During the Chosin Reservoir battle, why didn’t the Chinese obliterate the U.S. Marines and instead let them do a semi-orderly retreat?

Asked on Quora.

The Chinese did not allow the Marines’ an orderly retreat, they did everything in their power to annihilate them! Chinese sources say they had 450,000 casualties with 100,000 KIA while they fought UN forces in that war. But going back to the fight at the Chosin Reservoir.

“The engagement started when the American forces of the 1st Marine Division and the X Corps (who were pushing north in pursuit of the Chinese) saw themselves unexpectedly surrounded by an entire Chinese Army Group. Over the following two weeks, the Americans managed to break out of the Chinese encirclement and reach the coast where they were evacuated.” MacAuther was totally convinced that the Chinees would not enter the war and was also convinced that the War would be over by Christmas. He was wrong.

“On November 27th, the Chinese launched attacks against American forces moving through the road that lead to Koto-Ri. Caught by surprise, the American forces were surrounded and cut-off into several small pockets. The Marines desperately defended their positions against continual Chinese assaults but risking to be overrun, the Americans started retreating on December 6th, using air strikes to support their breakout from the Chinese blockade and escaping to the South. The objective of the retreat was the city of Hungnam where they arrived on December the 11th. Chosin Reservoir was a costly victory for the Chinese, costing them almost 50,000 casualties, while the Americans suffered 17,843 casualties.”

The battle was fought over some of the roughest terrain during some of the harshest winter weather conditions of the Korean War.[1]:24 The road was created by cutting through the hilly terrain of Korea, with steep climbs and drops. Dominant peaks, such as the Funchilin Pass and the Toktong Pass (40°23′38″N 127°09′40″E / 40.3938°N 127.161°E), overlook the entire length of the road. The road’s quality was poor, and in some places it was reduced to a one lane gravel trail.[1]:28–31 On 14 November 1950, a cold front from Siberia descended over the Chosin Reservoir, and the temperature plunged, according to estimates, to as low as −36 °F (−38 °C).[1]:xi The cold weather was accompanied by frozen ground, creating considerable danger of frostbite casualties, icy roads, and weapon malfunctions. Medical supplies froze; morphine syrettes had to be defrosted in a medic’s mouth before they could be injected; frozen blood plasma was useless on the battlefield. Even cutting off clothing to deal with a wound risked gangrene and frostbite. Batteries used for the Jeeps and radios did not function properly in the temperature and quickly ran down.[15] The lubrication in the guns gelled and rendered them useless in battle. Likewise, the springs on the firing pins would not strike hard enough to fire the round, or would jam.

Song Shilun (middle), commander of the People’s Volunteer Army 9th Army at Chosin Reservoir

“Despite the loss of territory, the U.S. forces remained more intact and less ravaged than their Chinese counterparts. 17 Americans from 3 military branches received Medals of Honor for their valor in the engagements. The UN forces who served that day live on forever in military history as the ‘Chosin Few’. Many of the casualties were later exchanged to receive burials and honors between the UN and Communists, in what would become known as ‘Operation Glory’. Many of the unidentified bodies were buried at Honolulu’s Punchbowl Crater in the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific.”

Outcome:

The bulk of the PVA Ninth Army crossed the North Korean border on 10 November and arrived, undetected, around Chosin on 17 November. Chinese reconnaissance revealed a number of weaknesses in the UN dispositions. The two American garrisons on either side of the reservoir were unable to support each other, and it was clear that the road junction south of the reservoir at Hagaru-ri, – although strategically important – was only lightly defended. The Chinese were aware that the road running south of the reservoir to Koto-ri and on to the port of Hungnam appeared to be the Americans’ only line of retreat. The Chinese plan was to neutralize the three positions around the reservoir and then, as the UN forces came in from the south to relieve them, they in turn would be encircled and destroyed. The only difficulty the Chinese had was determining the actual strength of the UN forces since time was short. They nevertheless felt confident that their 60,000 men could overwhelm the relatively small detachments confronting them. Moreover, by infiltrating and maximizing the element of surprise they would be able to defeat the Westerners while suffering relatively low casualties. What the Chinese commanders did not realize was that the US 1st Marine Division (reinforced by the British 41 Royal Marines Commando, and two American infantry battalions) had arrived at Yudam-ni, which meant that the total strength of UN forces was close to 27,000.

The Chinese began their attacks at night on 27 November. Ambushes were conducted against mobile units, while massive infantry assaults swept on to the defended garrisons around the reservoir. At Yudam-ni, the Marines were soon surrounded, and tried to make sense of the confused situation while fighting along a hastily formed perimeter. On the eastern side of the reservoir, Regiment Combat Team 31 found itself similarly isolated and under attack from two divisions, the 80th and 81st. Further south, US Marines at Koto-ri were being attacked by another division. Taken by surprise, each formation was initially fighting for its survival.

“Marine Sgt. Johnny Johnson marched into deadly combat the first day he landed in Korea and it didn’t stop until he was sent home. He fought from the tip of South Korea all the way to the China border. His battles marked the map of war like the tiny flecks of dirt and sand still stuck under his skin from a Chinese grenade.

He landed in 1950—the year of the worst winter in Korea in 100 years, when temperatures in the north plunged to 40 below zero, and tanks, rifles, jeeps and canned rations were frozen by the “Manchurian Wind Tunnel.” Johnson still buys his shoes extra-large and wears two pairs of socks, even in summer, because his bones cannot forget the bitter, grinding cold.

He was among 8,000 1st Division Marines who fought one of the most valiant, historic battles in U.S. military history at the Chosin Reservoir. They were outnumbered by 100,000 Chinese who came out of the mountains and “poured over the hills like water,” he says.

The Marines scraped and clawed out shallow foxholes, reinforced by stacks of enemy dead. Morphine Syrettes froze solid and had to be thawed in the mouths of medics as men suffered and bled to death. The Marines fought their way out, taking their wounded and dead draped on Jeeps like bucks in deer season.

“Retreat, hell,” said Marine Gen. Oliver P. Smith, “we’re just attacking in a different direction.”

The Chosin Reservoir Campaign of the Korean War is the stuff of legend in the Marine Corps. During the pivotal 1950 battle, 15,000 U.S. soldiers and Marines, alongside another 15,000 UN soldiers, fought through a force of 120,000 Chinese soldiers to reach the sea some 78 miles away.

Commencing on November 26, Smith’s men endured extreme cold and severe weather. The next day, the 5th and 7th Marines attacked from their positions near Yudam-ni, on the west bank of the reservoir, with some success against the PLA forces in the area. Over the next three days the 1st Marine Division successfully defended their positions at Yudam-ni and Hagaru-ri against Chinese human wave assaults. On November 29, Smith contacted Colonel “Chesty” Puller, commanding the 1st Marine Regiment, at Koto-ri and asked him to assemble a task force to re-open the road from there to Hagaru-ri.

By the end of the battle, U.S. Marines suffered 836 dead and around 10,000 wounded. The Army had 2,000 dead and 1,000 wounded. The Chinese had the most catastrophic losses. Intelligence reported the Chinese as saying American forces could beat any Chinese effort, no matter the size.

Six Chinese divisions were completely wiped out. Of the ten that attacked, only one would ever see action again. Though the exact numbers are not clear, historians estimate Chinese losses anywhere from 30,000 to 80,000 killed. The numbers of Chinese wounded may never be known.

Does that sound like the Chinees were allowing the Marine’s semi-orderly retreat?

History and Tradition: Carlos Hathcock

This is a copy and past of an answer on Quora by Carlos Marcelo Shäferstein, M.A. Military Intelligence & Military History, and Wars, Argentine Army (2007) so you can forgive him for calling a cover a hat.

How effective were snipers during the Vietnam war?

Carlos Marcelo Shäferstein, M.A. Military Intelligence & Military History, and Wars, Argentine Army (2007)Answered Mar 2

Carlos Hathcock was a genuine Vietnam War hero and an undisputed legend in the U.S. Marine Corps for his exploits in southeast Asia.

With a record of 93 confirmed kills but an estimated body count of between 300 – 400 enemy soldiers, Hathcock terrorized the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) and the Viet Cong.

Because of these exploits, he was honored by having a rifle named after him – the Springfield Armory M25 White Feather, so called for the nickname that NVA men gave him because he always wore a white feather in his cap.

Just like World War One hero Alvin York, the Vietnam War soldier taught himself how to shoot as a child growing up in Little Rock, Arkansas. After Hathcock’s parents divorced he lived with his grandmother and began to hunt early, partly out of necessity to feed his family.

The soldier was introduced to a military mentality from an early age as he used his father’s Mauser that he had brought back with him after the first world war.

Hathcock dreamt of enlisting in the armed forces his whole life and when he was just 17 he enlisted in the Marines. By the age of 23, he would win the prestigious Wimbledon Cup shooting championship at Camp Perry in 1965.

The sniper initially started his deployment in Vietnam as a military policeman before carrying out feats of stamina, skill, and endurance that wouldn’t sound out of place in a historical fiction novel.

It was Captain Edward James Land that pushed for Marines to be placed into every platoon and Land recruited those who had set records in sharpshooting. Hathcock had done that when he won the Wimbledon Cup. He was recruited and the wheels of history set into motion.

During the Vietnam War, kills had to be confirmed by a third person who had to be an officer. As a result, the sniper’s spotter wasn’t allowed to be this acting third party – and as a sniper often carried out work away from a third party this ‘confirmed’ number was often lower than in reality.

Carlos Hathcock at his Silver Star presentation

Hathcock was a master of using the innate weakness of man against them. It was for this reason that he used to strike at the beginning and the end of the day.

“In the morning, they’re going out after a good night’s rest, smoking, laughing,” Military and Veteran Benefits, News, Veteran Jobs reported that he said about his favorite times to strike. “When they come back in the evenings, they’re tired, lollygagging, not paying attention to detail.”

One of his most famous moments came when he was sent to take out a General in the NVA. It was astonishing work by Hathcock as he went four days and three nights without food or sleep in the pursuit of his man.

The sniper often volunteered for missions that he didn’t know anything about because of a natural belief, probably backed up by the stats, that he was better than the rest of his comrades.

Hathcock crawled inch by patient inch to get to a good position in order to hit the target – even ‘worming’ on his side in order to keep his trail thin and avoid being spotted by communist forces.

The sniper got 700 yards away and calmly slotted a bullet through the general’s heart. Hathcock was so good that it took him three days to get back to safety but he managed to do so without being detected once.

“Carlos became part of the environment,” explained Land. “He totally integrated himself into the environment. He had the patience, drive, and courage to do the job. He felt very strongly that he was saving Marine lives.”

Among his other famous kills was when the sniper took out an NVA platoon leader known only as Apache. She enjoyed torturing captured American soldiers and was hated by the Marine forces that operated in the area.

M-25 Rifle

One day Apache captured a private and sadistically tortured him within earshot of Hathcock’s own unit. She skinned the man. She cut off his eyelids, before taking his fingernails off and castrating him. Then she let him go.

As a result, Hathcock took his spotter and they trailed Apache and her platoon. Went she stepped off the trail to relieve herself, the sniper took his chance. He even put a second bullet in the hated torturess just for good measure.

Because of his skill and mounting body count, the NVA had put a $30,000 bounty on the head of Hathcock. The normal range for a bounty would be anything up to $2,000 – but Hathcock was special.

The NVA sent their best man, known as Cobra, after Hathcock and he began to pick off soft targets from the American’s unit in an attempt to draw him into the open.

“He was very cagey, very smart,” said Hathcock about Cobra. “He was close to being as good as I was… But no way, ain’t no way ain’t nobody that good.”

The American and Cobra circled each other – the NVA man even got a shot off which hit Hathcock’s partner’s canteen. Cobra ended up facing the sun, which would prove to be his downfall.

A ray of sun caught the lens of the Vietnamese man’s scope. There was a glint. Hathcock saw it and shot it. The bullet went straight through the scope without touching the sides and hit Cobra flush in the eye.

The only way this could have been possible is if Cobra was zeroing in on Hathcock and he fired first. One man had the quicker trigger finger, the other was dead.

Hathcock’s time in Nam was brought to a swift end when his vehicle hit an anti-tank mine and was blown up. In saving the lives of seven Marines who were inside the burning vehicle, Hathcock suffered burns to 40% of his body.

This ended his career behind a sniper, but the soldier trained the next generation after setting up the Marine Sniper School at Quantico. After being forced into retirement after his health worsened due to multiple sclerosis, Hathcock continued to provide training to police units and the military.

He sadly passed away in February 1999 in Virginia Beach after succumbing to multiple sclerosis. In the end, nature accomplished what the best snipers in the whole of Vietnam never could.

SOURCE & CREDITS:

A Vietnam War Sniper Crawled for 3 Days Across 2000m of Open Field, Killed NVA General With One Shot, Then Crawled Back

What do the terms ‘arms’, ‘well regulated’, and ‘militia’ mean in the Second Amendment?

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/the-second-amendment-and-the-inalienable-right-to-self-defense

David Franklin Hammack, Student of the Constitution, and Essayist Discussing Constitutional Principles

Updated Oct 20 2018

“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” [Amendment II, Constitution of the United States, as ratified by the several States]

The Constitution as a whole, including the amendments, must be viewed through the lens of the time to be understood. This is not as easy as it might sound, because even if you know the right words, you have to understand the context of the time. The Second Amendment is a real beast, because it has been interpreted by the courts, even the Supreme Court, for the most egregious of political reasons, to distort the meaning. I am not a Supreme Court Justice, nor even an attorney, and it is not my intent to refute Cruikshank, but to offer a fresh historical perspective on the meaning of the Second Amendment

The Militia – What “They” Said…

• James Madison: “The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” Federalist 46
• James Madison: “A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” 1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789
• Rep. Tenche Coxe of Pennsylvania: “The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
• Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.
• Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
• Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789)
• Thomas Jefferson: “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms… The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”, letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On Democracy
• Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
• George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)
• Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” Richard Henry (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) Lee, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)
• Thomas Paine: “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside… Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)
• Justice Joseph Story: “The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace both from the enormous expenses with which they are attended and the facile means which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers to subvert the government or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers and will generally even if these are successful the first instance enable the people to resist and triumph over them…” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.

Well Regulated?

The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.[1]

So, if something is “well regulated”, it is “regular” (a well regulated clock; regular as clockwork).

In the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped” and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “standing army” or “regulars” to describe a professional army. Therefore, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. [2] [emphasis added]

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulatedAmerican embryo city.”

Finally, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, from The Federalist Papers, #29,

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

From this quote we can deduce two things:

1. If the Founders meant for government to control the militia, they would have used the verb “to discipline”, as in “a well disciplined militia” (an objective Hamilton described as “futile” and “injurious”).
2. As Hamilton observes, well regulated meant the people were responsible for training themselves to arms, as well as supplying and equipping themselves. Though Hamilton thought this onerous, by demanding the Second Amendment, the States devolved this responsibility to the People.

Arms – weapons considered collectively

There is a lot of misunderstanding of this term, even among the gun community. If you just read the 2nd Amendment by itself, it is easily (and often) misinterpreted. If you study the the supporting documents and the ratification debates, it becomes much clearer. Nonetheless, the keys are in the text of the amendment itself. A couple of definitions first to promote understanding…

implements of war, munition, weaponry, weapons system

ammo, ammunition – projectiles to be fired from a gun

armament – weaponry used by military or naval force

bomb – an explosive device fused to explode under specific conditions

Usage – A couple of famous quotes…

1. Niccolò Machiavelli: The main foundations of every state, new states as well as ancient or composite ones, are good laws and good arms. You cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow.
2. Adolf Hitler: The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

Actually, the modern definition still applies, as the Founders were well aware that military science was rapidly evolving, particularly in the field of arms. They specified arms to leave interpretation as broad as possible, but there are caveats. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… [emp. added][Tenche Coxe]

Mr. Coxe was a Congressman from Pennsylvania. Clearly their intent was that citizens be armed with military grade weapons.

It seems pretty clear cut, but in analysis, there are inherent limitations, on both government, and the People. The prefatory clause, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”, is a justification clause, and defines a limit on what type of arms. It does not say, “Because the People need to hunt for food, and slaughter live stock” or “As the People must be secure in their person and home”. Though these are good and sensible reasons, and while they were certainly considerations… It specifies the militia as defined above, so clearly all arms, up to and including military grade weapons.

The operative clause: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Again, note the wording – keep AND bear arms. These two terms are inextricably linked. It inherently limits the arms you may keep, to the arms you can bear. In other words, such arms as an infantryman or “soldier” carries; at the time, a musket or rifle (with bayonet), with sword, and or pistol. Today, common, infantry type weapons include (but are not limited to) pistols, semi-automatic rifles, burst fire rifles, and fully automatic rifles of a caliber used by the individual infantryman.

This specifically excludes crew-served weapons such as heavy machine guns, mortars, artillery, tanks, anti-aircraft guns, missiles (other than man-portable), fighter jets, etc. because a single militiaman cannot bear them by himself. Just as the Federal government can commission privately owned ships, by a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, as ships of war (privateers), the governors of the States can commission officers to establish, and equip a militia unit, with the crew served arms needed to wage war.

What to Conclude?

Having properly defined “militia” as used in the vernacular of the Founders, and establishing the meaning of the phrase “well regulated” as it was used at the time the Second Amendment was written, it seems the “well regulated militia” was meant to be “the whole people”, all citizens, who, at need, could work together, and as effectively as a professional army, with the armament they provide themselves. In order to do that the arms and equipment in their possession, part of their “regulation”, would be arms and equipment equal to that of any army they may face. None of this seems to support the interpretation that the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard, or a state sponsored, organized militia.

As to what constitutes arms… This analysis must conclude that the government shall not infringe (in any way limit) the right of the citizen to own any weapon they can use effectively by themselves, as individuals, or carry them, as is fit. While the prefatory clause is a justification clause, it is not the only justification found in the supporting documents, but one of several. It was seen as the most important, and justified the broadest possible latitude in the types of arms the People could own. A hunting or slaughter weapon might or might not be effective for personal or home defense. A weapon suitable for home defense can also be used to hunt, and slaughter livestock, but not optimal in armed conflict. A weapon suitable for military use can be used for all of the above. This does not limit one to “military grade” weapons only. Any weapon can be used effectively in combat. It may not be a “first choice” weapon, but it can certainly be used effectively if it is all you have; certainly more effectively than nothing at all.

Even if the Constitution were amended to preclude government access to the militia, this would not affect the Second Amendment. The “militia clause” of the Second Amendment was not the “reason” for the amendment. It simply represented what the Founders saw as the most important of many reasons. Actually, the Second Amendment could be seen as guaranteeing The People the right to form militias, irrespective of government control.

The Second Amendment was founded on this principle, “Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”; from the Declaration of Right, commonly known as the English Bill of Rights. Notice there is no mention of the militia, but this guarantees the right of the English people to have “arms for their defence”. Explicit with the “right to have”, is the right to use in your defence, therefore to carry with you if you felt you may be threatened.

Since the right to own and carry firearms was already commonly understood, but the British Governors had elected to deprive them, in some very important cases, of the means to equip their militia, the Founders saw this as the most likely abuse of power regarding firearms, since the right to own and carry arms had been undisputed for 100 years. It did not deny the ownership and use of arms for defense, and in fact states that the right to own and carry arms, even for use as a militia, shall not be infringed. Note another difference to the clause from the Declaration of Right… “and as allowed by law” was specifically addressed by, “shall not be infringed”. While the King could make laws regarding ownership and use of arms, Congress could not.

What Does It Mean… Today?

Modern language only vaguely resembles the language of a couple of centuries ago. This is “linguistic drift”. As society changes, so does language. Words take on new meanings, or even express different ideas. The Heller decision was the first SCOTUS decision that actually took a look at the basis of the 2nd Amendment, that actually parsed the arguments of the authors, and the delegates to the ratifying conventions. The Court’s conclusion was inescapable. The only reason the opinion didn’t go any further than it did, was because the question before the court was very narrow.

You see, actually, the words in the Constitution define the concepts at that time. That specific concept was agreed to by all parties to the document. This was a contract agreed to on behalf of the representative’s constituents. While the meaning of the words may change over time, that concept remains the same. The concept, described by what the words meant at that time, is the law.

As language changes, so does society, but, the law does not. That is why it is the duty of Congress to write laws pursuant to the Constitution, and as society grows, and the people, in great enough numbers, feel the Constitution no longer addresses the needs of society, to amend the Constitution. Until that happens, regardless of what the words may mean today as opposed to the time when they were written, those concepts, agreed to by all signatories, shape the law.

The Constitution is a legal document; a land survey plat is a legal document. Both are defining legal constructs. A piece of real estate is defined by boundaries. You will never see a parcel of land defined with a stream or river as a boundary. A stream may run congruent with the boundary, but markers are set to establish the boundary. Over time, a stream may change course. If your boundary is on a stream, when it moves, do you suddenly have less land than you paid for? Of course not, your land still extends to the markers set at the time of the survey. This is why the concepts of the Constitution, not modern definitions of the words, define the law.

Understanding the history of the Second Amendment, if it were written in today’s style, it might be written as…

• The right the people to own and carry arms, even for use as a military comparable militia, shall not be infringed.

Footnotes

[1] Meaning of the phrase

[2] What the Founding Fathers Meant by “Militia”

Footnotes

[1] Meaning of the phrase

Events that led up to Russia annexing the Crimea

Just a reminder of the events that led up to Russia annexing the Crimea. The threat of war in Ukraine was growing. As the unelected government in Kiev declares itself unable to control the rebellion in the country’s east, John Kerry brands Russia a rogue state. The US and the European Union step up sanctions against the Kremlin, accusing it of destabilizing Ukraine. The White House is reported to be set on a new cold war policy with the aim of turning Russia into a “pariah state”.

That might be more explicable if what is going on in eastern Ukraine now were not the mirror image of what took place in Kiev a couple of months ago. Then, it was armed protesters in Maidan Square seizing government buildings and demanding a change of government and constitution. US and European leaders championed the “masked militants” and denounced the elected government for its crackdown, just as they now back the unelected government’s use of force against rebels occupying police stations and town halls in cities such as Slavyansk and Donetsk.

Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate – sent directly to you “America is with you,” Senator John McCain told demonstrators then, standing shoulder to shoulder with the leader of the far-right Svoboda party as the US ambassador haggled with the state department over who would make up the new Ukrainian government.

When the Ukrainian president was replaced by a US-selected administration, in an entirely unconstitutional takeover, politicians such as William Hague brazenly misled parliament about the legality of what had taken place: the imposition of a pro-western government on Russia’s most neuralgic and politically divided neighbor.

Putin bit back, taking a leaf out of the US street-protest playbook – even though, as in Kiev, the protests that spread from Crimea to eastern Ukraine evidently have mass support. But what had been a glorious cry for freedom in Kiev became infiltration and insatiable aggression in Sevastopol and Luhansk.

After Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to join Russia, the bulk of the western media abandoned any hint of even-handed coverage. So Putin is now routinely compared to Hitler, while the role of the fascistic right on the streets and in the new Ukrainian regime has been airbrushed out of most reporting as Putinist propaganda.

So you don’t hear much about the Ukrainian government’s veneration of wartime Nazi collaborators and pogromists, or the arson attacks on the homes and offices of elected communist leaders, or the integration of the extreme Right Sector into the national guard, while the anti-semitism and white supremacism of the government’s ultra-nationalists is assiduously played down, and false identifications of Russian special forces are relayed as fact.

The reality is that, after two decades of eastward Nato expansion, this crisis was triggered by the West’s attempt to pull Ukraine decisively into its orbit and defense structure, via an explicitly anti-Moscow EU association agreement. Its rejection led to the Maidan protests and the installation of an anti-Russian administration – rejected by half the country – that went on to sign the EU and International Monetary Fund agreements regardless.

No Russian government could have acquiesced in such a threat from territory that was at the heart of both Russia and the Soviet Union. Putin’s absorption of Crimea and support for the rebellion in eastern Ukraine is clearly defensive, and the red line was drawn: the east of Ukraine, at least, is not going to be swallowed up by Nato or the EU.

But the dangers are also multiplying. Ukraine has shown itself to be barely a functioning state: the former government was unable to clear Maidan, and the Western-backed regime is “helpless” against the protests in the Soviet-nostalgic industrial east. For all the talk about the paramilitary “green men” (who turn out to be overwhelmingly Ukrainian), the rebellion also has strong social and democratic demands: who would argue against a referendum on autonomy and elected governors?

Meanwhile, the US and its European allies impose sanctions and dictate terms to Russia and its proteges in Kiev, encouraging the military crackdown on protesters after visits from Joe Biden and the CIA director, John Brennan. But by what right is the US involved at all, incorporating under its strategic umbrella a state that has never been a member of Nato, and whose last elected government came to power on a platform of explicit neutrality? It has none, of course – which is why the Ukraine crisis is seen in such a different light across most of the world. There may be few global takers for Putin’s oligarchic conservatism and nationalism, but Russia’s counterweight to US imperial expansion is welcomed, from China to Brazil.

In fact, one outcome of the crisis is likely to be a closer alliance between China and Russia, as the US continues its anti-Chinese “pivot” to Asia. And despite growing violence, the cost in lives of Russia’s arms-length involvement in Ukraine has so far been minimal compared with any significant western intervention you care to think of for decades.

The risk of civil war is nevertheless growing and with it the chances of outside powers being drawn into the conflict. Barack Obama has already sent token forces to eastern Europe and is under pressure, both from Republicans and Nato hawks such as Poland, to send many more. Both US and British troops are due to take part in Nato military exercises in Ukraine this summer.

The US and EU have already overplayed their hand in Ukraine. Neither Russia nor the western powers may want to intervene directly, and the Ukrainian prime minister’s conjuring up of a third world war presumably isn’t authorized by his Washington sponsors. But a century after 1914, the risk of unintended consequences should be obvious enough – as the threat of a return of big-power conflict grows. Pressure for a negotiated end to the crisis is essential.

By Seumas Milne.

So, for our politician to stand up and boldface lie about us having no role in Putin taking the Crimea is downright laughable, they depend upon your not remembering. Remeber this picture from the Orange Revolution.

The point of the above post is not to say Russia is a great place or that Putin is a good man, rather to point out that Russia was pushed by the West, EU, and NATO to take the Crimea if they wanted to keep their only deepwater port. The Crimea was a part of Russia until I think it was Boris Nikolayevich Chernousov under the USSR, decided to put it under Ukraine authority, it did not matter much then, but when the USSR broke up the port, Russia’s only deep water port, the Crimea became very important to Russa.

Things do not happen in a vacuum, all event have precursors that led to what happened, and these events will lead to other events, and I am hoping that an atomic war is not one of them. For now, that is between Trump and Putin.

 

May God Bless Us All.

Two Views of the Constitution: Originalism vs. Non-Originalism

I am a Libertarian, not a conservative, and I am in the originalist school of interpreting the Constitution. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia defined “originalism” this way:

“The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring. It means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted.” This applies to each and every one of the Amendments.

That means to understand what the Constitution means you have to understand how the writers understood the words they used to write the Constitution. That is in opposed to the Progressive’s Living Document way of applying the Constitution. The originalist doesn’t look to give the Constitution meaning, they look to understand what the original writers meant when they wrote it, and then apply that meaning to today’s issues. How judges line up on this divide is decided by the election of the President, and the justices he appoints to the bench. This is why election matter so much, and one of the consequences if elections.

It is the Living Document school of interpreting the Constitution that bends the meaning of the Constitution to fit how they wish to shape the law of the land. This article demonstrates how the two sides of this divide see how things that come before the Court should be decided.

This, by Katie Vloet, explains the divide very well:

 

Two Views of the Constitution: Originalism vs. Non-Originalism By Katie Vloet September 22, 2015

This year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, regarding the fundamental right to marry, provides a useful lens through which to view the differences between originalist and non-originalist views of the U.S. Constitution, the U-M Constitution Day speaker said.

“It’s really a microcosm of the legal debate about how we interpret the Constitution,” John Bursch said on September 17 at Michigan Law. Bursch argued Obergefell on behalf of Michigan, Tennessee, and Kentucky earlier this year (listen to oral arguments).

Bursch presented benefits and challenges of both interpretations of the Constitution: originalism, in which the meaning of the Constitution is interpreted as fixed as of the time it was enacted, and non-originalism, in which the meaning of the Constitution is viewed as evolving with changes in society and culture.

“Non-originalists would say that the same-sex marriage decision is the perfect example of why courts need some flexibility to depart from the text, structure, and original intent,” Bursch said, and that, although changes were already happening in state laws about same-sex marriage, they were happening “at a snail’s pace.” A non-originalist, he said, would argue “that this case was decided correctly because it focused on the liberty and personal dignity that were the animating principles of the Constitution.”

The originalists—including the four dissenters in the Obergefell opinion—would say that the justices in the majority “used substantive due process to amend the Constitution by judicial fiat,” Bursch said. An originalist also would say that this is a “classic instance of the justices imposing their own personal values about the way that they thought the country should be going rather than an application of simple, neutral, objective criteria. The dissenters pointed out that the democratic process was working; laws were changing. … By taking this issue away from the people who passed [marriage] referendums in all of these states, the majority hurt democracy.”

Fight the good fight.

 

The Three-Fifths Compromise And Roland Martin

Tuesday on MSNBC “Velshi & Ruhle,” discussing White House chief of staff John Kelly’s comments on Fox News about Confederate monuments, host of “News One Now” Roland Martin said “too many people in this country who are white” didn’t know history and wanted to “somehow glorify these Confederate leaders.” Martin said, “I’m not going to allow four stars stuck on stupid to simply go on. Here’s a man who’s utterly clueless. For him to say, ‘Well, we could have compromised’—really? We did compromise. It was a thing called United States Constitution, and you know what that said? If you’re a black, you’re three-fifths of a human.” He continued, ”I need John Kelly to actually go back and read a history book that my 12-year-old nieces are reading right now, because clearly, he fell asleep in history.” Source.

In this spiel, Roland Martin demonstrated his own lack of understanding of history. The three-fifths compromise did not make a slave three-fifths of a human; it diluted the South’s power in the House of Representatives by not allowing slaves to count as a whole person when determining how many representatives each state could send to Congress. Had they been counted as whole persons, which is what the South wanted, the South would have many more representatives. The Northen states did not want the slaves to count as persons when determining how many representatives each state could send to Congress. The three-fifths of a person was the compromise made between the Southern and Northen states to get the Constitution ratified by both the Northern and Southern states.

So, Roland Martin, go back and study a little more history, and what the meaning and conditions that brought these events into existence. And, consider that no black slave came to North America that was not sold into slavery by other blacks.

ISIS is Going to Hell

 

Story from today’s headlines:

The Islamic State group once drew recruits from near and far with promises of paradise but now bodies of jihadists lie in mass graves or at the mercy of wild dogs as its “caliphate” collapses.

Flies buzz around human remains poking through the dusty earth in the Iraqi town of Dhuluiyah, 90 kilometres (55 miles) north of Baghdad, at a hastily-dug pit containing the bodies of dozens of IS fighters killed in 2015.

“They should have ended up in the stomachs of stray dogs,” local police officer Mohammed al-Juburi told AFP.

“We buried them here not out of love but because we wanted to avoid diseases.”

At one stage, IS ruthlessly wielded power over a vast swathe of territory straddling Iraq and Syria, but a military onslaught on multiple fronts has seen its fiefdom shrink to a last few pockets.

Since the launch in 2014 of air strikes in Iraq and Syria against the group, a US-led coalition says around 80,000 jihadists have been killed.

The overall number of dead is higher if you include those targeted by Russian and Syrian strikes.

Buried with bulldozers

In agricultural Dhuluiyah on the banks of the Tigris river, residents faced a common dilemma over what to do with the corpses of IS fighters after local Sunni militiamen beat back the jihadists in fierce clashes.

“We could have thrown them into the water, but we love the river too much to pollute it,” said the local policeman, who lost his own brother in the violence.

“The people here as well as their animals drink from the Tigris.”

Local finally decided to dig a mass grave for the fighters — but they said they refused to honor them with Islamic rites.

Back about 3 years ago I wrote this essay:

|Back then I said “who the hell know what Obama will do, but now we have Trump, and we know what he will do, “Bomb the Hell out of them”.

These two pictures invoked outcry from every Progressive and Liberal leaning mind in America and were used as propaganda to kill American’s support for the Vietnam War.

Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan, South Vietnamese chief of the national police, fires his pistol into the head of suspected Viet Cong official Nguyen Van Lem on a Saigon street early in the Tet Offensive, February 1, 1968. Photographer Eddie Adams reported that after the shooting, Loan approached him and said, “They killed many of my people, and yours too,” then walked away. (AP Photo/Eddie Adams) 1969 Pulitzer Prize winner for Spot News Photography.

Bang, followed by soldiers of the South Vietnamese army’s 25th Division, June 8, 1972. A South Vietnamese plane seeking Viet Cong hiding places accidentally dropped its flaming napalm on civilians and government troops instead. Nine-year-old Kim Phuc (center) had ripped off her burning clothes while fleeing. The other children (from left) are her brothers Phan Thanh Tam, who lost an eye, and Phan Thanh Phouc, and her cousins Ho Van Bon and Ho Thi Ting.

https://thecarolinacowboy.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-caliphate-is-heading-for-hell.html

Progressives, Liberals, and now Progressive Again

Woodrow Wilson, America’s 28th president, rejected the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution’s system of the separation of powers. This philosophy is known as Progressivism.

“All that progressives ask or desire,” wrote Woodrow Wilson, “is permission — in an era when development, evolution, is a scientific word — to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.”

John Dewey and his followers, argued that we needed a broader conception of liberty than the one maintained by laissez-faire negative-rights libertarians. The key idea can be summed up in a quote from Anatole France: “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.” Basically, the idea is that the freedom to starve because you have no food is not a meaningful freedom at all, because it does not maximize your autonomy or allow your to realize your potential, which were important goals in classical liberalism.

Thus Dewey argued that we should recognize positive liberty as well as negative liberty, meaning that e.g. just as we ought to recognize a right to live without someone killing you, we similarly ought to recognize a right to live without dying due to lack of food. Thus American Progressives advocates that the government should play some role in the economy in order to give people autonomy and enable them to pursue their own happiness, along the lines of the “responsiveness” part of the Progressive philosophy. Thus Americans liberals still try to achieve the goals of classical liberalism, but they sometimes do it through Progressive means.

The Progressives rejected God given rights as naive and unhistorical. In their view, human beings are not born free. John Dewey, the most thoughtful of the Progressives, wrote that freedom is not “something that individuals have as a ready-made possession.” It is “something to be achieved.” In this view, freedom is not a gift of God or nature. It is a product of human making, a gift of the state. Man is a product of his own history, through which he collectively creates himself. He is a social construct. Since human beings are not naturally free, there can be no natural rights or natural law. Therefore, Dewey also writes, “Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology.”

The Progressive presidents advocated a very interventionist foreign policy, since they were motivated by the desire to help people as much as possible, even people abroad. Liberals still share some of this impulse, and are willing to support limited American military intervention in circumstances of extreme humanitarian crisis. But mostly their foreign policy views were taken from classical liberalism, so they they’re antiwar for the most part.

Progressive are totally silent about their widespread support for the theory and practice of eugenics. As Princeton University economist Tim Leonard has chronicled, “eugenic thought deeply influenced the Progressive Era transformation of the state’s relationship to the American economy.” Despite the fact that this monograph favorably cites progressive hero Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes for his famous dissent in the economic liberty case Lochner v. New York (1905), the authors make no mention of Holmes’ notorious majority decision in Buck v. Bell, where Holmes and his colleagues (including Louis Brandeis) upheld the forced sterilization of those who “sap the strength of the State.”

Today it is the Progressive that laud Margaret Sanger and champing the slaughter of babies, which, btw the way are mostly black, Let’s read a few quotes:

“[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children… [Women must have the right] to live … to love… to be lazy … to be an unmarried mother … to create… to destroy… The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order… The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

No, that was not taken from Hitler. That’s a quotation from the patron saint of the feminists and Hillary Clinton. And the above words were not a one-off moment of insanity. There’s more where those horrendous thoughts came from.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

“Plan for Peace” from Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108)

Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.
“America Needs a Code for Babies,” 27 Mar 1934

Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.
April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108

Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.

In any case, when contemporary liberals call themselves progressive, they’re hearkening back to their intellectual predecessors. The Progressives hijacked the Democrat Party early in the 20th Century, as they were doing it they stopped calling themselves Progressive and started referring to themselves a Liberals. We can thank Hilary for the label coming back out in the open, she said that she was proud To call herself a Progressive.

Trump is our Zeitgeist

The world is changing, it is history (His Story) that creates the man, not the man making the times in which he is raised to greatness. You can see this all through history, Julius Caesar could have been Julius Caesar only at that time in history. George Washington came to power because of the necessity of history, he did not create the Revolution. Wellington was raised to defeat Napoleon, as was Winston Churchill for Hitler, none of which could have ever raised to power at any other time in history, the events of those days made them, they did not make the events. Trump is our Zeitgeist, he is being raised by the events of our day, for the good or for the evil, and there is no stopping him. I believe that he is a force for the good raised by God for these days.

Barry Goldwater’s War Against The Religious Right

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Barry Goldwater’s attack on the Religious Right.  This was brought to my attention by a Facebook friend, Christopher Lee Crowell, the other day in a discussion on religion’s role in the political process.  Let me point out the perspective from which I will be responding.  I consider myself a Christian Libertarian Constitutionalist, that is I believe that I am a person who believe that Jesus is my Savior God, believes that the less government is the best government, and that the Constitution as it was meant by its framer is the Law of the Land.  Christopher, on the other hand, is an atheist who, as far as I can tell subscribes to the living constitution concept.

One caveat, I voted Goldwater in 1964, but I did not pay as much attention back then as I do now, even though I believe that our country would have been much better off had he won instead of Johnson.

I will be adding my comment/rebuttals in red.

A note about the author D. Foster, Jr., a leftwing radical whose legitimacy is based solely on the fact that he is the braggadocios holder of a Bachelor’s Degree in History and Political Science from Missouri University of Science and Technology and is….surprise…… a teacher, in Pennsylvania and Missouri.

 

Known as ‘Mr. Conservative,’ Barry Goldwater embodied conservative values throughout his service as a Senator from Arizona, but he would oppose much of what conservatives have been doing today. Present day conservatives take many of their marching orders from the Christian right, also known as social conservatives, but Barry Goldwater resoundingly rejected them as extremists who disgrace the word ‘conservatism.’ Like present day conservatives, Goldwater supported the free market, but as much as he supported business, he rejected those who pollute the environment. Many conservatives today claim Barry Goldwater as one of their own, so it may surprise them to know that he rejected many of their present day core values. While maybe the concept, such as free markets and conservatives remand the same, how they are implemented is a different story. If Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization, then trying to obtain the goals of the Christian right can be viewed as a conservative goal in spite of Goldwater’s opinion, as many of the conservative of his day did.

Barry Goldwater rose to prominence as a man of deep conservative convictions. Liberals called him an extremist (which he was in his time) and his often colorful and controversial rhetoric cost him the Presidency in 1964. But Goldwater, as controversial as he was back then, also had the guts to call out his own party. For example, ‘Mr. Conservative’ rejected the Christian right-wing element of the party. As a firm believer in personal liberty, he saw their views as a violation of personal privacy and individual liberties. In fact, he believed in this creed so much that he voted to uphold legalized abortion and supported gay rights. He also rejected the use of God in political discourse and refused to vote in Congress the way the religious right wanted him to. Here is a portion of what Goldwater had to say about the religious right. A person’s personal liberty does not give them the liberty to kill another person, be it a baby or an old man dying on a sidewalk.  He had the right to reject the use of God in his political discourse, but not in others.  

“On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. On religious issues there can be little or no compromise, true for the personal, but not true for a deliberating body of legislators. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than God, true only for the believers, and true only for the idea being presented. That they are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent, is that not what every Special Interest Group does?  Why should the  Christian right be excluded because they are Christians who are trying to influence the course of our government both now and then.

I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?  But it is just fine for him to dictate his moral beliefs to them, from where comes his claim to a higher morality to preach to them?  Of course he, and people like him are free to express their opinions as to how it should be, and how others should behave, but that freedom is extended to those to whom he is preaching against.

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.” What threat could/did they make other that to persuade people not to vote for him?  Is that not covered in the First Amendment?
~Barry Goldwater

Goldwater refused to march lockstep with the Christian right as conservatives do today. The Republican Party of today has surrendered to the Christian right and ignored the real issues facing the country as a result. Goldwater knew how dangerous this would be. As was his right then as it is the right of of conservatives that do so today.  Dissagreing with that right does not take the right away.

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.” And just how did this manifest itself?  With Obama election?
~Barry Goldwater

Goldwater was a strong supporter of separation of church and state and was a passionate advocate for religious freedom. He would not support the Christian right’s crusade against non-Christian religions. Jefferson’s separation of church and state was just a guarantee that the government would neither establish a religion nor prevent the free exercise their of. It was not a prohibition of people to use their religious beliefs as a guiding light in the political process. 

“Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives.”  Sadly for Goldwater and people of his ilk many decent people recognize that religion has as place in public policy as anyone else’s opinion.
~Barry Goldwater

It might surprise you to know that Goldwater was a supporter of gay rights and rejected ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ As a man devoted to personal liberty, Goldwater believed that consenting adults are free to marry whomever they please. And as a strong ally of those in the military, Goldwater would be smiling about the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’

“Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar.”
~Barry Goldwater

“It’s time America realized that there is no gay exemption in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence.”
~Barry Goldwater

“You don’t need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.”  I believe that incorporation of openly queers will prove to be a big mistake.  The incidents of male on male rape in the military is exploding, that was something you never had in the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ ere or before. 
~Barry Goldwater

Here’s how the debate over military sexual assault has unfolded thus far: Bold female leaders spoke out, smart male allies stood behind them, clueless conservative men started mansplaining the issue, and right-wing media went full misogynist. Because of this, it’s easy to imagine that military sexual assault is mainly a problem of men versus (or attacking) women, but as James Dao in the New York Times explains, in fact, the majority of sexual assault in the military is male-on-male crime.

Goldwater would be horrified by the current war against gay Americans being waged by the Republican Party and would have flatly denounced the conservative audience who booed the gay soldier and would have damned the Republican candidates who failed to jump to his defense during one of the GOP Debates. It should also be noted that Goldwater supported desegregation. As a Colonel he founded the Arizona Air National Guard, and he desegregated it two years before the rest of the US military. Goldwater was instrumental in pushing the Pentagon to support desegregation of the armed services. This would clearly make Goldwater enemy number one in the conservative south.  If that war ever existed, it was lost in the courts.

Conservatives today are expected to oppose abortion at any cost. Abortion are murders. In fact, Republicans have been passing anti-abortion laws for the last three years in an effort to curb women’s rights, personal privacy, and individual liberty., including over 90 anti-abortion bills that have been passed in 2012 alone. Barry Goldwater would be absolutely disgusted with this effort and would call conservatives a disgrace to the Constitution. I bless them for it.

“Today’s so-called ‘conservatives’ don’t even know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It’s not a conservative issue at all.”
~Barry Goldwater Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization, the argument is over what is traditional and how the social institutions should be retained. Goldwater had a different idea than the other conservative, to believe that it is murder to kill an unborn child is conservative, that was the law until Roe v. Wade.  It is apparent to me that Goldwater had lost his conservative roots when he wrote this.

It’s clear that Goldwater supported Roe v. Wade. He consistently voted to uphold abortion rights. He made this decision because of his personal conviction that every woman has the right to privacy as protected by the Constitution. As an American, Goldwater put the Constitution before the Bible. That’s something that conservatives fail to do today. So sad that he lost his way.

There’s something else that conservatives support today that Barry Goldwater would flatly reject. Conservatives have an unshakable belief in the free market system, as did Goldwater. But conservatives believe that corporations should be allowed to pollute the environment as they wish, which is something Goldwater wouldn’t support at all. To put it bluntly, Goldwater would support the Koch brothers and their right to do business, but he would take them to the woodshed for willfully destroying the environment.  Conservatives never supported pollution, it was Nixon who created the EPA. In 1969 halt all dumping in the Great Lakes.  In 1970 he created cabinet-level Council on Environmental Quality. Then in 1970-72: he created EPA which passed Clean Air Act.

“While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment.” As do all Conservatives.
~Barry Goldwater

Barry Goldwater was a huge environmental advocate. He sincerely believed that we needed to protect our world. Republicans in Congress have proposed a plan that would eliminate over 100 years of environmental regulations including allowing mining operations in the Grand Canyon. Barry Goldwater would be furious with this plan. So what?

“Well, once you’ve been in the Canyon and once you’ve sort of fallen in love with it, it never ends…it’s always been a fascinating place to me, in fact I’ve often said that if I ever had a mistress it would be the Grand Canyon.” Werd.
~Barry Goldwater

Even Barry Goldwater’s religion was tied to the environment.

“My mother took us to services at the Episcopal church. Yet she always said that God was not just inside the four walls of a house of worship, but everywhere — in the rising sun over Camelback Mountain in Phoenix, a splash of water along the nearby Salt or Verde rivers, or clouds driving over the Estrella Mountains, south of downtown. I’ve always thought of God in those terms.”  So why should his religion have any more say in government that Christians?
~Barry Goldwater

Goldwater certainly had a passion for protecting the environment. He would support the Environmental Protection Agency and clean energy initiatives. He, more than any conservative today, understood that we only have one planet and that it is our duty to clean it up and protect it. Pure propaganda. And as much as Goldwater wanted to lower the tax rates, he never intended for the wealthiest among us to pay less than ordinary Americans. You have to remember that when Goldwater was fighting for lower taxes, the top tax rate in America was 91%. In the 1980s, Goldwater criticized Reagan’s “parade of millionaires.” He also supported American jobs and competition. He would be horrified to see how corporations have choked out competition in America and that those same corporations outsource millions of jobs overseas. Goldwater always stood by middle class Americans. Goldwater also opposed corporate money in politics which means he would certainly have rejected the Citizens United decision. “… the wealthiest among us to pay less than ordinary Americans.” And they never did. Today the top 10 percent of earners paid 68 percent of the federal Income Tax collected. 

The latest year I could Find:

• In 2013, 138.3 million taxpayers reported earning $9.03 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.23 trillion in income taxes.
• Every income group besides the top 1 percent of taxpayers reported higher income in 2013 than the previous year. All income groups paid higher taxes in 2013 than the previous year.
• The share of income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers fell to 19.0 percent in 2013. Their share of federal income taxes fell slightly to 37.8 percent.
• In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (69.2 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.
• The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (37.8 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (124.5 million filers) combined (30.2 percent).
• The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group, at 27.1 percent, which is over 8 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.3 percent).

Clearly, Goldwater isn’t the pillar of conservatism the Republicans make him out to be. In fact, Goldwater was so distressed about the Christian right takeover of the Republican Party, that he began referring to himself as a liberal. In 1996, he told Bob Dole, whose own presidential campaign received lukewarm support from conservative Republicans: “We’re the new liberals of the Republican party. Can you imagine that?” Other than him running against Johnson I do not recall his being talked about much.

Speaking of liberals, Goldwater believed they were a valuable part of the political system. Rather than vilify liberals like conservatives do on a daily basis today, Goldwater once wrote an article for the National Review “affirming that he [was] not against liberals, that liberals are needed as a counterweight to conservatism.” In other words, Goldwater would be completely against the present day conservative calls to destroy liberalism and the people who embody it. He would also be against conservative claims that liberals are socialists because he never would have stooped that low. Goldwater never supported the John Birch Society anti-communist obsession and he never once accused a fellow American of being a communist or socialist and would denounce Republicans for calling President Obama one. I strongly believe that Goldwater would have voted for President Obama had he been alive in 2008 like two of his granddaughters did. He was wrong to not oppose the Progressives of his day, they do not want to work with a Constitutional Republic, they want to rebuild America in the Communist mode.

We all know Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as Christian right-wing fanatics who have a stranglehold over the Republican Party. But Barry Goldwater never ever subscribed to their thirst to combine God and government. He considered such a movement an abomination and despised both Falwell and Robertson to the core. In a 1994 interview with the Washington Post the retired senator said, Fanatics is as you define them, I did not see Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson fanatics, they were loyal Americans working within the political frameworks, not trying to take it over serendipity like the Progressives have been doing for years.

“When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.” In response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell’s opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, “Every good Christian should be concerned”, Goldwater retorted: “Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.”  What makes him the judge of what a good Christian is or should be other than the fact that progressives agree with it?

These two examples clearly show how much Goldwater disapproved of the growing influence of the Christian Right. Goldwater went even further than that, however. A few years before his death he went so far as to address the unprincipled establishment Republicans, “Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you’ve hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have.”  I hope that they obliged him.  It was his idea of what the Republican Party should be that was hurt, not the Party.  There are those today that feel the same Trump, that he will destroy the Republican Party but he want, he will make it stronger with his Practical  Conservationism.

Barry Goldwater was a truer and more honorable conservative than the current crop of Republicans, who have allowed social conservative views, which he strongly opposed, to become the dominant and defining philosophy of the conservative movement. Conservatives never heeded Goldwater’s warning. They allowed the Christian right to take over the party and now they have become so powerful that even traditional conservatives do the bidding of the religious right on command. Barry Goldwater had the courage to stand up to these extremists and made his decisions in the Senate according to what he thought best for America as a whole. He defended religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and saw the Christian right as a major threat to that freedom. You mean that his were ideas that you agreed with.

It is time for conservatives to wake up and realize what the Christian right has done to the Republican Party and America. They must honor true conservatism and banish the religious right from their movement before their doctrine of hatred and division destroys the nation Goldwater loved. Goldwater’s views regarding the economy and Social Security are rather extreme but that’s why he believed in compromising. His willingness to stand against the extremists in his own party and his willingness to compromise makes him a better person and politician than any conservative today. His views were far tamer than those of present day conservatives. Goldwater had a mind of his own and he never allowed people to brainwash him or control him. It is a testament to the great character this man possessed. Barry Goldwater should be admired for his strength to reject extremists, his love of the American people, and his patriotism. But Republicans have moved so far to the right that even Barry Goldwater would be considered a hard-core liberal. Conservatives like Goldwater would be wise to follow his example and take back their party in his name before the extremists tear the fabric of America asunder.

Foster calling for conservatives to wake up is laughable on it face, he has no desire for Conservationism to trump, he is a stalking horse trying to get close enough to sway some uninformed, and give ammo to progressives to hit the Republican Party with.

Sponsored Content:

Author: Stephen D. Foster Jr.