To show that I have credibility with ADM McRaven, let it be known that I make my bed every morning. But!!
The 1st amendment was specifically meant so that we could publicly question our institutions and the 2d amendment was to allow us to protect ourselves against those same institutions when they attempt to encroach on our liberties.
I can list the many policies of Biden that I disagree with and why, without ever once discussing any personal dislike I have of the man. Never once did McRaven discuss policies or the broader implications of the Lawfare being conducted. Just his dislike of President Trump.
Don’t go after our institutions, is not a policy position that is acceptable in our Republic.
Another sad example of a politicized Military leadership that is deeply disturbing.
I'm so damned tired of being told by elitists like McRaven that if I don't conform, if I express any criticism of the government then I'm disloyal or I'm an insurrectionist.
When I was younger I traveled several times to the USSR (during the Brezhnev era). One of the things that really struck me was the sense of repressive conformity that existed there. No criticism of the State was tolerated and the place was rife with mediocrity. Is that where we're headed in this Country? It certainly seems like it.
The McRavens of this Country run everything and they resent us common folk not tugging at our forelocks and deferring to the wisdom of our superiors. A result of the American Revolution was the overthrow of a colonial political system dominated by class, patronage, and nepotism.
Apparently, it's un-American to notice we're headed back that way again.
The more I think about this the more alarmed I am about the implications. Do other Admirals and Generals think this way? Is this why Dem's are so confident they can crush civil unrest/Civil war?. It makes me wonder if the military will protect the Constitution? Is this a lead up to something very dark?
"I had fallen into the habit, as have many writers, of referring to Donald J. Trump as 'former President Trump.' An astute commenter asked me why and pointed out that we do not refer to President Lincoln, for example, as 'former President Lincoln.' I think his point is well-taken and will use 'President Trump' in the future. " My comment follows. You attach a descriptive 'astute' to the comment about using 'former' with regard to DJT's presidency. Those who find for a number of plausible reasons that DJT should not be honored by a contemporary continuation of the honorable ( emeritus ) title of President are considerable in numbers that go beyond partisan political loyalties. In this there is no comparison to Lincoln or even Bush and Clinton. The traditions and reverence behind the Office of President was something that the former President thumbed his nose at in many respects and subsequent events and the overarching contexts highlight that. When all the criminal prosecutions are over and done, perhaps an astute observer will justifiably argue the honor of a present reflection of a man who honored his office and the nation, institutions and traditions justifying its stature is warranted.
The world is a big place with a lot of people on it. It's possible for someone to be worthy of respect in most ways who's just wrong about a thing or two. That's the case here. He's way wrong, but not, IMO, irredeemably so. It's a strange hill upon which to plant a flag though.
Blue, a factual issue first. In his most recent testimony to Congress before the Judiciary Committee the AG pointed out the immediate and concentrated US Marshall and FBI protection he ordered for all the Justices. I am certain he told the truth . More importantly, your purpose in going after AG's dereliction of duty is not only to show your reader why we must be careful and robustly respectful of the citizens role in ' constructive ( responsible , non -garbage licensial ( poetic license ) waste of the liberty granted us , rights exercised with a sense of the privilege and duty, i.e. the statue of liberty must be framed on the west coast by the statue of responsibility ) but also to advance a political agenda. McRaven is not as eloquent as Blue but was , as he stated, aiming at the rhetoric and what it does in heating rather than advancing reasoned constructive discussion and debate. That is a responsibility of every one of us whom like you and McRaven have, with their insightful integrity , felt the heat of the various emotions overwhelming the safeguards of honestly thoughtful reason, and higher values reached thereby . Your ending really sums it all up : "So this is really a plea for civility and I hope folks on the left and the right will listen and read the op-ed and try to be, again, try to rise above this.”
To show that I have credibility with ADM McRaven, let it be known that I make my bed every morning. But!!
The 1st amendment was specifically meant so that we could publicly question our institutions and the 2d amendment was to allow us to protect ourselves against those same institutions when they attempt to encroach on our liberties.
I can list the many policies of Biden that I disagree with and why, without ever once discussing any personal dislike I have of the man. Never once did McRaven discuss policies or the broader implications of the Lawfare being conducted. Just his dislike of President Trump.
Don’t go after our institutions, is not a policy position that is acceptable in our Republic.
Another sad example of a politicized Military leadership that is deeply disturbing.
“Rangers Lead the Way”
I'm so damned tired of being told by elitists like McRaven that if I don't conform, if I express any criticism of the government then I'm disloyal or I'm an insurrectionist.
When I was younger I traveled several times to the USSR (during the Brezhnev era). One of the things that really struck me was the sense of repressive conformity that existed there. No criticism of the State was tolerated and the place was rife with mediocrity. Is that where we're headed in this Country? It certainly seems like it.
The McRavens of this Country run everything and they resent us common folk not tugging at our forelocks and deferring to the wisdom of our superiors. A result of the American Revolution was the overthrow of a colonial political system dominated by class, patronage, and nepotism.
Apparently, it's un-American to notice we're headed back that way again.
The more I think about this the more alarmed I am about the implications. Do other Admirals and Generals think this way? Is this why Dem's are so confident they can crush civil unrest/Civil war?. It makes me wonder if the military will protect the Constitution? Is this a lead up to something very dark?
"I had fallen into the habit, as have many writers, of referring to Donald J. Trump as 'former President Trump.' An astute commenter asked me why and pointed out that we do not refer to President Lincoln, for example, as 'former President Lincoln.' I think his point is well-taken and will use 'President Trump' in the future. " My comment follows. You attach a descriptive 'astute' to the comment about using 'former' with regard to DJT's presidency. Those who find for a number of plausible reasons that DJT should not be honored by a contemporary continuation of the honorable ( emeritus ) title of President are considerable in numbers that go beyond partisan political loyalties. In this there is no comparison to Lincoln or even Bush and Clinton. The traditions and reverence behind the Office of President was something that the former President thumbed his nose at in many respects and subsequent events and the overarching contexts highlight that. When all the criminal prosecutions are over and done, perhaps an astute observer will justifiably argue the honor of a present reflection of a man who honored his office and the nation, institutions and traditions justifying its stature is warranted.
The world is a big place with a lot of people on it. It's possible for someone to be worthy of respect in most ways who's just wrong about a thing or two. That's the case here. He's way wrong, but not, IMO, irredeemably so. It's a strange hill upon which to plant a flag though.
The Navy is a wreck! Just where is the "worthy off respect" part?
John,
Exceptionally well done. Thanks for keeping up the fire!
Most excellent and informative.
Blue, a factual issue first. In his most recent testimony to Congress before the Judiciary Committee the AG pointed out the immediate and concentrated US Marshall and FBI protection he ordered for all the Justices. I am certain he told the truth . More importantly, your purpose in going after AG's dereliction of duty is not only to show your reader why we must be careful and robustly respectful of the citizens role in ' constructive ( responsible , non -garbage licensial ( poetic license ) waste of the liberty granted us , rights exercised with a sense of the privilege and duty, i.e. the statue of liberty must be framed on the west coast by the statue of responsibility ) but also to advance a political agenda. McRaven is not as eloquent as Blue but was , as he stated, aiming at the rhetoric and what it does in heating rather than advancing reasoned constructive discussion and debate. That is a responsibility of every one of us whom like you and McRaven have, with their insightful integrity , felt the heat of the various emotions overwhelming the safeguards of honestly thoughtful reason, and higher values reached thereby . Your ending really sums it all up : "So this is really a plea for civility and I hope folks on the left and the right will listen and read the op-ed and try to be, again, try to rise above this.”