an Englishman would be so dotty to carry an umbrella under such circumstances.  He was immensely talented and popular, at one point leading a bayonet charge with his umbrella during a desperate time in the fighting, and after being wounded (which he downplayed) and captured with his unit at the end of the battle, led an escape of some 120 British paratroopers from German captivity.  Tatham-Warter was awarded the Distinguished Service Order, second only to the Victoria Cross, for his actions in the battle and afterward for leading his men back to friendly lines.

Army Rangers: Thoughts and History of the Crest and Beret

The Rangers of the US Army are clearly one of the finest fighting forces in the world, and is a unit and concept almost uniquely American, with its genesis well before American independence, even unto the days when the colonies were barely established and before they achieved any sense of cohesion.  Despite the viability of the idea, the main nemesis that it has fought for its identity and survival has never been an enemy on the battlefield, but has instead been its parent Army.  It is an axiom that large organizations abhor elites and that applies doubly so to the military, and examples abound in the ebb and flow of the history of the Rangers.  (I am not too fond of the term 'elite'; I prefer 'specialized' – maybe it's just my Marine background.)

I admittedly come at this topic from a tangent, as my primary experience with them was during my time in the US Marines, and that in the early 1970s, taking advantage of cross-training opportunities.  Since then, I am proud to have one of my sons as a member of that august body of warriors and he patiently keeps me up to date (to the limits of my comprehension and clearance) about the Rangers of today.  The distinctions between then and now have been considerable.

Drawing on my recollections, I mentioned to him toward the beginning of his training about the earlier crest (or shield, or coat of arms, or distinctive unit insignia, or most properly the escutcheon) of the Rangers, and how I noticed that it had changed since 'my time'.  I sought to look up what I remembered the crest to be and discovered that its image has been strangely cleansed from the internet.

I set my mind to look for an example and fortunately discovered one finally in a fine military surplus store in downtown Seattle.  My snapshot for posterity:

This is the image that I tried to convey to him and I was glad to have found it, reinforcing again that some of the early memories of my military experience were not the delusions of early-onset dementia (e.g., yes, there used to be numbered companies at Airborne School when I attended).  This earlier design reflected quite nicely an encapsulated history of the Rangers and an attitude of embracing our entire American history.  Those days are woefully gone in this Politically Correct age.  But before I move on to the current Ranger crest, first allow me an explanation of the old one.  (And here are two obscure examples discovered after some degree of searching):

Early versions of the Ranger unit crest and flash

The upper left quadrant contains a hatchet and powder horn against a green background, which symbolizes the early beginnings of the Rangers.  Seventeenth-century European colonists in the region of New England and Virginia formed militia units that allied themselves with friendly Indian tribes, for the purpose of protection against other hostile Indians.  In modern parlance, these units would conduct patrols and reprisals through  wilderness areas – 'range' – on counter-reconnaissance or direct action missions, incorporating tactics and techniques acquired from their Indian allies, beginning in general in reaction to the Indian Massacre of 1622 in Virginia.  Early commanders of Ranger units, fighting in a series of engagements and campaigns collectively called the French and Indian Wars, were Benjamin Church, John Lovewell, and John Gorham (all serving well prior to the Revolution) but most famous to the present-day Rangers was Robert Rogers, the one most responsible for establishing a standard for such units.  These were written originally in 28 rules, now converted to the 19 Standing Orders of the Ranger Creed.  (For some inexplicable reason, the newer creed is rendered in some faux-hick dialect, e.g.: "Don't forget nothing.")  Rogers is considered the father of the modern Rangers, though the fact that he later served on the side of the British during the Revolutionary War is a delicate point often quietly overlooked.

Robert Rogers

In contrast, another Ranger of note at the time was Francis Marion, the "Swamp Fox" of South Carolina, and arguably Daniel Morgan of Virginia, who were very much the American patriots and scourge of the British.  The green background also commemorates Ethan Allen of the Vermont 'Green Mountain Boys', who successfully fought against the British and New York.  (Let me hasten to add that Marines can appreciate the Green Mountain Boys for no other reason than the fact that they, like the Leathernecks, began in a bar.)  It can even be said that George Washington could be included in the list of early Rangers for his experience as a major in the Virginia militia, conducting joint Virginia/Iroquois expeditions against French incursions in the Ohio Country in 1753 and 1754.

The hatchet, or tomahawk, is also an unfortunately delicate point as well although two of Rogers' 19 orders speak of it.  A very useful tool, if not a fairly effective weapon in dire circumstances, it has become a lamentably symbolic token, with the Left and the press (but I repeat myself) always ready to conjure images of savages taking scalps.  During the Viet Nam War, coincident with the Golden Age of Aquarius and demonstrations/riots, a Lt Col Hank Emerson (later a successful and popular lieutenant general), commander of the 2nd Battalion, 502nd Airborne Infantry, solicited the sobriquet of "Hatchet Hank" Emerson by issuing hatchets to his troops.  Stories quickly surfaced and were printed – never substantiated – about enemy bodies being mutilated (like the fictional quote about the "village that was destroyed in order to save it").  General Westmoreland immediately secured their use, and Hatchet Hank quickly changed his nickname to "Gunslinger".  (Early versions of Rogers' Standing Orders had a twentieth order: "Don't use your musket if you can kill 'em with your hatchet."  That seems to have been misplaced at about the same time.)

[Aside:  I carried a hatchet anyway, discreetly secured to my ruck with an official World War II, GI-issued hatchet carrier.  In thick jungle and forest, I found that there usually wasn't enough room to effectively swing a machete.  I used the hatchet and heavy duty hand pruners much more effectively to cut through the foliage and flora and to set up expedient camouflage, and they were easier to carry.]

Colonel John S Mosby, CSA

The Confederate battle flag in the upper right commemorates the contribution of primarily Colonel John Singleton Mosby of Virginia, credited with continuing contemporary Ranger tactics in the area of northern Virginia throughout the Civil War.  He dominated the area with his 43rd Cavalry Battalion through raids and partisan warfare so thoroughly that the area came to be known as "Mosby's Confederacy".  The other official Confederate Ranger unit, McNeill's Rangers (E Company, 18th Virginia Cavalry) was led by Captain John H McNeill and then his son Captain Jesse C McNeill.  Other such leaders can include the brilliant, controversial and maligned Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest, who despite a lack of formal education was still quite literate.  His famous dictum was actually to "get there first with the most men", not the blithering nonsense printed in a New York newspaper.

The battle flag also represents such famous units as Terry's Texas Rangers (8th Texas Cavalry), credited with its ability to lay down more firepower than any other unit in its lightening raids.  (Rangers in the early Republic of Texas developed independently from their American cousins but for similar reasons – defense against and pursuit of Indian raiding parties, bandits, and Mexican incursions.  The Texas Rangers often operated as ad hoc posses before becoming formalized as one of the most famous law enforcement agencies in the world.)  An equestrian statue of one of Terry's Texas Rangers is set on the grounds at the Texas Capitol in Austin (which, appropriately enough, is larger than the US Capitol in Washington, DC).

The spearhead at the bottom of the old crest represents the Rangers of World War II, organized into six independent battalions with the first five fighting in the European theatre and the 6th in the Pacific, as well as the 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional), the famous Merrill's Marauders which fought in Burma.  This was the first return to a Ranger concept since the Civil War.

Lt Col William O Darby, father of the Ranger Battalions of World War II, as CO 1st Battalion outside Arzew, Algeria

It was the 2nd Ranger Battalion (-) led by Lt Col Earl Rudder that attacked up the cliffs of the Pointe du Hoc of Normandy on D-Day (I was privileged to know Rudder years later when he was President of Texas A&M.)   The 5th Ranger Battalion, along with two companies of the 2nd, was on their right flank and tied in with the 116th Infantry of the 29th Infantry Division (the Blue and Grey), and thus together took the brutal brunt of the first wave to hit Omaha Beach.  The units on the beach were pinned down by murderous fire until elements of the 5th started picking their way up and through the German lines.  After Brig Gen Norman Cota of the 29th, noting the beginnings of some progress out of the slaughterhouse, asked the 5th's CO, Lt Col Max Schneider, what unit he was with, Cota responded with an imprecation and blurted the famous line "Well, God damn it, if you're Rangers, lead the way!"  It was more of an invitation than a command, but Schneider's troops made good on the effort and are credited with breaking the bloody hold at Omaha Beach.  A truncated version of Cato's exclamation is one of the mottos of the Rangers, now rendered as a declaration.

The 1st, 3rd and 4th Battalions were spearheads in the Americans' first operations in North Africa and then into Italy, and distinguished themselves at such battles as Dieppe, Arzeu, Djebel el Ank (Orbata), Salerno and Anzio up until the point where they were caught in a massive and masterful ambush at Cisterna.  The 6th was the only unit assigned to the Pacific theatre, was the first ashore at Luzon and later liberated the Japanese POW Camp at Cabanatuan in a daring raid.

Brigadier General Frank Merrill with Chinese troops

Merrill's Marauders, a completely separate unit but now considered part of the modern Ranger ancestry, operated as an independent regiment-sized unit in association with Chinese troops, and was essentially heavily armed light infantry supported by pack mules.  They moved and fought brilliantly through hundreds of miles of Burmese jungles, finally spending themselves in the almost pyrrhic victory at the Japanese air base at Myitkyina.

The Rangers were shut down after World War II but companies were temporarily stood up during the Korean War, and later Ranger-like Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols (LRRPs, pronounced 'lerps') were used in Viet Nam.  After 1969 the LRRPs were re-designated as Ranger companies but quickly began de-mobilizing as the Americans drew down from that war. 

Up until then, this was a standard reaction of the Army – reluctantly yield to creating Ranger units in time of war (apparently FDR himself had a hand in convincing the Army of World War II), but demobilize them as soon as possible thereafter.  But by the mid-1970s, after the end of our formal involvement in South Viet Nam (and the collapse of that country after Congress withheld promised support during the third major NVA assault on the South), Ranger battalions began being established.  This turn-around in the attitude of the "Big Army" was partly to overcome the discrepancies in the command structure that was felt with the use (or misuse) of Special Forces in Viet Nam.  (To their credit, most SF veterans who I knew at the time agreed about being victims of mission creep.)  Whereas SF units had often been used independently by the CIA and the "Studies and Observation Group" (a more pacific title from the original Special Operations Group), the leadership of the Army afterward, which comprised generals who had been field-grade officers in Viet Nam, wanted a more responsible command structure of special units.  This compromise resulted in standing up permanent Ranger battalions with the cost paid out of the hide of SF units.  (This was relayed to me by a relative, Lt Gen James F Hollingsworth, after his retirement in the late 1970s.  My older brother, having served under "Hollie" in the 2nd Armored Division, was a particular favorite of his.)

The Ranger Regiment was formally established in the mid-1980s with eventually four battalions (1st, 2nd, 3rd, and Special Troops).  The Regiment took its lineage directly from Merrill's Marauders, and the new crest made its appearance, only slightly modified from the one in World War II.  (The survivors of the 5307th were re-grouped into the 475th Infantry toward the end of the war, later re-designated the 75th Infantry, and eventually the 75th Rangers.)  A new motto was added - Sua Sponte - literally "your initiative" but translated officially as "on their own accord", signifying the volunteer aspect of the long pipeline of hard training and their willingness to go in harm's way. 

 Modern 75th Ranger Regiment crest

The six colors of the modern 75th Ranger beret flash are taken from the six color-designated battalions of the Marauders, and is worn with the modern crest of the unit. 

 Beret flash for the Ranger Regiment (3rd Battalion)

Ranger School, however, wears a black and gold flash with the Infantry School crest ("Follow Me").

Beret flash for Ranger School cadre

As stated above, the old crest as described is no longer evident, yet was present to a great extent in the early 1970s.  As best as I can see, the crest was attributed to the Ranger School, but has apparently been 'cleansed'.  One can imagine that the presence of the Confederate flag was reason enough to expurgate it in today's sensitive political atmosphere, but it is unfortunate that the attitude of reconciliation after the war, extolled by Colonel Mosby and General Forrest themselves, has so eroded.  (Mosby became a Republican after the war and supported the Grant administration.  Forrest, wrongly considered the one who established the Ku Klux Klan, was nevertheless associated with it at first but turned against it when reports of violence surfaced.  He was instrumental in disbanding its first incarnation in 1869.)

To help understand the confusion, it is best to remember that there is a distinction between Ranger School and today's Ranger Regiment.  Despite the ebb and flow of the Rangers after World War II, the Ranger School nevertheless continued to train members of the Army and some of the other services in tactics and techniques.  Graduates were then to return to their parent conventional units and pass on the knowledge.  Training was thus for individual skills, not to provide a pipeline into a Ranger unit, whether one existed at the time or not.  Apparently, that is still the case, and the Ranger School exists as a separate entity from the Ranger Regiment despite their clear overlap.  The Regiment conducts its own induction training, now called RASP (Ranger Assessment and Selection Program), thus graduation from Ranger School does not necessarily constitute being a Ranger; graduation from RASP and assignment to a Ranger Battalion does.

The historic Army attitude that shunned special units could also be applied to distinctive uniforms.  Other countries, such as those in the British Commonwealth, tend to have different headgear (hats, covers) that reflect a tradition within certain units.  Not so within our own Army, until John F Kennedy over-ruled the Army hierarchy and granted the Green Beret to the new Special Forces groups, singling them out as the leaders of the new counter-insurgency approach to warfare that fully blossomed in Viet Nam.  It wasn't long before an interest in berets began to spread in earnest, now that the dam had been breached.  Since a green beret had come to symbolize commando units in a number of European militaries (the British and French certainly), we soon came into line with our European forebears by adopting a 'red' beret (actually more of a maroon color) to symbolize airborne or paratroop units.  These two colored berets were adopted for a sense of esprit d' corps as well as the fact that they were universally recognized. 

The Rangers were certainly a specialized unit though they overlapped the commando and airborne roles, but were more in the nature of shock troops.  (Special Forces, wishing to blend in and win the hearts and minds of the people, will knock lightly on the door.  Rangers will kick it in.)  Starting as far back as Korea, some Rangers started wearing a black beret – unofficially, when they could get away with it – as a reference to their dark nature.  This continued in Viet Nam, though more of an open secret, and it was finally officially approved in 1975 as a distinctively Ranger headgear. 

But by the turn of the century, a controversy brewed up as a result of the decision by the Army Chief of Staff, General Eric Shinseki, to extend the wear of the black beret to the entire Army, as a "challenge to excellence", a cheap attempt to pump up morale.  I will not attempt to debate the merits – or lack thereof – of Shinseki's decision, but I will point out that the black beret in international usage has traditionally been associated with armored units.  (Well before World War II, thickly padded black berets were used as protective headgear for British and German tankers knocking around hard, confined spaces.)  In fact, some US armored units started wearing black berets for that same reason in the early 1970s until told to stop once the Ranger decision had been made.  As a sop to the Rangers, who were justifiably bent about the fact that their hard-earned berets were now going to be handed out to every Tom, Dick, and Mary in the Army, a tan beret was substituted as a distinctive emblem for them, with the tan color signifying the buckskin of the early Roger's Rangers.  There was nevertheless a great deal of hubbub that continued and I was surprised that an obvious comparison was overlooked.

 

Ranger from Special Troops Battalion in tan beret

 

Though I have never heard it officially explained in this way, if one is to consider the international significance of a tan beret, one would have to consider the fact that the first comparison would be with the nation with which we hold the most important Special Relationship (no matter what Obama may say) – the United Kingdom.  The Special Air Service (SAS) of Britain as well as Australia and New Zealand, perhaps the premier such services in the world, wears a beige beret (tan by any other name) to signify its beginnings in the sands of the Saharan North Africa in World War II.

While the earlier Rangers became understandably attached to their black berets, it does make sense, in a strictly objective manner, to stand in positive comparison to the SAS instead of the variety of armored and other uses that the world's military forces assign to the black beret.

Recently, the Army has stepped back its use of the black beret.  It will still be used with the garrison uniform but not the ACU or field uniform.  Instead, the standard and much more functional patrol cap will be used in the field.  Ironically, in the period of the 1950s through the 1970s with the wire-stiffened Ridgeway cap and the later baseball cap in Viet Nam used by conventional units, the patrol cap in its earlier olive drab version was restricted to only the Rangers.

Yet no matter what the uniform accoutremont may be, what matters is the soldier who fills that uniform, and who can always be expected to lead the way.

Mnozil Brass

"And now for something completely different":

I stumbled across this little Austrian delight yesterday, and I naturally wanted to pass this along to the rest of the world (those who have not yet discovered me will continue to suffer). 

The Mnozil Brass has been around for some twenty years, founded by a septet of musicians hanging around the Mnozil Tavern in deepest, darkest Vienna.  This international assemblage (well, one of them is Hungarian) is known for its satirical take on a wide variety of music, mostly Schlager (sort of a Central European version of Country, without the pickups but with more beer).  They are all quite accomplished musicians, graduates of the Vienna College of Music, and quite funny.  Here is a brief intro to both:

 

 

For an introduction to each of the ensemble and an example of their humor, stick around for about twelve minutes with this delightful little piece of gemütlichkeit (with subtitles for the German-challenged, or "Austrian" as Obama would say – a double entendre to be sure, but the Germans would agree).  They fall within the same realm as Professor Peter Schickele of the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople.  [I wasn't able to directly post the video, but you can click on the icon above to access it.]

 

 

And just to show that their talents aren't just limited to the variety of brass instruments at which they are virtuosi, they can all sing quite well.  Perhaps channeling their inner Anschluß, they accompany themselves in an amusingly spot-on rendition (can you sing as well in German?) of the Bohemian Rhapsody.

 

 

If you have a chance to catch their act, do yourself a favor.  Note that they will be in Europe for the next year or so, so that might be an added bonus.  Take the opportunity while you still can (Europe that is).

 

(H/T to Texan99 at Grim's Hall.)
 

Amputee Graduates Army Air Assault School

Sergeant First Class Greg Robinson, 34, has graduated from the Army's Sabalauski Air Assault School at Fort Campbell.  The course is a physically tough 10-day package that adapts a combat soldier to rapid-assault operations out of helicopters.  At his age, that had to be difficult. 

It's even tougher when you're an amputee.

 

Besides the mechanics of operating in close proximity to helicopters in a combat environment, including pathfinder ops and slingloads, the candidates are required to do a daily two-mile run in under 18 minutes and an obstacle course (including a rope climb), conduct a variety of rappels and fast rope descents from fixed sites and helicopters, and finally a 12-mile forced march with combat load in under three hours.  All evolutions require wearing a 35-pound rucksack.  A successful completion of the course earns the soldier the Air Assault Badge and an open ability to operate within the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) stationed at Fort Campbell.

In the case of SFC Robinson, though, he had to successfully complete the requirements – unmodified or 'normed' – with his right leg having been amputated just below the knee, the result of combat action in Afghanistan in 2006 while assigned (it seems) to the 20th Engineer Brigade.  He is currently assigned as a platoon sergeant with the 101st: "It's not my job.  It's my lifestyle."  As to part of his motivation: "I have roughly 30 men in my platoon.  As a leader, I didn't want to tell my soldiers that they needed to go to air assault school, if I'm not air assault qualified."

 

There are soldiers who drop out of the course who are otherwise physically capable of doing it.  SFC Robinson shows that, like any demanding course of this type in the military, it is primarily a matter of determination.  At one point during the obstacle course run and again during the 12-mile march, he had to rip off his prosthesis and repair it after its piston broke down, then he straped it back on and finished in good time.  "It's not an obstacle if you don't let it slow you down."

He is also a model to so many others (Boston comes to mind, for example) who have suffered life-changing injuries.  I knew two officers on active duty back during the time of Viet Nam who were trying to stay in the Army after having lost an eye and a left hand, respectively.  The military typically has no time for people with this type of determination, despite their abilities to overcome obstacles, but there are more servicemembers who are proving the military wrong and who fortunately are given a chance to contribute still to their country.  (And whether on active duty or not, who can surpass the story of Marine Corporal Todd Love?)

As for disabilities, I often go back to my love of history and remember that hard times prove the mettle of hard people.  As for aviation, examples include Georges Guynumer, top French ace during World War I who suffered from tuberculosis but insisted on continuing the fight.  Toward the end, he had to be carried to his plane, yet still managed to accumulate 53 kills.  In World War II, some greats included the famous Stuka pilot Ernst Rudel, the most decorated pilot of the Luftwaffe, who lost his left leg; Douglas Bader, top ace of the RAF, lost both legs; and Saburo Sakai, one of the top Japanese aces, was blind in his left eye. 

Congratulations, SFC Robinson, or 'BZ' as we say in the naval service.  We need more people with your determination, though I pray without your obstacle.  But obstacle or not, you're a good man.

Legacy: Amanda Thatcher, Granddaughter of Lady Thatcher, and Brother Michael

It is never quite comfortable to say that one 'enjoys' some aspect of a funeral.*  Yet despite the passing of Baroness Margaret Thatcher, one of the great personages of the late twentieth century during her extended tenure as Prime Minister, co-architect of the victory of the West against Soviet Communism, victorious in re-taking the Falkland Islands from the Argentine junta, and savior (for the moment) of the United Kingdom, the world was treated to a funeral befitting her stature, as fittingly ceremonious as only the British can do. 

The British press (never in her corner – the nature of the beast, as it were) sounded the clarion threat that her 'divisiveness' would leach the dole takers from their union halls and pubs in order to give one last insult to her cortege, but the few who actually turned up were diluted as a drop in the ocean by the legions of her admirers.  But the press keeps pounding that minor key expecting the people to sing along. 

One of the more uplifting moments of the service was the introduction to a far wider audience of the granddaughter of Lady Thatcher.  I was already aware of the existence of Amanda Margaret Thatcher and brother Michael, children of Lady Thatcher's son Sir Mark and former wife Diane Beckett (née Burgdorf), and the fact that their mother took them to live in Texas during their formative years.  In fact, they both attended Highland Park High School in the independent little city surrounded by Dallas, with Michael being a celebrated running back and Amanda voted “most likely to change the world”.

 

Amanda Margaret Thatcher and brother Michael

Amanda was chosen as one of only two readers for the ceremony (other than PM David Cameron), appropriate I am sure due to her mature poise and the symbolic value of Lady Thatcher being the first female prime minister.  It is delightful to see such poise and natural elegance in a young lady.  (Michael had read at the funeral of grandfather Sir Denis Thatcher some ten years before.)  Amanda’s reading came from Ephesians 6:10-18, also appropriate to the memory of the Iron Lady: “. . . Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.  For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. . . .”  Indeed.

 

 

The British press fell in love with her, as well they should. 

Though still a resident of the environs of Dallas, Miss Thatcher attends the University of Richmond.  (Already an excellent equestrienne from her early years living in South Africa, she now participates in track and field.)  Dick Stanley of The Texas Scribbler, who has a family connection to her university, nevertheless observes that considering her background and breeding, she should have attended Texas A&M University.  Oh, would that were so: a Thatcher as a conservative Texas Aggie – what an incredible combination. 

But there is still hope, or I should say, even more so.  As charming as the young Miss Thatcher can be, we mustn't forget her brother Michael.  Like his grandmother, he received his degree in Chemistry, from – of all places – Texas A&M University (Class of '11) and works in Dallas in Pharmacology in addition to his work with a Republican-affiliated group dedicated to Hispanic conservatives. 

Both siblings are considered to be bright, well-adjusted and humble, never seeking advantage from their name or the limelight.  Raised as devout evangelical Christians by their mother (Amanda has spent time as a missionary in China), they remained close to their grandmother primarily through their mother.  Lady Thatcher, who had her own press problems with her twin children, nevertheless absolutely doted on her two grandchildren and called them her "greatest delight".  It was the infant Michael she held at 10 Downing Street when she whimsically announced in faux-regal tones, "We have become a grandmother."

There are several times when I have found myself in conversation with a feminist on the topic of the need to vote for women.  I ask them why it is that voting for a woman simply because she is a woman is any better ethically than voting against her for the same reason.  I then bring up names such as Condoleezza Rice, Sarah Palin, or the like, and the names are immediately dismissed – showing the feminists' real agenda.  I have always said in those occasions that if I had a chance to vote for Margaret Thatcher, I would.  With these two, I pray that someday before I die, my wish to vote for a Thatcher will be fulfilled. 

 

With our current dilemma both here and particularly in Europe, growing worse, it shall perhaps be a variation of the famous words of Winston Churchill during the darkest hours of World War II, in his speech to the House of Commons about fighting on, in all its various ways and places, and if the British isles were to be subjugated, then they still "would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

 

If that is to be the plan for these two, then they have my prayers and support.

*****

*(On something quite separate from the main topic, I am always reminded in situations involving humor and funerals of Tom Lehrer's comments on Alma Mahler Gropius Werfel, upon reading the "juiciest obituary that it has ever been my pleasure to read.")

Boston Bombing: Media Continues To Attack the Right

I am back to civilization, a computer, and a functioning internet link for another shot at drive-by blogging, and of course the main story continues to be the bombing in Boston and the still-unfolding aftermath. 

By now, any number of interesting details have been covered elsewhere, but the purpose of this post is to collate some ideas about the response of the MSM, beyond how spectacularly wrong the initial coverage was of the incident.

Among those of us more inured to such tragedies, it has become a learned response to simply turn off the sound on the TV, or turn to other stories on the internet, until the craziness of the first hours (or days) begins to settle down from the rampant speculation, mostly pulled out of thin air, that the 24-hour news outlets are compelled to keep up in the competitive 'all bombing, all the time' feeding frenzy.  (This is before it settles into its natural follow-on state, which I call the 'Princess Diana is still dead' coverage.)

Let me say first how impressive it was after the first few days that the investigation developed a picture of the two bombers in such a short time, aided by the large number of snapshots by the bystanders.  Narrowing down the perpetrators amongst such a large and confusing amount of data in so short a time is truly commendable. 

But as to the coverage up to that time, besides the staggering amount of sheer speculation spilled into the news-hungry population, it again proves the maxim that the MSM automatically chose to set their opinions on only one side of the ledger, again hinting, commenting – hoping – that this time the attackers were going to be on the extreme right, or in their minds just the right in general, with Tim McVeigh lumped in with grandmotherly matrons in period costume passing out refreshments at Tea Party rallies. 

Even the Aussies want in on the act (Sydney Morning Herald)

Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times led off with a tweet that the Republicans were somehow responsible for the lack of an ATF director (in Kristof's mind the Republicans are responsible for the Sequester, which he leaps to remind us), thus the explosion.  He later withdrew the comment after he tweeted about "people jumping on me" for the absurdity, but it was an excellent example of the Left's knee-jerk response.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews then weighed in to inform us that "as a category, normally, domestic terrorists tend to be on the far right", after CNN analyst Peter Bergen was reminded of Oklahoma City and spoke of al Qaeda making hydrogen peroxide explosives.  He included "some other kind of right-wing extremist" as using conventional explosives, like the "right-wing groups trying to attack the Martin Luther King parade in Oregon in 2010."

[The actual reference should be to acetone peroxide (TATP or TCAP), capable of being created outside of a laboratory but difficult to store or handle.  As for the attack in "Oregon", that involved a crude explosive device, a mechanism more intimidating than dangerous, found in a backpack in Spokane, Washington in 2011.  The single suspect in the case was a self-described psychopath, rejected even by supremacist groups.  Bergen's 'expertise' was wrong on all counts.]

Luke Russert (son of the late Tim) of NBC speculated on a Patriot's Day link to the attack against the Branch Davidians near Waco in 1993. 

Charles Pierce of Esquire warned us not to leap to a conclusion about foreign terrorism, but did want to remind us of the date of Patriots Day being significant to Tim McVeigh, who "fancied himself as a waterer of the tree of liberty and the like."  Pierce couldn't resist telling Rachel Maddow on MSNBC about the "terrific" week for Governor Deval Patrick (terrific? really?) and how we didn't resort to waterboarding or warrantless wiretapping.  In what cockamamie context did that come from, other than a political dig? 

Amina Ismail of McClatchy Newspapers caught Jay Carney off guard during a press conference when she equated the Boston bombings with an Air Force stike in Afghanistan that killed civilians.  Rather than refute her assertion, Carney referred her to the DoD.

Then of course there is David Axelrod, channeling Obama (easy enough for him) by his certainty that the President was pondering the fact that the bombing occurred on tax day. 

And let us not forget David Sirota at Salon and his egregious wish: "Let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American."

There is also Dina Temple-Raston of taxpayer-supported NPR who breathlessly reminds us of the "thinking" (whose?) that "this is a domestic, extremist attack and officials are leaning that way largely because of the timing of the attack.  April is a big month for anti-government and right-wing individuals.  There's the Columbine anniversary, there's Hitler's birthday, there's the Oklahoma City bombing, the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco."  ABC's Pierre Thomas rattled off much the same list on Good Morning America.

Imagine their disappointment when they were proven wrong – again. 

We add these to the example of Brian Ross, egged on by George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America, smugly leaping to the conclusion that the shooter in the Aurora theatre was a member of the Tea Party. 

Then there is the widespread blame for the Tucson shooting, including Gabby Giffords, being lain on the doorstep of Sarah Palin, followed by the vast silence when it was later discovered that the shooter was, if anything, left wing in his disturbed rants.

When Faisal Shahzad planted a car bomb in Times Square, Mayor Michael Bloomberg intially blamed it on a "mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda who doesn't like the health-care bill or something."  Many others tried to link it to "some squirrely branch of the Tea Party, anti-goverment far right" (as published in the Nation).

The Department of Homeland Security under Janet Napolitano issued a report in 2009 that warns that returning veterans are terrorist risks, along with those opposed to abortion and illegal immigration, and she stands by that report, though she later conceded that she didn't mean to castigate all veterans, and "some of the language was unfortunate".  Thin gruel.

(Sure, it's photo-shopped, but funny.)

Sources including Mother Jones and Daily Kos commented on the story of Joe Stack crashing his plane into the IRS office building in Austin in 2010, but dropped the push when his rambling suicide note blamed conglomerate companies such as General Motors and Enron, insurance companies, the Catholic church, and George W Bush, then quoted the Communist Manifesto.

Perhaps the most famous foul-up involved repeated predictions by television-showcased academic experts who echoed each other in a morbid mutual admiration society during the three week Beltway Sniper shooting spree in October 2002.  They continued to parrot the prediction that the shooter was an angry white male in his mid-20s to early 30s, driving a white van, right up to the end when two black males, John Allen Muhammed, 41, and John Lee Malvo, 17, jihadi converts, were arrested at a rest stop in a dark blue Chevrolet Caprice.

The media have reached an obscene level of effort in trying to pound round facts into the square hole of their wishful thinking.  They warn the American people against some sort of racist reaction to the thought that this could be (another) attack fomented by Islamic Supremacists, yet gleefully paint with broad brush indeed their perception that the (not quite so) extreme Right is ready to slaughter innocents.  They are quick to suggest white extremists but choke on the word 'Islamic'.  What about the 'root cause' of a religion hijacked by terrorists, and the silence of those who should be trying to wrest it back?

History writes in its book – the one with the copybook headings – and adds two more names of young, Muslim males to the list of jihadis who perpetrate these atrocities, but the press would rather tell of the neighbors and classmates who speak of them as such nice guys, and our security officials still search disabled grandmothers and toddlers at airports.  The press continues to speak of root causes but cannot accept the concept of evil.

But maybe James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal has it right: