View Full Version : Obama and Plummeting Military Morale
HowardCohodas
11-16-2009, 03:31
Obama and Plummeting Military Morale (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/obama_and_plummeting_military.html)
New Army surveys, reports the Wall Street Journal, show that morale has fallen sharply among soldiers fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and confirm an unusually high suicide in their ranks.
Perhaps this has something to do with doubts about their commander-in-chief's commitment to win this war by standing staunchly with them in spirit and providing the necessary troop levels and other resources. With fatalities and injuries surging among them, the president's prolonged and frazzled indecision on how to wage this struggle must leave these soldiers with a sense of being cast adrift in limbo, if not hell itself. Having first, very belatedly, consulted directly on strategy with the man in charge of the war, General Stanley McChrystal, President Obama then proceeded for months to pore over, appear to accept, throw out, and then start all over examining, various options.
In an act of deep interpersonal significance, as Claudia Rosett observes, the president has not bothered to pay a visit to Afghanistan to bolster morale. Yet, to buck up his foreign policy credentials, he managed to make a campaign stop there while running for president. Once elected, he found time to extend a friendly hand to Muslims in Cairo, lobby for Chicago's Olympics bid, vacation in Martha's Vineyard, and have a "date night" in New York City with his wife. Soon he'll be off to Oslo to accept a Nobel Peace Prize, which he has done nothing yet to deserve, in Afghanistan, at home, or elsewhere in the world.
It could also have not done much to fortify our soldiers to learn of the president's obfuscations and omissions in his recent Fort Hood tribute to their slaughtered 13 comrades. He could not bring himself, as Michael Goodwin and others noted, to call the massacre what it clearly was: treason and terrorism, visited by an Army officer on his defenseless comrades. While failing to acknowledge that Nidal Malik Hasan had shouted, "Al lahu akbar" (God is great) as he fired his weapons, the president also commented, "No just and loving God looks upon them with favor." The president declared the nation to be "in a time of war," but then downgraded the killings to the level of a mere "tragedy." He alluded to 9/11, warning that "the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America," but neglected to say that the same militant Islamism led to the recent slaughter. He was silent about the shooter's contacts with al Qaeda, but stated, "No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts."
Rosett urges the president to betake himself without further delay to Afghanistan and deliver "a soaring speech" to our troops, such as to "display for their benefit and the world's, that as commander-in-chief of these men and women who are risking their lives under his command, he is not AWOL."
But one wonders just how soaring such a message could possibly be, coming from one who cannot muster the leadership to decide how, and indeed if at all, to proceed on their battleground. So geared to mollify his leftist political base has this president's every action seemed so far in his tenure that our courageous soldiers have every reason to fear themselves but chess pieces in his long game of political calculation.
Can the hearts of our troops yet be touched by a commander-in-chief who has for so long failed to show his face, and left them alone, on the battleground? By now they, like many among us, must acknowledge that this is the same commander-in-chief who, during his bid for the presidency cynically - then, too, for rank political reasons -- trumpeted the war in Afghanistan to be the most "necessary" one in the fight against terrorism.
But, above all, the drag that this president exerts on our soldiers comes from his unwillingness even forthrightly to name the enemy with whom they are locked in deadly combat.
If President Obama's lack of leadership and alienation from our troops continue, he may go down in history as America's great demoralizer-in-chief. But, vastly more momentous than his place in history, his failure to lead this nation, and the world, during these hazardous times may well precipitate a series of crises that will plague us for generations.
Dozer523
11-16-2009, 07:39
You are a busy guy, Howard.
4 months, 241 posts, 29 (>10%) new threads.
HowardCohodas
11-16-2009, 08:13
You are a busy guy, Howard.
4 months, 241 posts, 29 (>10%) new threads.
I hope my contributions have been up worth your time.
This forum has become one of my favorite places to hang out.
Job hunting is extremely stressful. The time I spend here helps provide balance.
Interesting topic.
I see the news more troops killed or injured, which is followed by President Obama is looking at or waiting for proposals. And I believe the more he doddles, the more soldiers will be injured or killed. SO more and more I find myself thinking to myself to either give them the support they need, or bring them home.
From my civilian perspective it just appears those that serve are being left in limbo while our civilian leaders play their game of cards. I liken their behavior to the that scene in Platoon where Sgt. Elias being left in the clearing.
I think fear of making a mistake is paralyzing the man's decision-making abilities, if he has any. He does not want to lose the popularity contest that he does not realize he has already lost. A good leader has to be willing to lay his ass on the line and take responsibility if things go wrong. Alternatively, you could always just continually blame your predecessor for the problems you are too inept to handle. :p
Team Sergeant
11-16-2009, 09:32
I think fear of making a mistake is paralyzing the man's decision-making abilities, if he has any. He does not want to lose the popularity contest that he does not realize he has already lost. A good leader has to be willing to lay his ass on the line and take responsibility if things go wrong. Alternatively, you could always just continually blame your predecessor for the problems you are too inept to handle. :p
You assume much.
My guess would be the teleprompter reader of the United States is clueless and is a mindless idiot. Fear hasn't got anything to do with it, he's too stupid to know fear.
I think the people of the United States have made a mistake of historic proportions and one we will not soon forget.
I feel a deep sorrow for my leaderless brothers in arms standing in harm's way for an administration/government/ country that doesn't give a shit. I have little doubt military morale is bad and will only get worse.
Soon our government will be bowing or surrendering to the Taliban.
Embrace socialism, it's on its way.
I feel a deep sorrow for my leaderless brothers in arms standing in harm's way for an administration/government/ country that doesn't give a shit. I have little doubt military morale is bad and will only get worse.
U.S. News & World Report came out with a list of "Americas Best Leaders 2009" (see link below). Out of a list of 21 individuals, which includes General Odierno, they also included the generic "Senior Noncommissioned Officers" as one of America's best leaders. Now granted, Ted Kennedy is also one of the 21, but I'm not going to let that distract me.
Team Sergeant's view is the most realistic one, but I find myself unable to accept it. I feel so helpless to do anything about changing it, other than my prayers. As I read what was written about Sr NCO's - as fighters and diplomats, creative and critical thinkers, and builders of trust - I saw my hope rests in these men, many on this forum, and what they stand for and what they're doing here in retirement or in active duty in the field.
I am encouraged that in the midst of the corporate CEOs and politicians being recognized as great leaders, someone in the mainstream media is able to recognize the impact of the Sr NCOs - folks that may determine whether we have a future economy or not.
It may end up that one day looking back, we realize the intellect and resolve of the military Sr NCOs is what drove our most significant national strategies and policies. That's my hope and $.02 anyway....
orion5
http://www.usnews.com/sections/news/best-leaders/index.html
Embrace socialism, it's on its way.
Hopefully that doesn't happen and if it does hopefully it is not without a good fight.
without a good fight?
There will be no fight: it will be subtle and slowly ushered in right under everyone's nose until mainstream Amerika wakes up one morning and realizes its too late.
...just my two cents.
The sheep maybe trembling, the wolves are many and the sheep dogs are few, but take resolve never underestimate a sheep dog's abilities.
There is a lot of determination in just one sheep dog.
the problem is that the "wolves" have become increasingly skilled at getting the sheep to believe that its the "sheep dog" who should be feared...
Look around the country: the sheep are not trembling that much any more, they dont think there is a need to tremble any longer. The wolves have brought hope to the sheep.
...the "wolves" dont need to win the fight, they need only convince the herd that sheep-dogs are no longer relevant
without a good fight?
There will be no fight: it will be subtle and slowly ushered in right under everyone's nose until mainstream Amerika wakes up one morning and realizes its too late.
...just my two cents.
hopefully it is not without a good fight
No, it is not looking good. But I still have a grain of optimism along with 3 tablespoons of pessimism.
I look no higher than General "O" for "military" leadership.:cool:
I gave up on most "civilians" inspiring me too do anything!:munchin
Stay safe.
Team Sergeant
11-17-2009, 10:59
A whole herd will follow the lead right off the cliff.
Looks like the "majority" here in America is doing just that.....
MOO - but a problem as I see it is that with the Internet, the incessant and increasing stridency of the messages being received from both the wolves and the sheepdogs does little but overwhelm and confuse the sheeple to the point of typical ovine complacency.
Perhaps less frivolous 'barking' and a bit more serious 'biting' on the part of the sheepdogs might help reverse the trend.
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
MOO - but a problem as I see it is that with the Internet, the incessant and increasing stridency of the messages being received from both the wolves and the sheepdogs does little but overwhelm and confuse the sheeple to the point of typical ovine complacency.
Perhaps less frivolous 'barking' and a bit more serious 'biting' on the part of the sheepdogs might help reverse the trend.
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Back to my "999" thought from one of the other threads. In effort to be ready, really ready when we need to be, and in order to be heard in that very important time, it would be in our best interests I believe, to minimize the white noise. If everything is important, than nothing is important.
How long did it take for all of us to begin to hear the white noise of the new "color coded homeland defense alert" so much now to the point that even when it is raised, most folks I know just shrug their shoulders and go on about their lives. No added vigilance, no added thought to making changes in their daily lives. So what happens when "the threat REALLY REALLY REALLY is real this time, we promise, we wouldn't raise the threat level if it wasn't, hey pay attention, why aren't you listening" The sheepdogs will know the threat is real, but to the sheep, it is only white noise, because they have heard it all before, and nothing came of it, so why bother listening now?
If, on the other hand, the sheep only hear about the real and true threats, and not all the other white noise, when the sheepdogs raise their voices to the threat of the wolf, the sheep are more likely to listen.
Folks,
Is the current administration and environment radically different from America in the late 70's under Carter? I'm curious what folks who served in that era recall of the Military's morale and the general pulse of the nation. Jimmy Carter was an empty suit socialist as well, and when his act got stale, there was a decade long conservative blowback as a result. America has endured and survived significantly worse threats than this man.
IMHO besides his hubris and ineptitude Obama's weakness is he doesn't grasp Americans value freedom, but don't want to be equal, they want to be free to be more successful than their peers if possible, they want the house with the white picket fence etc.
Folks argue the cultural challenge of bringing democracy to the historical tribal cultures of the Middle East. Okay, but then America has a cultural history of liberty, individual rights, and capitalism, this is not fertile soil for socialism. In the past when the country drifts too far in either direction it has snapped back to the center, what is secular about this era?
Folks,
Is the current administration and environment radically different from America in the late 70's under Carter? I'm curious what folks who served in that era recall of the Military's morale and the general pulse of the nation.
akv,
Strange that you mention Carter as I was reading about him earlier. Carter is quoted in today's China Daily defending his handling of the 444 day hostage crisis. Here's the link
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2009-11/17/content_8984162.htm
I recall that those were pretty rough times and I remember morale was down. Not that it was all Carter's fault, the nation had gone thru a pretty rough period, Vietnam had not been our victory (I felt because of politics), we had some bad years as the draft ended and we transitioned to a VOLAR, we had recession and inflation, and an oil embargo. Lots of bad things seemed to pile up.
But you can see Carter's feelings at the link - I never found anyone I served with that shared Carter's cost/benefit analysis of the crisis.
I always found that when the POTUS treated the military with the dignity and respect that it deserved, the military would respond favorably, regardless of the administration's policies. I hope, and pray, the current POTUS is faithful to the military. Personally, I never cared whether the US declared war on the Soviet Union, or the Vatican - just give us the mission - then the support we needed. We would excute that mission faithfully.
v/r
phil
Team Sergeant
11-17-2009, 18:00
Folks,
Is the current administration and environment radically different from America in the late 70's under Carter? I'm curious what folks who served in that era recall of the Military's morale and the general pulse of the nation. Jimmy Carter was an empty suit socialist as well, and when his act got stale, there was a decade long conservative blowback as a result. America has endured and survived significantly worse threats than this man.
IMHO besides his hubris and ineptitude Obama's weakness is he doesn't grasp Americans value freedom, but don't want to be equal, they want to be free to be more successful than their peers if possible, they want the house with the white picket fence etc.
Folks argue the cultural challenge of bringing democracy to the historical tribal cultures of the Middle East. Okay, but then America has a cultural history of liberty, individual rights, and capitalism, this is not fertile soil for socialism. In the past when the country drifts too far in either direction it has snapped back to the center, what is secular about this era?
carter didn't attempt to destroy the United States by spending a trillion dollars on absolutly nothing and then attempt to spend another trillion on a health care program that will seal our fate as a solvent nation.
IMO yes, this administration is a thousand times more intelligent than carter's administration ever was and this one , IMO, is dangerous.
The tone of this thread has forced me to put on the "Seven Samurai" - grill a nice medium-rare rib-eye, prepare a Caesar salad, and uncork a bottle of 2007 Dona Paula estate Malbec. I am now going to enjoy my dinner, wine, and movie...and ponder the future of our great nation. ;)
Yours aye,
Richard
Let us suppose, for a moment, that we are wolves. Not ravening wolves intent on spilling the blood of the sheep in a single frenzied slaughter, but rather clever wolves who want to eat our fill every day - and to do so without having to work too much to control the sheep. How might we do it?
It is simplicity itself. We tell the sheep we are acting to protect them. Then we spoil the pastures all around. And finally, we let the sheep graze within the fences we have built around them. Should any wish to exit, we smilingly permit it - knowing that the ever-present attraction of the food trough will bring most of them back. As for the few who successfully wander off and escape, we have eliminated the more troublesome elements of the herd at little cost to ourselves. Of course, we fleece our flock from time to time to finance those fences and our own services - which we tell the sheep are for their protection.
We will move toward socialism - it is a tool for control concealed within an enticing bait, not unlike hiding the dog's pill in a piece of meat. The bait entices the necessary 51%. We offer payments, benefits, guarantees and programs - all paid for by some dim, unclear someone else. But these very payments create an entire system of controls - a system we embrace, a system we willingly participate in. Hence the problem was not Carter, nor is it Obama. Instead, it is the fundamental mindset of those who chose to elect them - along with Pelosi, Reid, and so on. The problem is an idea - and fighting an idea is no easy task.
Some people say they want "health care". Obtaining health care is simplicity itself - find a doctor, go to the doctor, pay the doctor. The objection is that people want "affordable health care." They want the prices forced down (in other words, governmental controls over someone else), or they want their own costs subsidized (in other words, they want someone else to pay the doctor). By offering the bait of affordable health care, the flock is easily manipulated into both advocating control of the flock and even accepting control of themselves.
The same principle applies to the bailouts we have witnessed. Individual wolves and their organizations took a risk. While they won, they accepted the outcome. When they lost, the wanted someone else to pay for it. The sheep will be fleeced 'till they bleed to pay for it - and they will believe that the wolves did it all to protect them.
There are those who have suggested that they have largely abandoned efforts to warn the sheep. I think they have chosen wisely. Because I suspect the sheep, if they are ever aroused, will likely trample the very ones who warned them. (Whether I am a sheep is a different question. At the least, I will try not to trample my friends. ;) )
And what of military morale? As our national leadership apologizes for much of what we've ever done, as our people sink into a socialistic mire of mediocrity, I cannot help wondering how it could possibly stay high.
And what of military morale? As our national leadership apologizes for much of what we've ever done, as our people sink into a socialistic mire of mediocrity, I cannot help wondering how it could possibly stay high.
Real soldiering ain't for sissies.
As my Dad used to say:
"Son, don't listen to the pussy side of you when you make a decision. People gravitate towards being a pussy. Remove the pussy, son, and make the decision."
Some of the ffolkes who wander about in these forums will understand what I am saying here...and I firmly believe there are enough out there who do get it to get the job done. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Real soldiering ain't for sissies.
As my Dad used to say:
"Son, don't listen to the pussy side of you when you make a decision. People gravitate towards being a pussy. Remove the pussy, son, and make the decision."
Some of the ffolkes who wander about in these forums will understand what I am saying here...and I firmly believe there are enough out there who do get it to get the job done. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchinYou're dad would be brought up on charges and/or kicked out of the military for saying the above, in front of the wrong audience nowadays.:eek:
Stay safe.
Real soldiering ain't for sissies.
Thomas Paine, 1780
(http://ahp.gatech.edu/amer_crisis_1780.html)
These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.
Some things don't change, neither in centuries nor in millennia.
And so, a tip of the hat to you, your dad, and your brothers-in-arms.
Bill Harsey
11-17-2009, 22:06
The tone of this thread has forced me to put on the "Seven Samurai" - grill a nice medium-rare rib-eye, prepare a Caesar salad, and uncork a bottle of 2007 Dona Paula estate Malbec. I am now going to enjoy my dinner, wine, and movie...and ponder the future of our great nation. ;)
Yours aye,
Richard
Richard,
You have very refined taste in movies. The work of Akira Kurosawa is among the best movie making ever done, in the history of film.
carter didn't attempt to destroy the United States by spending a trillion dollars on absolutly nothing and then attempt to spend another trillion on a health care program that will seal our fate as a solvent nation.
IMO yes, this administration is a thousand times more intelligent than carter's administration ever was and this one , IMO, is dangerous.
Team Sergeant,
I agree with you on the spending and health care, the former is at unprecedented levels by this administration, and even a watered down version of the latter will be a debacle. There is danger, but America has always faced danger. Perhaps we should consider a relative assessment of the environment both internal and external in the late 1970's?
When Carter took office in 1977, he received a moderately growing economy in which inflation was 5.4 percent and interest rates were around 8 percent. When he left office, the Soviets were entrenched in Afghanistan, Iranian students had been holding US State Department personnel and US Marines hostage for 444 days, the American military had been gutted by the administration's post-Vietnam cutbacks, American prestige was in tatters abroad and inflation was in the double digits and interest rates were so high it was impossible for Americans to finance large purchases like homes and cars. Carter's administration is without a doubt the worst in modern American history, yet Carter himself blamed his failures on a "national malaise".
http://www.armchairviews.com/carter.htm
We face economic woes now as we did then. Sheepdogs know there will always be wolves, Europe save England fell to them in 1940, the ones we face now wear robes and beards and should not be underestimated, but have we already forgotten what it was like to stare down a larger Soviet Bear with a massive modern military and nuclear capability equal to ours? If they had been emboldened by Carter's weakness and the balloon had gone up in 1978 could we have stopped them conventionally? I'd like to believe we could have, I don't know the answer. A 1946 Annapolis grad should have known better, that was a very dangerous time. The country got fed up, voted in Reagan and we righted the ship. We need to find a leader again.
Real soldiering ain't for sissies.
As my Dad used to say:
"Son, don't listen to the pussy side of you when you make a decision. People gravitate towards being a pussy. Remove the pussy, son, and make the decision."
Some of the ffolkes who wander about in these forums will understand what I am saying here...and I firmly believe there are enough out there who do get it to get the job done.
Richard's $.02
Priceless, Absolutely priceless.
Speedgod
11-17-2009, 22:45
I agree with those who will not stand by, while this administration destroys what so many have brought forth in the way of our Freedom. I know a move is coming, and all it will take is one or two pushes to spark/ignite the fire.
Fear those who have nothing left to loose.
I have quite a few friends in LE that say they will not sit idle if shit hits the fan, and they are told to help impose some sort of marshal law. I feel sorry for those that will go door to door to collect weapons as not many will willingly give up their arms.
It will be a all out war!
But, I do truly hope the best comes out and that this will all pass.
For now, my thoughts are with those on the front lines in harms way while the President fucks off and tries to come up with some decision. The longer he waits the worse things will be.
SG
frostfire
11-17-2009, 22:56
The tone of this thread has forced me to put on the "Seven Samurai" - grill a nice medium-rare rib-eye, prepare a Caesar salad, and uncork a bottle of 2007 Dona Paula estate Malbec. I am now going to enjoy my dinner, wine, and movie...and ponder the future of our great nation. ;)
Yours aye,
Richard
I echo Sir William "Bill" Harsey comment on movie taste. Kurosawa is the man! The tone of not just this thread, but this forum esp. most of WM topics make me want to dig a copy of Shichinin no samurai, too, and scrounge enough spare change for a cheap wine.
http://www.armchairviews.com/carter.htmSelf-serving reporters and news readers pontificate without knowing the facts, or, even worse, fully aware of the facts and deliberately slanting them to support their views. The irony of this blogger is as exquisite as his understanding of American history and political philosophy are impoverished.
dadof18x'er
11-18-2009, 06:27
The tone of this thread has forced me to put on the "Seven Samurai" - grill a nice medium-rare rib-eye, prepare a Caesar salad, and uncork a bottle of 2007 Dona Paula estate Malbec. I am now going to enjoy my dinner, wine, and movie...and ponder the future of our great nation. ;)
Yours aye,
Richard
you should get one of these...
The irony of this blogger is as exquisite as his understanding of American history and political philosophy are impoverished.
Sigaba,
IMHO you can argue to what extent a president is responsible, and interpetation is subjective. I don't believe the cited blog to be the definitive analysis of the Carter administration, but are the facts listed, specifically regarding the economy and the military inaccurate?
1) Difficult Economic times- Inflation and IR did go from 5 and 8% to double digits during the Carter administration, it was a tough time with gas lines and difficulty financing homes etc, unemployment was high.
2) US hostages held 444 days by Iran, and Soviet aggression? Budget cutbacks and morale issues within the military.
As you know the question I had was is the current challenge we face in regards to socialism and military morale, and as a nation secular, or have we endured through comparable difficult times, such as the environment in the late 1970's? I see a number of similarities between Obama and Carter, am I being too simplistic?
Sigaba,
IMHO you can argue to what extent a president is responsible, and interpetation is subjective. I don't believe the cited blog to be the definitive analysis of the Carter administration, but are the facts listed, specifically regarding the economy and the military inaccurate?
1) Difficult Economic times- Inflation and IR did go from 5 and 8% to double digits during the Carter administration, it was a tough time with gas lines and difficulty financing homes etc, unemployment was high.
2) US hostages held 444 days by Iran, and Soviet aggression? Budget cutbacks and morale issues within the military.
As you know the question I had was is the current challenge we face in regards to socialism and military morale, and as a nation secular, or have we endured through comparable difficult times, such as the environment in the late 1970's? I see a number of similarities between Obama and Carter, am I being too simplistic?AKV--
My issue with the quote you provided is that its logic suggests that because X takes place before Y, X must have caused Y. This conclusion comes without any discussion of A through W to establish the context of Carter's many shortcomings as president, especially in regards to the economy. In the often cited 1948 cartoon that QP Dozer523 has almost memorized, the point was made about automobile ownership. Well, those gas guzzlers were not all built during the Carter years and his administration was not responsible for the federal government subsidizing the highways upon which Americans drove those cars.
In regards to the Iranian POW (oops, I mean hostage) crisis (because the seizing of an embassy is not an act of war:rolleyes:) Carter mishandled the situation but, again, what about a discussion of the crisis in the context of post-World War II international history?
My broader point here is that our discussion of contemporary presidents too often follows the narrative of political campaigns where everything that went wrong is blamed on the other guy. These kinds of talks make for some great mudslinging over cans of Doubleshot, but how historically accurate are they in the long haul?
Comparing the current president to Carter is like comparing mushrooms to tofu. I prefer neither. IMO, of the two, Carter will be remembered as the more intelligent, sincere, diligent, and patriotic. The other person will be recalled as more ambitious and--for reasons that escape me-- articulate and inspirational. (I doubt that in either instance will historians look back and say "He was the right man for the job at the right time." But one never knows what kinds of documents are in a presidential library waiting to be declassified.)
Streck-Fu
12-14-2009, 14:53
the problem is that the "wolves" have become increasingly skilled at getting the sheep to believe that its the "sheep dog" who should be feared...
Look around the country: the sheep are not trembling that much any more, they dont think there is a need to tremble any longer. The wolves have brought hope to the sheep.
...the "wolves" dont need to win the fight, they need only convince the herd that sheep-dogs are no longer relevant
Forgive my bringing this thread back up after a month...
This post summarizes my concerns very well. The politicians have done a very good job of insulating their power making it very difficult for any independent or third party to make a grassroots and up effort to reverse the trend of expanding federal powers.
Many (or enough) seem to fit the analogy of being comfortable with the wolf and fear the sheep dog to the point that they will even defend the wolf.
When reading this post I remembered something I read a few years ago, "When you're final pissed off enough that you can't take it anymore, grab your rifle and run outside. If you're the only one there, it's not time.
Even if this President is voted out of office and there is a political swing in this country, can the damage be really undone? For what was to be a weaker central government, it has always managed to expand it's powers, especially after the Civil War when the states realistically became secondary to the federal government. Can the trend of expanding powers, spending, and taxation really be slowed, stopped, or reversed?
Some days I feel like I'm holding my rifle peeking through the curtains to see whose outside.