A Veteran’s Unsolicited Advice For a Young Lieutenant

Jeremy Griffith

The American Millennium Online
Captain Jeremy Griffith in Baghdad 2007

Captain Jeremy Griffith in Baghdad 2007

 

I recently ran across an uplifting article about a young lieutenant in the Army National Guard here in Minnesota. Uplifting, because it looks like a young officer just beginning his career is on top of the world and is looking for an exciting and action packed life. As a recent retiree, I feel it’s my duty to throw the cold water of reality on the situation.

 

Luke Dery has been in the Minnesota Guard a while now and has his first platoon leader position, a platoon of medics. You can read about his story in Star Tribune here. Apparently he’s got a degree in biology from the University of Minnesota and is working on an MBA. Good for him. The life is challenging, but he’s enjoying it. Good for you.

 

Now here is what you can expect in your future that the recruiters at ROTC didn’t explain. With luck you probably had “the talk” with your first platoon sergeant. Hopefully, like mine, he or she is a seasoned veteran with loads of advice for a new LT. He or she probably pulled you aside and said, “You got all the book learnin’ LT, now listen to an old salt and let me tell you how it really is.” In lieu of that scenario, here is my advice to you.

 

Enjoy your time in the Guard, but be wary. Get to the rank of Captain as fast as you can and don’t dawdle. Stay healthy and in shape, and pray you don’t get hurt. PT sucks when you’re hurt. If they pull out the command chair for a company for you, take it! And, when your two or three years is up in the command slot, GET THE HELL OUT! You’ll have all the leadership experience you need to look impressive to prospective employers from platoon leader to company commander, but beyond that, the Guard becomes your career, not your civilian job.

 

Don’t expect to always have cake walk two week annual training periods. More often than not, as a leader, they’ll ask you to do more, maybe three to four weeks, which will leave your civilian employer scratching his head. The longer you stay, the more pissed off your civilian employer will get. Don’t breed that animosity. And if you are deployed, forget about it. You’re employer will really be pissed and if they’re good, they’ll hold your slot, if not, they’ll find a way to fire you for cause. They’re required to keep your slot by law, but if they word the paper work carefully, they will find a way to let you go.

 

If you do decide to make the Army your career, get out of the Guard after your command and join the Reserves. The process is fairly easy and there is usually a mass exodus from the Guard to the Reserve at the captain level. The Reserve recruiter will understand. I’m sure it will be easy to place a medical services officer and there will no doubt be a major slot with your name on it. And then the way is paved for you to Lieutenant Colonel and beyond. But not if you stay in the Minnesota Guard. Don’t do as I did and wait too long. Opportunities are wasted if you wait.

 

Hopefully now that the “wars” are over, you’ll settle down in a routine, but I wouldn’t count on it. Thank your lucky stars you missed out on the West Africa Ebola Mission! Barack Obama won’t be president forever and the war on terror is far from over. In a new administration, the deployments might kick up again and you can expect to spend long periods away from home. Embrace the suck. Wives and girlfriends aren’t terribly understanding after the second or third deployment.

“Thank your lucky stars you missed out on the West Africa Ebola Mission!”

And prepare to watch your men die. That is what platoon leaders and company commanders do on deployment. There’s no way around it. Commanders’ duty is to make sure their units are well trained and equipped. Ready to go. Training breeds confidence, confidence removes fear, fear breeds hesitation, hesitation will get you killed. The old drill sergeants will tell you that a well trained soldier is more likely to survive and that is partially true. A well-trained crew in an uparmored vehicle driving down the main supply route can be easily picked out. They drive aggressive, they own the road, the gunner is out and alert, his head on a swivel. The crew looks badass and Haji don’t wanna fuck with them. They’ll fuck around with the crew that doesn’t look prepared for a fight. Haji is a coward, but he ain’t stupid.

“Training breeds confidence, confidence removes fear, fear breeds hesitation, hesitation will get you killed.”

An ill prepared crew will get killed far more often than a crew that is properly trained. A crew that sucks in training will not be confident in you, the leadership or their skills and they’ll eventually balk at doing their jobs under stress. Then you’ll have to discipline the whole platoon and squad. Don’t be that guy.

 

Don’t fool yourself into thinking that you won’t lose anyone because you’re good. You will. You just won’t lose as many. The ones you do lose will be the good ones, the best of the best and that will make it all that much harder. Navy SEALS get killed, and there is no one better than they are. Sometimes Haji gets lucky.

“Don’t fool yourself into thinking that you won’t lose anyone because you’re good. . .  Sometimes Haji gets lucky.”

Take a good pen with you on deployment. You’ll need it to sign the letters back to family members explaining to them how you lost little Johnny or Janie. No form letters. Family can see through that shit. Make it personal. If there are tear stains on the paper, all the better. Its hurt to write those letters. It’s supposed too. You can type it out to make it official, but then you sign with your nice pen. Make it personal. Families will thank you for your candor. They’ll resent you if you do it half-assed.

 

As a platoon leader of medics, you have the bravest of the brave working for you. Everybody loves Doc. Get over the notion that your platoon will be all yours during deployment. Most likely you’ll have most of your medics farmed out to other units, aka detached and Opconed, where you will have little influence in the lives and fortunes of your men. The gaining unit will have responsibility, hopefully they’ll get a good unit. More than likely you’ll hear a few horror stories, so be prepared.

 

Minnesota Guard is a combat arms driven state. If you aren’t Ranger qualified and aren’t an Infantry or Armor guy, they powers that be won’t understand your value and they won’t respect you. So they won’t hold command slots open for you. And you can forget about field grade, unless you’re a surgeon. That’s why it’s important to jump ship early. Only you can manage your career.

 

I’ve had good moments in my career and bad. Hopefully you will benefit from my bad experiences. Here are a few of the shittier assignments and experiences I’ve had that you can look forward to.

 

*Soldier of mine suffering from spots on his lungs, VA won’t pay because the problem wasn’t identified in theater. Probable cause, burn pits. Sucks to be him. Minnesota VA is better than most, and still won’t do much. Embrace the suck.

 

*I once had to sit on a young lieutenant in jail. Yes, a lieutenant! A young African-American officer went AWOL at Annual Training, and then when he decided to show up to work, he threatened to assault his company commander, also African American. The decision was made to throw him in jail at Fort McCoy over night and let a few of us captains sit on him to make sure he didn’t hurt himself, because contracted police at Ft. McCoy don’t provide jailors. Units have to do that. I’m retired now, and that knucklehead is still in. How does that work?

 

*I was asked to provide security for the St. Paul Airport and the Army and Air National Guard air assets for the Republican National Convention in 2008. Local law enforcement response teams as well as the FBI where deploying from there. The Coast Guard had helicopters deploying from there to monitor the air space around the rivers. There were other assets deploying from there that I could not recognize. In preparation to make a decent base defense, I asked for barrier material, concertina wire, serpentine road obstacles, shot guns with less-lethal bean bag ammo, M9 Berettas, body armor, protective masks, CS gas, and a shelter for my 8 Janes and Jonnies. I got plastic barriers and a trailer. My guys had to be out there in the hot weather in their battle rattle with no weapons of any kind with our good looks and verbal judo checking ID cards of people coming into the airport. I didn’t get any of the training I requested, because I didn’t get the weapons. Thank God for Homeland Security and the local South Saint Paul Police Department who had their weapons, otherwise I would be out there in the wind alone. Embrace the suck.

 

*During my tenure, a Command Sergeant Major was relieved of duty for harassing female soldiers on deployment. The straw that broke the camel’s back was a female lieutenant who refused to take it anymore and reported him. The CSM should have been busted to E-1 and kicked out. Instead he was busted from E-9 to E-7 and allowed to quietly retire. The good old boys network was in full force. Embrace the Suck.

 

*On deployment to Iraq I had a less than stellar soldier attached to me for a long term work detail. He related this story. He was injured on deployment and couldn’t work and was not allowed to rotate home. He also had the bad habit of showing up late for work detail and hanging around his girlfriend’s living area after hours, for which the unit tried corrective action. To correct some of his behaviors, the unit decided to lock him in to a shipping container over night without a cot or a blanket. When the corrections didn’t hold, the soldierwas farmed out, that is Opconed, to me where he was slightly better than totally worthless. (I actually got him showing up on time four times out of seven!) I approached the unit command to try to find out more about his situation. I advised that nowhere in the UCMJ did I find that you could incarcerate a soldier for Article 15 procedures in a shipping container. You can take pay, you can demote a soldier, you cannot lock people in a box. I politely recommended that he be placed in housing with a sergeant who could keep a better eye on the lad from here on out. “Tut tut, young captain!” I was told, as the sergeant major patted me on the head like I was a puppy. “We handle things our own way in our company.” I advised JAG of the situation, but in theater, JAG doesn’t work for the soldier, he works for the commander. A soldier can get representation, but the Trial Service doesn’t have offices in theater. The soldier had to make a call to some rag bag kicking up his heals somewhere in Europe. After a 20 minute call, the soldier decided his situation working with me was better than what was going on with his unit and that he would gut it out until the end of deployment. Embrace the Suck.

 

*I saved the best for last. I once had to do a 10-6 investigation on a soldier and his unit. What was his crime you ask? Embezzlement? Assault? Disrespect to a senior officer? Nope, nope, nope! ADULTERY! The smuck cheated on his wife, with a female soldier in his unit. A Military Police Company! Sounds medieval doesn’t it, but the Army can and will prosecute you for that. That’s awesome! I was in a room, interviewing a 20-something pregnant beauty with doey blue eyes and long dark hair as she sniffled and moaned about how much her douche bag husband had hurt her and their family. It doesn’t get any better than that. I had a long talk with members of his unit, after which I thought, this is going nowhere. I got nothing. If this kid is smart he’ll lawyer up and say nothing and then I got nothing expect an unhappy bride who is 8-months along. I finally got the knuckle head in my office. “So!” I told the young sergeant. “Are you cheating on your wife and if so, why?!” I had a 30 minute discussion, on tape, as the soldier explained how and why he had tried unsuccessfully to cheat on the Missus, after I had read the soldier his rights. I made recommendations to JAG for conduct unbecoming and called it a day. I didn’t hear how it went, but I hope they busted the soldier back to specialist. Two weeks later I got a call from the wife. They had gotten back together and were trying to make a go for it. I was asked to drop any charges. I told the young lady that this episode might be a pattern of behavior and that I’d already submitted my findings to JAG. It was up to them. I hope she is doing well, but again, I never heard.

 

And that young lieutenant is a brief summary of the kinds of things you might find yourself dealing with if you stay in the guard. Take my advice with a grain of salt. Mind your own career because no one else will. I hope you have good, true leaders above you who recognize you’re worth. Be aware of those who don’t, and when you think you’ve had enough, move on with your life. It is your life and career to manage. Hopefully, it will be a good one.

“It is your life and career to manage. Hopefully, it will be a good one.”

 

Ziggurat of Ur, Camp Adder Iraq

Ziggurat of Ur, Camp Adder Iraq

Share This:

Cities Under Siege: a reaction to Ferguson documentarian Orlando De Guzman

by Jeremy Griffith
The American Millennium

 

Recently I watched a video documentary on Ferguson entitled Ferguson: A Report From Occupied Territory produced by documentary film-maker Orlando De Guzman. I was initially skeptical after listening to an interview of Guzman on MPR. I have recently watched the whole documentary and would concede some points as potentially valid. Some of what Guzman said, however are a matter of dispute.

 

The Ferguson documentary begins with an analysis of what has happened between an on duty police officer Darren Wilson and a black American 18-year old Michael Brown who the officer shot and killed in a confrontation. The documentary goes on to much more than just this confrontation and explores alleged structural racism in and around St. Louis, Missouri. The problem I had with the initial set up was that De Guzman seems to gloss over important facts about the confrontation between the officer and the deceased suspect; namely that he was the suspect in a strong armed robbery of a local convenience store, that Brown had man handled an Asian American store clerk, refusing to pay for a box of cigars that he purposely stole, and that when confronted with a police officer, instead of obeying the lawful orders of the police officer, Brown attempted to overpower the officer, potentially to kill him with his own gun and that during the melee, the officer prevailed in defending his life and as a result, shot Brown dead.

 

Now it’s too much to say that this matter is not in dispute, but if you were to dispute it, you would be arguing with grand jury testimony with which the officer was cleared of wrong doing, much of it given by black American witnesses living in the neighborhood, grand jury witnesses who actually saw the events as it happened and reported truthfully as to what they saw.

 

In light of this testimony and the forensic evidence, including the bullet fragments found in the officer’s car and retrieved from the body of Michael Brown, and video evidence of the strong armed robbery, I come to the conclusion that the grand jury came to, that Michael Brown had committed a crime and compounded his crime by refusing to surrender to an officer and in doing so contributed to his own death. That I think is pretty cut and dried. And when you know those facts, the substance of the argument that an innocent man was randomly gunned down in the street for being black quickly erodes.

 

Robbed of that argument, the film-maker does what the Eric Holder Justice Department did, and that is to look for problems elsewhere. They could not convict Darren Wilson, although his reputation has been ruined. Instead they went after the local institutions of government and law enforcement and they may have come across an interesting nugget.

 

Apparently, the municipalities around St. Louis, MO have been targeting largely African-American populations with horrendous fines from anything from jay-walking to seat-belt violations. Night courts filled with white officers and legal personnel preside over large numbers of black people who are forced to pay onerous fines for very slight malefactions. In poor neighborhoods people have to make decisions on whether or not to pay the fines or buy bread. And that has caused a lot of anger in the black community, and rightfully so. I don’t agree with the practice of creating revenue for municipalities through fines issued by law enforcement. Municipal government may be at fault. Unable to meet their budgets, they find other revenue streams that are not appropriate and thus alienate the poor in those areas.

 

De Guzman claimed that this is because of racism. Perhaps. Ultimately it can be demonstrated that the black community suffers the most and that angry blacks have an argument to make to state and local authorities. I fail to see how this problem is an excuse to burn cars and businesses and to shoot police officers in the face, which has happened in Ferguson and was not covered in the documentary.

 

It seems to me that the film-maker, while making some valid points, only picks and chooses those facts that fit a certain narrative. The truth is much more complex and difficult. It’s not, dare I say it, a black and white issue. It should be noted that St. Louis proper still rates among the highest in violent crime including murder. If you are of the middle class and you can move, why wouldn’t you move to a less violent and crime ridden community? An awful lot of blame is laid on white people who don’t want to stay in violent neighborhoods because Racism!

 

Ultimately I think the documentary is thought provoking and beautifully shot. De Guzman is obviously a very good story teller. But there are facts that don’t fit the narrative that are glaring to the informed and it gave me a bad taste in my mouth after listening to the interview and watching the documentary. Yes problems exist. These small municipalities seem to be preying on the poor with onerous, ridiculous fines to increase their revenue. That has to stop. There is another thing that has to stop. Disobeying the lawful orders of police officers, violence and crime, including burning cars and stores, ruining livelihoods of people who are not involved in the violence, or the municipal policies that target blacks. Had the documentary been more honest about those problems, I would have rated it higher. I’d like to see this documentary shown to the public in other venues and then have discussions on what people saw. I’d also like to see the documentary play about Ferguson by the playwright Phelim McAleer based on the grand jury testimony. Given these multiple sources and others, I think a clearer more complete view of what has happened in Ferguson will begin to emerge that will not be tainted by only one person’s narrative viewpoint.

 

Watch the Orlando De Guzman documentary here.

Also, you can watch the interview of The Blaze’s Dana Loesch with playwright Phelim McAleer here. We’d love to hear your thoughts so, don’t forget to leave a comment below. Tell me if you think I’m off base or on point.

Share This:

Jade Helm 15: Good Training or Public Threat?

Share This:

The Guns of Lexington-Concord: Celebrating 240 years with Appleseed Project

The British retreat after the battle of Lexington-Concord

The British retreat after the battle of Lexington-Concord

by Jeremy Griffith

American Millennium Online

 

 Today is the 240th anniversary of the Revolutionary War’s battle at Lexington and Concord. To celebrate, my girlfriend and I participated in an Appleseed Project Event here in Rochester, learning how to shoot like true riflemen and learning about the events of that historic battle.

 

The Appleseed Project is a group of volunteers who train citizens on basic rifle marksmanship. Their weekend events take place annually and all across the country. It’s a fun two days of instruction and training, and the volunteers mix in a little history during the breaks.

 

Highlights of this weekend included a gentleman who war period clothing, carrying a musket, who spoke on those early days of the Revolutionary War. There were three events, or three strikes of the match that led those early Americans, who considered themselves Britians, to take arms against their own regular troops and revolt. Eight bloody years of war followed those days and the outcome was not at all certain. We know how it ended, but many of us do not know the details of that day.

 

Two stories told over the weekend made a major impression on me. Following the battle for Lexington and Concord, another young rider sounded the alarm for revolutionary militia to defend their homes. On April 26, 1775, 16-year old Sybil Ludington, the daughter of a veteran colonel of the French and Indians War, Henry Ludington, set out on a journey twice as long as the journey of Paul Revere, about 40 miles, to sound the alarm for local militia. She rode her pony Star, and tapped on the windows with a stick to wake up the men. At one point she beat off a highwayman (robber) with that same stick. Her heroism earned her the praise of revolutionaries and George Washington himself. He epic ride is commemorated in a foot race in Carmel, New York.

 

Another story that impressed me this weekend was of the oldest veteran of that battle and the war. This veterans name was Samuel Whitmore. At 78 years of age, he was a very old man at the time of the battle of Lexington and Concord. A veteran of the King George’s War and possibly the French and Indians War, Whitmore was a trained rifleman. He took up his weapon and fired several times at British troops from behind a brick wall. His fire was so deadly accurate that the Brits took off after him and between vollies, was able to get close to him. Whitmore was shot in the face at close range and bayoneted many times. The Brits left him for dead, but Whitmore survived that day. When revolutionaries found him bleeding on the ground, it is said he was attempting to reload his weapon. Whitmore survived the war and died at the age of 98.

 

From old to young, many risked their lives for freedom against the tyranny of King George. Today many of us don’t take enough time to appreciate their sacrifice.

 

Rose and I didn’t not score enough in the weekend of shooting to become riflemen, this time. But we got good pointers and are well on our way to bettering our marksmanship. Rose, a Philippine immigrant and new American citizen, learned a lot about our history during the weekend’s event. Many of you have no doubt read about her journey to citizenship from an earlier blog post. This weekend was good reinforcement to what we studied up until the time of her swearing in back in September of last year. Now I’ve got her addicted to shooting. She complained bitterly about the old tube fed rifle I loaned her and now she wants to buy her own modern rifle. I don’t blame her. It was a lot of fun.

 

I am grateful for the instruction and coaching from all of the volunteers, especially Marta, who helped Rose so much these past few days. It could not have been a better weekend.

 

I was so busy concentrating on my shooting that I did not shoot a single video or photo. I’m told though that photos of our event will be posted on the Project Appleseed-Minnesota Facebook page shortly.

 

If you are looking for a fun event for all ages. I highly recommend one of these events. A schedule is posted on the Project Appleseed website for your area.

 

https://www.facebook.com/MinnesotaProjectAppleseed?fref=ts

 

https://appleseedinfo.org/

 

Share This:

Battle of the College Theses: An Adventure in FOIA, Volume 2

Netcentric Hubris and the Challenges of Netcentric Leadership, a War College Thesis by Kurt Schlichter invokes in the mind of the author the image of the novel Ender's Game and it's associated movie; conjuring images of child generals using technology to pull the strings of the automaton soldiers below.

Netcentric Hubris and the Challenges of Netcentric Leadership, a War College Thesis by Kurt Schlichter invokes in the mind of the author the image of the novel Ender’s Game and it’s associated movie; conjuring images of child generals using technology to pull the strings of the automaton soldiers below.

by Jeremy Griffith

Creator of the American Millennium Online

 

Kurt Schlichter, conservative columnist and close friend of the late Super-blogger Andrew Breitbart.

Kurt Schlichter, conservative columnist and close friend of the late Super-blogger Andrew Breitbart.

Recently I embarked on a journey to test FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act, probing the government like a curious kid with a stick, stabbing at a gator. What I’ve found stunned and surprised me, as so far I have found the government gate-keepers I’ve dealt with amazingly helpful and uncharacteristically polite.

Let me backtrack to the beginning. In a previous missive I wrote on Storify, I wondered out loud and with amazement how easy it is for the New York Times and Judicial Watch to obtain and publish online the graduate work of one General El Sisi of Egypt, now that nation’s president. While still a military officer, El Sisi attended our own US Army War College and wrote a thesis as his final project where he opined on Democracy in the Middle East, a document the New York Times obtained and published without comment. Intrigued I wondered how I would fair as a poor blogger who does not buy ink by the barrel. I selected a document I wanted by an author I knew, not knowing the exact title or even if the item requested in fact existed. I expected to be sandbagged by the government, and frankly I was ready to blast their inefficiency for what I believed would be a long and winding run-around course.

Not so. I was after all, dealing with the US Army War College, and apparently, they do things differently there. After sending a couple of stray e-mails to departments who had nothing to do with my request who had no idea what I was talking about, I was politely directed to the right “desk”. The reply I got was timely and polite. “Yes Mr. Griffith,” the fellow said. “You can have that. Would you like it in digits or on paper?” It was like the gentlemen was a clerk at Walmart asking if I wanted paper or plastic.

Two days ago I received the document I had requested and since then I have devoured the contents with glee and was not disappointed. The accompanying note read, almost apologetically, “Not sure if this is the final draft. It was all I could find. Regards!” I tore open the plain envelope and perused the thesis I found inside. I was a kid at Christmas.

I knew anything written by this author had to be good. Kurt A. Schlichter is known to me and is probably well know to you as well from his popular, snarky columns on Red State and Townhall. In my previous edition, I even theorized aloud what the title of the project would have been, something patriotic and heartwarming to conservatives who love America and equally disgusting and stomach wrenching for those who don’t. I reflected that feeling in the title of that article, a little tongue in cheek. I found myself learning something new just discovering the actual title of the document, which was not a disappointment. And yes, It was about leadership, just as I knew it would be.

Netcentric Hubris and the Challenge of Netcentric Leadership by LTC Kurt A. Schlichter. How about that for a title? I immediately googled “Hubris” and “Netcentric”.

hu·brisˈ(h)yo͞obrəs/noun

  1. excessive pride or self-confidence.
synonyms: arroganceconceithaughtinesshauteurprideself-importanceegotism,pomposity, superciliousness, superiority; More
  • (in Greek tragedy) excessive pride toward or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis.

 

Net-centric or netcentric refers to participating as a part of a continuously-evolving, complex community of people, devices, information and services interconnected by a communications network to achieve optimal benefit of resources and better synchronization of events and their consequences.

In military connotation frequently associated with terms “Net-centric Operations (NCO)” and “Net-centric Warfare (NCW)”. Many people use the terms “net-centric” and “network-centric” interchangeably. Some consider “network-centric” to refer to activities within a particular network and “net-centric” to refer to activities that cross networks.

Many experts[who?] believe the terms “information-centric” or “knowledge-centric” would capture the concepts more aptly because the objective is to find and exploit information, the network itself is only one of several enabling factors.

 

A great read. I found out from COL Schlichter that the Army with all its technology and information systems is better able to micromanage its junior leaders, something Schlichter believes is a habit to be resisted. Leaders at the top are using the tools at hand to micromanage, working the levers of control and making dancing automatons out of their captains, lieutenants, and sergeants. Like marionettes on a string, those junior leaders execute the plans of their masters and introduce no decision making of their own.

Schlichter masterfully illustrates in his argument that the Army should refrain from this practice, instead leaning upon the time tested leadership style of centralized planning and decentralized control. Yes, the leader at the top can better see the battlefield from where he stands in the OP Center. But is that sight picture true? Does it cut through the fog of war? No. Instead, the leader must accept a certain amount of risk, depending on the junior leader to make the appropriate decision at his level. I was so impressed with the logic of this document that I published it online for you to read for yourself. There are the footnotes at the end, like breadcrumbs. You can follow the trail to the source, where you can read for yourself, testing for yourself if the author’s conclusion is true. Unclassified? Yes it says that at the top, so no problems there.

The experience I’ve had with the War College is like going on a camping trip with your family to the source waters of the mighty Mississippi River. You pile into the family station wagon and you go. When you arrive, you park, and you walk down to the river. You cross the narrow inlet, where the water slows to a trickle. Dipping your hand into the cold rushing water, you lean down and drink. Cool. Refreshing. Clean.

It’s like the Army is saying. “Yes citizen. You can have the final projects of our warrior leaders, and at no charge! We are proud of what we do here and in the leaders we train. You have the right to know what it is we are doing in your name. Read the words of the warrior leaders we’ve trained, be enlightened, and enjoy.” Wow. Just, wow.

I get an altogether different feeling when I try to find the educational documents written by some of our political leaders, which are as elusive to find as the Holy Grail.

To their credit, Mother Jones, that leftist publication, has done a little footwork for us. Very little. They got half of Ted Cruz’s Princeton Undergraduate work, Clipping the Wings of Angels: The History and Theory behind the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. A doughnut stained operative wandered into the Princeton’s Mudd Library to the place where student theses are stored and with camera phone in hand, photographed 48 pages of the 115 page document. It’s like the operative didn’t want the conservative politician’s undergrad thesis bad enough to get the whole thing! Was he/she interrupted during their surreptitious photography session by a roving security guard? One wonders. Maybe they were just too cheap to pay the $0.35 per page fee to get the whole thing? “That’s enough of this pro-constitution, flag-waiving crap! Our readers will get the point. Cruz is a juvenile, nationalistic scumbag. Let’s go.” Is that what they told themselves on their way out of the library, angry security guard in pursuit? Hmmm. Well, fear not, dear reader. I’ve paid the fee and hopefully I will get the full document here shortly.

Check out what one commenter said about the Cruz document at CNN iReport here!

Meantime, good luck trying to FOIA a similar document from Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama II. The president apparently did some kind of project for graduation when he matriculated through his various schools. FactCheck.org assures us that is so. But it wasn’t the kind of thesis that is required to be retained by the school and indeed, the professor who advised the young Barrack on this thesis doesn’t even retain his copy. Lost it in a move, he says. Oh well.

Hillary’s thesis on the other hands isn’t quite so difficult, to get your hands on, but a little bit of a challenge, at least according to Bill Dedman, MSNBC Investigative reporter, who details his adventure with the seldom seen document. (Dedman? Good name for a writer who accidently crosses the Clintons. One wonders why an investigative reporter is necessary to find this document of Hillary’s? Wouldn’t the Lifestyle editor be better?)

Dedman admits in his article from May of 2007 that Hillary’s thesis, based on an interview with vaunted socialist thinker and activist Saul Alinsky, was sealed for a brief time for convenience when the goddess Hillary was in her role as First Lady, at her own request. But since she started running for office of President the record was unsealed once more so the peasants can view it, if they can afford the plane ticket from Rochester Minnesota or Phoenix Arizona or where ever you’re from to come to the library and seek an audience with the aforementioned manuscript. Like a high priest going into the temple, Dedman has graciously volunteered to read the holy scripture for us, a line of rope tied around his ankle in case for whatever reason he upsets the gods and is struck dead in the process. He has pierced the veil to enter the holy of holies for us and has interpreted the document to save us all the trouble and hassle. How good of him.

You and I can’t judge for ourselves the tenure and structure of the article for ourselves, that is just too awkward. We’ll just have to take Dedman’s word for it. Footnotes? Really, what good are they? Why test the research acumen of the goddess, what Hubris you have, peasant? I like that word, I learned it earlier.

No there seems to be a definite trend here that is not surprising. If you are a right wing wacko bird like Ted Cruz who is running for president, or a war-mongering former comedian turned lawyer, columnist like Kurt Schlichter, an operative of the left will get your documents and use your own words to smear you. But, If you are Barack Obama, or Hillary Rodham Clinton, special care is taken by the gate-keepers to protect your college work so as to tamp down the unfair criticism of the unwashed masses.

And that really is the point right? There is a ring around the leftist prophets of progressivism that doesn’t extend to the lovers of the constitution. No, not for you. But there is still hope. We are told that Hillary and Barack got Ivy League educations and are more than qualified to be our leaders, even though we can’t judge their work for ourselves. We can judge them. Both have works of literature that has been edited and vetted and put out for the masses after the approval and polish of the acolytes. And we have their promises and words on the TV. Yes we can judge them and we will.

Happily Barack is not running for office again, although I predict he’ll be around in the wings for quite some time. As for Hillary, if she gets past her current dilemma with the press over her missing emails and private server, with the help of the press, then she is well on her way to be the presumptive nominee.

The democrats have cause for concern this time around, however. The GOP has a deep bench filled with conservatives as well as a moderate or two and with luck the right guy or gal will rise to the top to challenge the goddess. Ted Cruz, cum laude from his respective institution of Princeton and a champion debater with a record for excellence, leads the way. I can’t wait to see a debate between Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz. It’ll be better than fireworks.

 

Share This:

Netcentric Hubris and the Challenge of Netcentric Leadership

The Attached document is the 2011 US Army War College Program Research Project of LTC Kurt A. Schlichter. Schlichter is a trial lawyer, conservative columnist, and retired Army Colonel, as well as a close personal friend of the late superblogger Andrew Breitbart.

Share This: