Update: Gunny G’s Cops Out of Control…

October 31, 2007


Home

   


Gunny G’s Wiki: Cops Out of Control!
http://gunnygcops.wetpaint.com/


**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original/The Only” Gunny G
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
http://gunnygcops.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********


Out of control: Legal rules have changed, allowing federal agents, prosecutors to bypass Basic rights

October 31, 2007

http://www.post-gazette.com/win/day1_1a.asp
http://www.post-gazette.com/win/day1_1a.asp

Out of control

Legal rules have changed, allowing federal agents, prosecutors to bypass basic rights

Parts 1–10…

Out of control

Legal rules have changed, allowing federal agents, prosecutors to bypass basic rights

November 22, 1998
By Bill Moushey, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

loren3m.jpg (7876 bytes)
Loren Pogue had never been involved with drugs until a government informant tied him to a phony real estate deal after lying about a drug cartel link. The informant got cash for the information. Pogue, 65, got 22 years in prison, even though he’s still not sure why he was the target of an investigation to begin with. (Joe Patronite)

Loren Pogue has served eight years of a 22-year federal prison sentence on drug conspiracy and money laundering charges.

Pogue, a Missouri native, never bought drugs, never sold them, never held them, never used them, never smuggled them, never even saw them.

But because federal prosecutors allowed a paid government informant to lie about Pogue’s involvement in the sale of a parcel of land to supposed drug smugglers, he was convicted. Under tough federal sentencing guidelines, a judge had no choice but to give the Air Force veteran what might effectively be a death sentence.

Pogue — father of 27 children, 15 of them adopted — is 65. He doesn’t expect to leave prison alive, and as details later in this story will show, he is baffled that the government he served for more than 30 years worked so hard to betray him.

bullet1.gif (71 bytes) bullet1.gif (71 bytes) bullet1.gif (71 bytes)

In another case, hundreds of miles away, federal agents interrogated businessman Dale Brown for four hours at a Houston, Texas, warehouse. When he tried to leave, they stopped him. When he asked for a lawyer, they refused to get him one.

After Brown finally was charged in a government sting called Operation Lightning Strike, federal prosecutors denied that the warehouse interrogation had even happened. They said the dozen others who reported the same coercive tactics in the sting were making it up, too.

Federal sting operations are supposed to snare criminals, but in Operation Lightning Strike, federal agents spent millions of dollars entrapping innocent people who worked on the periphery of the U.S. space program.

The evidence against them was contrived. The guilty pleas were coerced. Those who fought the charges won.

Brown said all it cost him was his business, his savings, his family and his health.

bullet1.gif (71 bytes) bullet1.gif (71 bytes) bullet1.gif (71 bytes)

In Florida, prisoners call the scam “jumping on the bus,” and it is as tantalizing as it is perverse. Inmates in federal prisons barter or buy information that only an insider to a crime could know — often from informants with access to confidential federal crime files.

The prisoners memorize it and get others to do the same. Then, to win sentence reductions, they testify about crimes that might have been committed while they were in prison, by people they’ve never met, in places they’ve never been. The scam succeeds only because of the tacit approval of federal law enforcement officers.

Cocaine smuggler Jose Goyriena used “jump on the bus” testimony to help federal prosecutors put three men in prison for life, and he was set to do it again for prosecutors who promised to cut his 27 year sentence by 10 years or more.

Prosecutors knew Goyriena had bragged about his lies to cellmates, but the prosecutors didn’t reveal what they’d heard to any of the men Goyriena had helped condemn — violating one of the fundamental tenets of American justice. It was defense attorneys who finally caught Goyriena in the scam.

bullet1.gif (71 bytes) bullet1.gif (71 bytes) bullet1.gif (71 bytes)

loren1m.jpg (9663 bytes)
Loren Pogue, above, was caught in a government sting driven by a paid informant. When the sting failed to snare big-time drug dealers, the informant trapped someone he knew: Pogue. (Joe Patronite)

In this nation’s war on crime, something has gone terribly wrong.

A two-year investigation by the Post-Gazette found that powerful new federal laws designed to snare terrorists, drug smugglers and pornographers are being aimed at business owners, engineers and petty criminals.

Whether suspects are guilty has come to matter less than making sure they are indicted or convicted or, more likely, coerced into pleading guilty.

Promises of lenient sentences and huge government checks encourage criminals to lie on the witness stand. Prosecutors routinely withhold evidence that might help prove a defendant innocent. Some federal agents work so closely with their undercover informants that they become lawbreakers themselves.

Those who practice this misconduct are almost never penalized or disciplined. “It’s a result-oriented process today, fairness be damned,” said Robert Merkle, whom President Ronald Reagan appointed U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, serving from 1982 to 1988.

“The philosophy of the past 10 to 15 years [is] that whatever works is what’s right.”

The Justice Department did not respond to questions the newspaper posed in writing about concerns raised in this series. Nor would it return phone calls requesting comment.

Previous Next
Front 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Bios


**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original/The Only” Gunny G
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
http://gunnygcops.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********


Is Bush crazy?

October 31, 2007

Infowars.net – Printer Friendly / Low Graphics Page


Is Bush crazy?

You Tube
Wednesday October 31, 2007

Near the end of this interview Bush says;

“Whether it be Afghanistan or Iraq, we got more work to do. We the free world has more work to do, and I believe those of us who live in liberty have a responsibility to promote forms of government that deal with what causes 19 kids to get on airplanes to kill 3000 students.”

What is he talking about???

PHILADELPHIA (AP) – Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich questioned President Bush’s mental health in light of comments he made about a nuclear Iran precipitating World War III.
“I seriously believe we have to start asking questions about his mental health,” Kucinich, an Ohio congressman, said in an interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer’s editorial board on Tuesday. “There’s something wrong. He does not seem to understand his words have real impact.”

article here


Copyright © Infowars.net All rights reserved.

Printed from: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/311007crazy.htm


Bad Day For Flying…

October 31, 2007
 
HistoryNet
Click Here to Print
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close

A Bad Day For Flying: The story of a WWII B-24 Commander shot down over Hankow

Shot down in flames during a raid on Hankow, B-24 commander John T. Foster evaded capture and enjoyed an unlikely reunion with his Chinese nanny.By Alan Foster

“It was a great day for flying,” my father always said afterward. But August 24, 1943, turned out to be a thoroughly bad day for the crews of seven Consolidated B-24D Liberators of the 425th Squadron, 308th Bomb Group (Heavy), on a mission to Hankow, in Japanese-held China.

On that day my dad, 24-year-old aircraft commander 1st Lt. John T. Foster, and the rest of the crew of B-24D No. 42-40879, dubbed Belle Starr, were awakened at 4 a.m. in Kunming and briefed on the mission. For the recently formed heavy bomber force of Maj. Gen. Claire Chennault’s Fourteenth Air Force, this would be only the 15th mission.

The crews were well aware that they were on their way to the scene of a recent bloodbath. Just three days earlier, a group of Liberators based at Chengkung—14 B-24s from the 374th and 375th squadrons of the 308th Bomb Group—had bombed Hankow. Leading that flight was Major Walter “Bruce” Beat of the 374th. They flew to the rendezvous spot over the fighter field at Hengyang, but when a promised escort of Curtiss P-40s and Lockheed P-38s failed to appear, Beat decided to continue on to the target without any escort.

As the B-24s approached Hankow, they were met by a swarm of an estimated 60 Japanese fighters, which pounced on the lead squadron’s ships. Almost immediately, Beat’s Rum Runner burst into flames amidships, then exploded. Seeing that, as one co-pilot of another B-24 said, “We just poured on all the power we could to get the hell out of there.” Only one plane of the 374th and six of the 375th returned, carrying badly wounded crewmen.

The 308th’s commander, Colonel Eugene H. Beebe, watched as the shattered survivors landed at Kweilin. One crewman recalled: “Colonel Beebe didn’t say a word. He just stood there with tears streaming down his face as he saw the condition we all were in.”

Now, three days later, the 308th was going back to Hankow. For dad and the rest of Belle Starr’s crew, it would be their first combat mission since their arrival in China three weeks earlier.

My father grew up near Waterbury, Conn., but his earliest childhood years had been spent in Changsha, China, where my grandfather taught medicine. When civil unrest made life there risky for foreigners, he and his family slipped out of Changsha on a cold foggy morning in January 1927 in a small riverboat, making a stop at Hankow, then on to Shanghai and the ocean liner that took them back to the States.

Dad graduated from college in 1940 and after a year of selling insurance enlisted in the U.S. Army Air Forces in September 1941. He had never even been inside a plane and had no particular interest in flying, but it seemed preferable to a life “in the mud” as an infantryman. Once he was accepted, he went to an airfield and paid $5 for his first ride—just to see what it was like.

Ten days after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, dad was inducted. During primary training, he later recalled, “It was soon clear, to me at least, that I really wasn’t cut out for all this, and in the first weeks I was confused, disoriented and scared.” In advanced flying school some cadets found they could put holes through the target sleeve in aerial gunnery drills, while others could not. Cadet Foster was among the latter, and he was assigned to B-17 training. In an August 1942 letter to his parents, he rationalized: “We’re all pretty satisfied with this heavy stuff. Not so glamorous as pursuit, but it is important and [it is] the offensive end. At the same time it’s the safer branch of flying.” The B-17s and B-24s, he had been told, “are so well defended that the Japs just aren’t attacking formations”!

Their instructors told them how lucky they were to be in B-17s, not the homely, slab-sided B-24s—“the box the B-17 came in.” But his graduation was followed by orders to Tucson and crew training. In the B-24.

In mid-June 1943, the crew was assigned a factory-new B-24D, one with the newly introduced “hi-tech” ball turret in the belly, and learned they were headed for the China-Burma-India Theater. Before they left the States, a former Disney artist airbrushed a sexy cowgirl and the name Belle Starr on the nose of 42-40879.

In later years my dad mused: “Let it be said that I never boasted of having much flying skill. Yet the Army Air Forces was handing me a fresh new quarter-million-dollar B-24, telling me, at age 24, to fly myself and my crew to China on my own. Was the Air Force so desperate? Or so overconfident?” His crew included Lieutenant Sheldon Chambers, co-pilot; Lieutenant Harry Rosenburg, navigator; Lieutenant Lionel “Jess” Young, bombardier; Tech. Sgt. Bill Gieseke, engineer and top turret gunner; Tech. Sgt. Jack Miller, assistant engineer and gunner; Staff Sgt. Alvin Hutchinson, ball turret gunner; Staff Sgt. Ray Reed, tail turret gunner; Staff Sgt. Don Smith, radioman and waist gunner; and Staff Sgt. Ray Pannelle, armorer and waist gunner.

Belle Starr left Homestead, Fla., headed for Trinidad, then Belem and Natal. After that came the hop across the Atlantic to Ascension Island, and finally on to Chabua, India—the primary supply station for the 308th Bomb Group. The next day Belle Starr made its first crossing of the Himalayas—“the Hump”—and continued on to Kunming, where it would be based.

After pulling the B-24 into a revetment, the weary fliers relaxed, pleased that their nine-day, 12,000-mile trip had at last come to an end. But while they were still in their seats, filling out the usual reports, the crew got a shock. “Alongside came a truck,” dad recalled, “and with it came a carrier piled with very real bombs and, as one group of men hurriedly threw boxes and baggage from our airplane onto one part of the truck, others were bringing aboard boxes of .50-caliber ammunition and pushing the bomb carrier under the bomb bay and starting to load. Someone said, ‘We have a mission in the morning.’ I was stunned because throughout our bomber training there had been the consistent message that when we reached our particular war zone there would be a period of training in local tactics.”

After a restless night, my father was told early the next morning that Belle Starr had a fuel leak, so they wouldn’t be going along on that mission after all. “I don’t remember going back to sleep, but I do remember the wave of relief,” he recalled. Three weeks of waiting, interrupted by one supply flight back over the Hump, still brought no training for Belle Starr’s crew. Finally on the evening of August 23 came word that there’d be an early call the next morning for a mission.

In the dim light of the briefing tent the next morning, they learned that seven B-24s from the 425th Squadron would rendezvous en route with seven more from the 373rd. Then a major said, “They clobbered our friends over Hankow the other day, and we’re going back to show they can’t do that to us!” Another officer announced they were going back to “get those Zeros” that had mauled the 374th and 375th squadrons on the 21st.

Last to speak was the charismatic squadron commander, Major William W. Ellsworth, who had previously impressed the men as a confident leader. My father recalled: “I watched and listened, and suddenly I felt a growing chill—not so much from the words I was hearing but more from growing recognition that this was a very different major than the one I had expected. This was a very uncertain man. His voice shook. His words were slow. The man seemed aged. We were going back to Hankow, and the major was as frightened as I was!”

Oddly, the name Foster came up three times during that briefing. Major Horace Foster, the group operations officer, would fly the lead plane. Captain “Pappy” Foster, the squadron’s intelligence officer, would be waiting at Kweilin, where the flight would land and be debriefed before returning to Kunming. Then Major Ellsworth said: “I’ll fly you, Lieutenant Foster. Meet you at your ship.”

“It should have been a thrill, but this changed man was no longer reassuring,” my dad said. Sheldon Chambers, Belle Starr’s usual co-pilot, would be staying behind that day, and dad moved to the right seat to make way for Major Ellsworth. Ed Uebel, a darkroom technician who had volunteered to take bomb damage photos, would replace assistant engineer Jack Miller for that mission.

Clustered fragmentation bombs were loaded aboard Belle Starr, and long belts of .50-caliber ammo were fed into each gun position. Without any greeting, Ellsworth bounded onto the flight deck, took his place in the left seat and began flicking switches. To dad’s amazement, the squadron commander abruptly started two engines at once, violating normal checklist procedures.

Soon the seven Liberators were roaring down the runway and into the air. The formation slowly climbed and turned left, with Belle Starr on the right, or outside, of the others as one by one they faded into a cloud layer. But when Belle Starr emerged, the other planes were not to its left anymore, but to the right. It had flown through the entire formation in the clouds!

Dad’s uncertainty about Ellsworth increased as they flew on: “He seemed oblivious to me as though absorbed in a world of his own. He wrestled, at times angrily, with the plane, jockeying the throttles back and forth and profanely cursing our plane’s ‘lack of trim.’ In truth, our plane with its belly turret was new to the theater, and it was a heavy addition to the tail, but he seemed to have unusual trouble keeping in formation.” (Much later my father learned that Ellsworth had had a premonition about the mission, telling his roommate that he knew “his number was up.” In an effort to calm Ellsworth, the roommate had shared a bottle of whiskey with him the night before—finally getting the major to bed only about an hour before he had to get up for the briefing.)

As the bombers flew on, word came over the radio that their sister squadron, the 373rd, would not be joining up—they were fogged in at their base in Yankai. Just as Major Beat had to decide whether to continue without fighter escort or to abort, now Major Horace Foster, leading the formation in Sherazade, had to call the shots. He too decided to continue on.

The weather was beautiful, with bright sun and high cumulus clouds. Feeling rather useless in the right seat, my dad started thinking about Changsha. He wondered whether he would ever see his childhood home and beloved Amah (Chinese for nanny) again.

Suddenly four P-40s appeared off to the right. The pilots of the shark-nosed fighters flew alongside for a bit, saluted, then snaked on ahead. “At least,” thought my dad, “it is reassuring to know the P-40s are out there somewhere.”

Major Foster in Sherazade, leading A Flight, was flanked by new planes and their novice pilots, Lieutenant Clarence Robinson in the unnamed “938” on his left and Lieutenant Linus J. Austin in Star Dust to his right. Leading B Flight in Chug-a-Lug, Captain Leland Farnell (ordered to command that aircraft by Major Foster, who had displaced Farnell in his usual position in Sherazade) had 1st Lt. Joe Hart on his left in Glamour Gal. On the right of B Flight was Belle Starr. Below and behind them was Cabin in the Sky, piloted by 1st Lt. David W. Holder.

After five hours the Liberators approached Hankow and its twin city of Wuchang along the Yangtze River. The bombers lined up on their target, the second of two airfields. Flak started bursting around them, and then the little red light flickered on the pilots’ instrument panel, indicating bombs away. But instead of rapidly turning away from the target, they continued straight ahead, eventually beginning a slow turn to the left. Then came a cry over the intercom: “I see fighters taking off!” Meanwhile, the 30 P-40 and eight P-38 escorts that had been promised were nowhere to be seen.

Off to the right my dad saw a distant airplane paralleling their course. Next he spied a speck straight ahead, heading right at them. Then it grew into another plane, with little “lights” blinking on and off along its wings—a Japanese fighter, firing at them!

Ellsworth gripped the controls tightly, and all dad could do was close his eyes and sink down in his seat. Belle Starr shuddered as its gunners returned fire. The smell of gunpowder permeated the plane. Then came shouting over the interphone—“Get that one!” and so forth, like cheering at a football game.

Robinson’s plane started streaming a trail of gray smoke from its right wing, then dropped out of the formation in a flat spin. Crewmen from other planes said they saw three chutes emerge from 938 before it crashed.

The B-24s had been under attack for some time when my dad heard a popping sound somewhere behind him. Suddenly Ellsworth leaned over and shouted: “Call the lead plane and tell them to slow down. They’ve got a cripple back here!” At first dad thought he meant that Holder was in trouble behind them. Then he saw Ellsworth’s hand thumbing over his shoulder and turned—to face an inferno in the bomb bay.

Three days earlier the lead B-24 had experienced this same sort of fire over Hankow and exploded. Like that plane, all the Liberators on this mission were carrying extra fuel in bomb bay tanks. My dad needed no further instructions. He hit the red bailout button repeatedly.

In the nose, bombardier Jess Young turned from firing his .50-caliber to ask Rosenburg if the alarm was what he thought it was, just in time to see the heels of Rosenburg’s shoes going out the floor escape hatch. Young quickly followed him.

Across the formation, bullets ripped through Glamour Gal’s nose, skimming over the heads of the navigator and bombardier and into the back of the pilot’s instrument panel, setting it afire and sending glass and metal fragments into pilot Lieutenant Hart’s face, temporarily blinding him. Bombardier 2nd Lt. Gordon Ruhf and navigator Lieutenant Fred Scheurman scrambled up to the flight deck. Standing behind Hart and co-pilot 2nd Lt. Clarence B. Stanley, Ruhf put a comforting hand on the co-pilot’s shoulder. Just as he did so, more bullets crashed through the side windows and into Stanley’s chest, killing him. Despite his injuries, Hart managed to dive the bomber and then ordered the crew to bail out.

Major Foster was still leading the small formation in Sherazade, with Lieutenant Donald J. Koshiek in the co-pilot seat. When Sherazade was raked by cannon fire in its bomb bay, right wing and rear fuselage, the No. 3 engine oil tank was punctured, and fuel began pouring from a broken line in the bomb bay.

Then things got even worse, as Koshiek later explained: “A 20mm shell entered the cockpit in front of me and exploded at Major Foster’s head. My face was full of plexiglass and shell fragments, and the shock of the shell knocked me out. I came to in time to take the plane out of a stall.”

In Chug-a-Lug’s nose, bombardier Lieutenant Elmond J. Purkey watched a fighter coming right at him. A shell exploded at his feet, and shrapnel peppered his legs. Substitute tail gunner Staff Sgt. Louis Kne was hit and killed instantly, and four other crewmen were seriously wounded. Co-pilot John White headed to the back of the plane to administer first aid, saving two of the gunners. White subsequently manned first one and then the other waist .50s until the ammo ran out. Chug-a-Lug had more than 200 holes from cannon and machine gun fire by the time Captain Farnell flew into cloud cover and turned south, headed home.

As the attack continued, the Japanese turned their attention to the trailing plane, Cabin in the Sky, piloted by Lieutenant Holder and co-pilot 2nd Lt. George E. Mosall. The B-24 was soon riddled with holes, and both engines on the left were knocked out. Even with full power on Nos. 3 and 4, it couldn’t keep up with the formation. No guns were firing, and Holder and Mosall got no response from the nose or tail. When they were only a thousand feet up, they agreed it was time to get out. But to their horror, as the two teetered on the narrow catwalk near the bomb bay, they saw the engineer, Staff Sgt. William Spells, staring at them from the far hatchway—without a parachute. The plane then rolled to one side, and Holder and Mosall dropped out. They landed safely, but they never forgot the look on Spells’ face.

Back in Belle Starr there was a crisis in front and rear. Bail-out procedures had seemed obvious during training. But figuring out how to follow those procedures was a different matter when Belle’s bomb bay was a holocaust, and flames were also streaming from the right wing and engine No. 3.

Dad leapt up and unlatched the small hatch above the engineer’s position, then pulled himself up into the 200-mph wind—and his seat parachute caught on the lip of the opening. He struggled for a few minutes, then fell back into the cockpit, exhausted. Sitting there, he was vaguely aware of Bill Gieseke dropping down from the upper gun turret. When dad tried once again to get through the hatch, he felt Gieseke’s hand on his left heel, pushing hard enough to pop him through the opening. “I know I laughed out there in space,” he said. Starting his free fall from 18,000 feet, he delayed opening his parachute and landed with only a broken rib to show for his brush with combat.

Gieseke, wearing a chest-pack type chute, had an easier time exiting the plane. But then he made a crucial error, opening his chute immediately. A fighter made several passes at him, shooting off half of one foot as he floated down.

Belle Starr’s waist gunners had watched a hole appear behind the No. 3 engine and a long streamer of flames flowing back toward them. Then they saw the hit to the bomb bay, followed by a roaring fire. The two gunners, Pannelle and Smith, were working frantically with tail gunner Ray Reed to extract Hutchinson from inside the ball turret. Uebel stood waiting to jump with the others. They were snapping Hutchinson’s chest-pack parachute to his harness when “Suddenly everything turned red,” Pannelle recalled. The right wing broke off, and the bomber went into a tight spiral. Centrifugal force threw Pannelle out one of the open waist windows and Uebel out the other. The other gunners died when Belle Starr hit the ground. Also left aboard was Ellsworth—still at the controls when Gieseke and dad last saw him.

Chinese guerrillas collected the downed fliers near the village of Hsiung Chian Tung and, carrying Gieseke on an improvised stretcher, managed to evade Japanese searchers. Eventually the party would number 11 survivors of the Hankow raid: dad, Rosenburg, Young, Pannelle, Uebel, Hart, Ruhf, Scheurman (navigator of Glamour Gal), Solberg (Glamour Gal’s engineer), Holder and Mosall. Gieseke died of his injuries a day after the mission.

Chug-a-Lug, riddled with holes, had escaped via that fortuitous cloud. Flying on a compass heading that navigator Lieutenant Irwin Zaetz provided from memory (his maps had blown out of the shattered nose), it headed straight back to Kweilin. Captain Farnell told the wounded crewmen they could bail out over the field rather than risk landing. They all decided to ride it down. Farnell landed without flaps, at 150 mph. He later explained, “With all the damage that plane had had, I was going to make sure it didn’t quit flying until I got her on the ground!” Without brakes, and given all that speed, he ground-looped at the far end of the runway, spinning the bomber around and around until it came to a stop neatly in the parking area.

Sherazade had its own problems but was still flying. Bombardier Morton Salk climbed up to the flight deck, helped to remove Major Foster’s body from the left seat and sat down to help Koshiek fly the plane. But then they got lost. After three long hours navigator Charles Haynes eventually got them on course to Hengyang. They too landed without brakes, managing to stop at the end of the runway. But Hengyang was too close to the Japanese for comfort. Frantic work patched up Sherazade’s fuel and hydraulic lines, at least sufficiently for the crew to fly back to Kunming the next morning.

Star Dust, piloted by Lieutenant Austin, landed at Kweilin without apparent damage and was scheduled to return to Kunming the next morning. “Pappy” Foster, on hand to debrief the returning crews, decided to return with Star Dust. The bomber took off normally, and Austin called Kunming when they were 40 minutes away from landing. Shortly after that, Star Dust flew into a mountaintop. Miraculously, two sergeants were thrown from the plane and survived.

In the end, only one of seven B-24s that left Kunming that morning returned to its base. Of the 73 men present at that early morning briefing, just 12 returned to base on August 25. Fifty men had died (31 at the scene of the battle), and then there were the 11 who were walking back.

For 10 strenuous days dad and the others were escorted through the country, mostly on foot—up and down mountains, across rice paddies, through villages and hiding in secret camps. During most of the journey the Americans had no idea where the Chinese were taking them, but eventually they learned their destination: Changsha, my father’s childhood home.

When they arrived, a small party of Westerners was waiting to greet them. An Englishman walked up to dad and said, “My name is John Foster.” “That’s my name too,” said my father. The Brit was John Norman Foster, a Methodist minister who worked for the Red Cross. When the fliers were assigned billets, dad chose a house across the street from the home where he had lived as a boy.

Nine fliers were invited to lunch the following day by Ethel Davis, another Methodist missionary. As they introduced themselves, Davis exclaimed “Johnny!” and hugged my very surprised father. She had known his family during the 1920s. After lunch she announced, “If the rest of you wouldn’t mind returning to the living room, I have a surprise for Johnny.” She then went into the kitchen and returned with a weeping Chinese woman. My father was at first stunned, but then he too began to cry—this was his Amah! With Davis translating, they spent an hour catching up on family news.

The next day brought a ceremony with speeches and gifts for the “American air generals,” a noisy parade and an elaborate banquet. But before the fliers began eating, an Army sergeant went to each man and whispered that Japanese infiltrators were rumored to be in Changsha. They would have to leave immediately. One by one the Americans rose and slipped out the back door, where rickshaws waited to take them to a boat.

Thus for the second time in his life dad surreptitiously exited Changsha by riverboat. As an evadee he was required to go back to the States, where he spent the rest of the war.

The August 24 Hankow raid represents just one mission in one theater of a global war. Yet it embodies the universal story of American volunteers thrust into combat. As for my father, John T. Foster, his experience with China had come full circle—and he had lived to tell about it.

Alan Foster is the younger of two sons of the late U.S. Air Force Major John T. Foster, who lived until 2003 and self-published an account of his experiences, China Up and Down. Additional reading: Chennault’s Forgotten Warriors: The Saga of the 308th Bomb Group in China, by Carroll V. Glines; or B-24 Liberator Units of the Pacific War, by Robert F. Dorr.


This article by Alan Foster was originally published in the January 2008 issue of Aviation History Magazine. For more great articles, subscribe to Aviation History magazine today!

.submission { display: none; }

Comments

Ron Eshelman

Hi Ron, This is a very interesting WW 2 story. I thought you might like to read it.

 

Find this article at:
http://www.historynet.com/magazines/aviation_history/10861746.html?showAll=y&c=y

The Essence of Liberty #174, Chapter 15: A Strategy for Liberty

October 31, 2007

The Essence of Liberty: Part 174 (1) 

Compiled and Summarized by 

Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume 

Summary of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard. The complete book is available for download at: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

Part III: Epilogue 

Chapter 15: A Strategy for Liberty 

Education: Theory and Movement

http://www.flyoverpress.com

How can we get from our State-ridden world to the goal of liberty?

There is no magic formula but a prime and necessary condition for victory is education which has two essential parts: calling people’s attention to the system, and then converting them to it. Furthermore, true education cannot be achieved without theory and activism. There must be an ideology and people to carry it forward. Both theory and movement become futile and sterile without each other. The theory will die without a movement and the movement will become pointless if it loses sight of the ideology of the goal.

Educating others is necessary but so is continuous self-education. Educating ourselves will achieve two essential goals. First it serves to refine and advance libertarian “theory” and enables us to refute and combat errors and objections as they arise. The second reason for “talking to ourselves” is reinforcement— the psychological boost we get from knowing that there are other people of like mind to talk, argue, communicate and interact with. This is the best antidote against giving up liberty as a hopeless, impractical or lost cause. 

Next Previous


Copyright ©2004, FlyoverPress.com

Jimmy T. LaBaume, PhD, ChFC is a full professor teaching economics and statistics in the School of Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, TX. He does not speak for Sul Ross State University. Sul Ross State University does not think for him.

Dr. LaBaume has lived in Mexico and spent extended periods of time in South and Central America as a researcher, consultant and educator.

“Gunny” LaBaume is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and Desert Storm. His Marine Corps career spanned some 35 years intermittently from 1962 until 1997 when he refused to re-enlist with less than 2 years to go to a good retirement. In his own words, he “simply got tired of being guilty of treason.”

He is also currently the publisher and managing editor of FlyoverPress.com, a daily e-source of news not seen or heard anywhere on the mainstream media. He can be reached at jlabaume@sulross.edu.

Permission is granted to forward as you wish, circulate among individuals or groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in the print media as long as the article is published in full, including the author’s name and contact information and the URL www.flyoverpress.com.

FlyoverPress.com can be contacted at editor@flyoverpress.com


*Note: We hold no special government issued licenses or permits. We don’t accept government subsidies, bailouts, low-cost loans, insurance, or other privileges. We don’t lobby for laws that hurt our competitors. We actively oppose protectionism and invite all foreign competitors to try to under price us. We do not lobby for tariffs, quotas, or anti-dumping laws. We do not support the government’s budget deficits: we hold no government or agency securities.


HOME

E-mail

To Subscribe to our daily e-mail alert service, send an e-mail with the word “subscribe” on the subject line.

UR SPONSORS


Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.

Professional Firearms Training at its finest.

Private and Descrete

Liberty Knows No Compromise

Protecting Liberty Through Private Firearms Ownership


AMERICAN LAPEL PINS & EMBLEMS, INC. has a large selection of patriotic lapel and hat pens, embroderied patches, badges, and service awards.

They also do custom work and can make just about anything. Your own pin complete with your logo or motto.

Visit their site.


The Warrior’s Press, Inc.

Military Manuals and Correspondence Courses

Infantry, Armor, Recon, Special Forces, Seals

Weapons; Tactics; Security; Intelligence; Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare

We also carry a selection of unusual, outrageous and even banned books

Liberty Knows No Compromise

 

 

© Flyover Press All Rights Reserved.


Send Love Letters To Britney Spears…

October 31, 2007

Send Love Letters To Britney Spears

By Paul Proctor

October 31, 2007

NewsWithViews.com


http://www.newswithviews.com/PaulProctor/proctor133.htm

In a recent Associated Press article titled, ‘Church Organizes Support For Britney,’ the senior minister at Southland Christian Church in Lexington, Kentucky, an affiliate of the Willow Creek Association, has reportedly asked the members of his congregation to each write troubled pop star, Britney Spears, a love note – this in response to her alleged drug and alcohol related problems, hedonistic lifestyle and ongoing custody battle with ex-husband, Kevin Federline:

 

 

“Take a few minutes and write a note to Britney Spears,” pastor John [sic] Weece said in a sermon and in a blog on the church Web site. “No preaching. No criticizing. Just love. As a church, let’s love Britney the way Jesus loves her.”

How many lost souls throughout history would you estimate died knowing Jesus loved them… hundreds… thousands… tens of thousands? Millions maybe? Do you think Judas Iscariot knew Jesus loved him when he supped with Him in the Upper Room, betrayed Him with a kiss in the Garden of Gethsemane and hung himself in the “field of blood?”

Is that really Pastor Weece’s only objective here – to make sure Britney feels loved? Is this his gospel message to her and those like her: “Jesus loves you and so do we?” If he cares so much about the controversial pop star and her place in eternity, why doesn’t he do as the Lord Himself did – as John the Baptist and those of the early church did, and call on her to repent – warning her in a compassionate way about the everlasting consequences of her actions? (Matthew 3:2, Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:15, Acts 2:38)

Did the Apostle Paul tell us in 1st Corinthians 1:18 that the power of God is found in love notes or did he write: “…the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God”?

And did he go on to say in verse 21 that it pleased God by the foolishness of love notes to save them that believe or was it again the “foolishness of preaching?”

If God’s power and salvation come by preaching the cross, why then did Pastor Weece tell his flock “No preaching”? Or does he think a female pop music icon that French kisses Madonna on national television for all the world to see doesn’t need to hear from the Word of God?

Cindy Willison, the church’s director of communications was quoted as saying:

 

 

“This is an opportunity for us to reach out to someone who probably doesn’t have a lot of people in her life that care for her as a person.”

Apparently, Ms. Willison doesn’t understand the concept of fan mail. The one thing celebrities generate more of than anything else, except maybe money and paparazzi, is mail. And, as hard as it may be for the dear folks at Southland Christian Church to accept, most of that mail amounts to love letters. People like Britney aren’t just loved; they’re worshipped – and that’s the problem. In fact, many love, worship and adore celebrities, not just in spite of their bad behavior, but often, because of it. So, adding, “Jesus loves you” to that toxic mix, isn’t really going to help, especially where drugs and alcohol are involved.

Furthermore, SCC members don’t know her “as a person” any more than her fans do – and frankly, Britney’s hard core followers probably know a lot more about her than do Pastor John and the benevolent brethren out in Lexington – making their love notes to her much more genuine, sincere and personal than anything choreographed congregants from SCC could write – or do they think that Britney doesn’t hear “We love you” a hundred times a day, every day, day and night, everywhere she goes?

Why then is Southland Christian Church delivering a milquetoast message like this to Britney Spears? Could it be, this is what they were taught to do at Willow Creek, where nothing is more sacred than one’s “felt needs” and self-esteem?

You see, real Christian love doesn’t hide the wages of sin behind a half gospel; but fake Christian love tells the sinner what they want to hear to feel good about themselves and look good saying it.

And after all, is Jesus’ love for Britney really in question here or is it more Britney’s love for Jesus?

The only love letter that can help this young lady right now is the one from God Himself that begins with Genesis and ends with the Revelation.

“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.” – 2nd Timothy 4:2

Related Items:

1. Church Organizes Support For Britney
2. Megachurch To Send ‘Jesus Loves You’ Letters To Britney Spears
3. Southland Christian Church
4. Southland Christian Church website
5. The People’s Church
6. Willow Creek Hegelian Dialectic & The New World Order

© 2007 Paul Proctor – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale


Paul Proctor, a rural resident of the Volunteer state and seasoned veteran of the country music industry, retired from showbiz in the late 1990’s to dedicate himself to addressing important social issues from a distinctly biblical perspective. As a freelance writer and regular columnist for NewsWithViews.com, he extols the wisdom and truths of scripture through commentary and insight on cultural trends and current events. His articles appear regularly on a variety of news and opinion sites across the internet and in print. E-Mail: watchman@usa.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/PaulProctor/proctor133.htm

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original/The Only” Gunny G
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
http://gunnygcops.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********


Texas Prop-13 Will Allow Innocent Men To Be Jailed Without Bail

October 31, 2007

 

Texas Prop-13 Will Allow Innocent Men To Be Jailed Without Bail

by Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks
October 31, 2007
NewsWithViews.com


http://www.newswithviews.com/Sacks/glenn74.htm

Texas voters will decide on November 6 whether to approve Proposition 13, a dangerous measure which will harm innocent men by greatly eroding the rights of those accused of domestic violence. The measure grants judges the ability to hold without bail those accused of nonviolent, trivial, or accidental violations of temporary restraining orders.

Under current Texas law, the only defendants ineligible for bail are those accused of capital crimes. In addition, judges are provided discretion to deny bail to those who have been both charged with a felony and convicted or indicted for a previous felony. To deny bail, there must be “evidence substantially showing the guilt of the accused.”

Prop 13 obliterates this, and opens the road for many innocent men to be held without bail. Under Prop 13, a Texas father can be booted out of his house on an ex parte protective order and then be jailed without bail for violating the order by calling his own children or going to their Little League game.

It is true that protective orders can be a useful tool to help protect battered women. However, as the Family Law News, the official publication of the State Bar of California Family Law Section, recently explained:

“Protective orders are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody…[the orders are] almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there is relatively meager evidence and usually without notice to the restrained person.”

These orders have become so commonplace that the Illinois Bar Journal calls them “part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”

Restraining orders cut men off from their children and forbid them many routine behaviors. Men can and are arrested for violating their orders by such acts as: returning their children’s phone calls; going to their children’s school events; sending their kids birthday cards; or accidentally running into them at the park or the mall.

Under Prop 13, judges will have the power to incarcerate these men without bail. Moreover, the Proposition lowers the evidence standard from Substantial Showing to Preponderance of the Evidence, which can rapidly degenerate into a “he said/she said” contest that men usually lose.

Prop 13 doesn’t even make a distinction between long-term protection orders, where accused men have some (limited) ability to contest the charges, and ex parte temporary orders, which are often issued without even providing the man an opportunity to appear in court to defend himself.

According to the Texas House of Representatives’ House Research Organization, Prop 13’s proponents claim that accused men “would retain all their rights to due process and other protections. For example, the determination to deny bail would have to be made at a hearing in which the defendant could appeal the denial of bond or make a case for another bond.”

This ignores the fact that protective orders often seriously impair men’s ability to obtain legal representation and defend themselves. Protective orders make men homeless and can cut them off from their financial resources. In cases where they work with or near their wives, or operate businesses partly or wholly out of their homes, their incomes can disappear overnight. By contrast, women obtaining protective orders are afforded free legal services by victim advocates at local domestic violence shelters, and remain in the marital home.

The House Research Organization also states:

“The proposed amendment also could have unfair consequences relating to legislation enacted by the 80th Legislature – HB 1988 by Martinez – which allows some protective orders to be in effect for life. This could result in someone being denied bail for one mistake after years of following a protective order.”

Prop 13 is reflective of a dangerous legal trend. Laws and police policies for those accused of domestic violence have been made increasingly draconian, clogging court calendars with weak or evidence-free cases which, were it any other crime, wouldn’t even be acted upon. At the same time, the judicial system hasn’t devoted substantial additional time and resources to investigating and adjudicating domestic violence claims. The result is often assembly-line justice in Kangaroo Courts. Prop 13 will accentuate this trend, and victimize many innocent men and fathers.

This column first appeared in The Ft. Worth Star-Telegram and the Austin-American Statesman (10/22/07).

© 2007 Glenn Sacks – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale



Glenn Sacks is a men’s and fathers’ issues columnist and radio talk show host. His columns have appeared in dozens of America’s largest newspapers. His radio show, His Side with Glenn Sacks, can be heard every Sunday in Los Angeles and Seattle.

Website: www.GlennSacks.com

E-mail: Glenn@GlennSacks.com.

Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, the world’s largest shared parenting organization.

Their website is www.acfc.org.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Sacks/glenn74.htm

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original/The Only” Gunny G
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
http://gunnygcops.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********


Socialism and The Nanny State

October 31, 2007

Socialism and The Nanny State

By Debra Rae

October 31, 2007

NewsWithViews.com


http://www.newswithviews.com/Rae/debra25.htm

As a little girl, I humored myself with the fantasy that I had morphed into a fully-grown “Mommy.” This I accomplished with a dab of lipstick and a dollop of rouge. Having donned my Mom’s hat, cape, sunglasses and gloves, I felt satisfied that my charade was reasonably convincing—that is, until a couple in the car parallel to ours pointed and laughed as if to say, “Look at that funny little girl playing dress-up!” With that, I slid in embarrassment to the floor. No matter how grown up I tried to appear, the “real me” could not be camouflaged.

In The Liberal Mind, board-certified forensic psychiatrist Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr. systematically analyzes yet another dress-up sham. An adult by all appearances, the fully grown man succumbs to the Nanny State’s unremitting invitation to childlike dependency. So disposed, the welfare junkie is reduced to a babe, perpetually nursed by his Nanny State. In effect, radical liberal collectivism infantilizes people and “parentilizes” Big Government that presumes always to know what’s best.

By undermining civilized liberty, arguably the West’s most notable achievement, the “man-child” masquerade bypasses “cute.” Sadly, those who choose to be victims and to remain ignominious wards of the State forfeit individual autonomy with freedom to pursue life, liberty, property and happiness. All too often, when an alleged victim’s poor judgment bites back, government demands that productive, tax-paying adults bail out complete strangers—this, at considerable cost to their own well being. Forced altruism cannot help but shrink incentive to perform, reduce capital to invest and demoralize those who themselves have embraced the daunting responsibilities and accompanying risks of adult competency.

Even more, the dysfunctional collectivist family spawns societal ills—for one, economic irresponsibility by encouraging adult overdependence on the parental State. This troubling arrangement promotes moral laxity as time-honored values—e.g., personal autonomy and integrity—acquiesce to ever-evolving progressive insights that are adjudicated by supremacist judges. When the dysfunctional “man-child” kowtows to crippling dependency and the competent adult is coerced into indentured servitude, class conflict between the “have’s” and the “have-not’s” ensues.

Economic Irresponsibility: Welfare Dependency

Primarily known for his work in moral philosophy and as the first systematic economist with his magnum opus, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith envisioned administration of the universe by a benevolent God. Smith’s broadly acclaimed “invisible hand theory” contends that, while striving for personal gain, each individual offhandedly benefits public interest by creating division of labor within a free market economy that encourages free exchange of goods and services.

Competent society rightly recognizes and, then, provides appropriate care and sustenance for fellow citizens legitimately impaired by disability, mental or physical infirmity, and/or developmental limitations at either end of the life spectrum. However, others of satisfactory ability have no rightful claim to mandated altruism. Nor should they demand an endless array of cost-free benefits to compensate for alleged societal ills, whether real or imagined. Reverse discrimination does no justice to racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination. The same holds true for folks who aren’t slaves to demand reparations from strangers who themselves oppose slavery!

Feeding masses at some deceptively endless public trough is worse than wishful thinking. It empowers the State to tether, tax, intimidate and take to task gainful, tax-paying citizens. At the same time, it indulges and exploits what Dr. Rossiter calls “residual infantile longings for a return to effortless gratification in the care of an omnipotent benefactor.” Unfortunately, in administering parental “benefits,” Big Government more often than not leaves a trail of waste, malfeasance and ineptness.

Statist intellectuals clearly know the truth about Mao’s reign of terror, and they surely can see what socialism did to Russia, Germany, France and Spain; nonetheless, they refuse to credit free economies for superiority over socialism at promoting the common good. Reverend Robert A. Sirico challenges comparison between North and South Korea, East and West Germany before the Berlin Wall fell, Hong Kong and mainland China before reforms, and/or Cuba and other countries of Latin America (Imprimis, May 2007).

Despite vocal opponents, new Wal-Marts spring up daily and thereby create many millions of jobs worldwide; as a result, global consumers enjoy considerable choice from a treasure chest of affordably priced goods. People of mostly moderate incomes (not the State) own Wal-Marts. As shareholders, many worker-capitalists labor hard and invest well. No doubt Adam Smith would agree with Thomas Aquinas that “the good pours itself out.”

No whining to a Nanny State required.

Moral Laxity

It is “no accident,” observes Dr. Rossiter, “that the greatest political system in human history was founded by devout Christians on the assumption that its citizens would live by Judeo-Christian ideals”—i.e., the Golden Rule. Remember the Mayflower Compact (AD 1620)? In it, pilgrims invoked the name of God and established the preeminent purpose of the first colony—that being, to advance the Christian faith.

Decades later, a leading public educator and founding father, Noah Webster, recognized this very faith as foundation for our nation’s public life—this, for good reason. Alongside Divine enablement, “human instincts can be controlled only where the constraints of individual conscience are adequate, cultural morality supports their control, and society’s laws deter their criminal expression” (Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D., The Liberal Mind).

Through the revolving door of evolving contemporary values, however, childlike moral immoderation typically trumps mature moral moderation. Accordingly, today’s Olympic-class consumers all too often indulge in what they cannot afford—even if they have to beg, whine, steal or borrow to get what they want. The perpetual child is “worth it” after all; and convenience, comfort and emotion drive the childlike masses. This being the case, syndicated columnist George F. Will detects “no trace of the ’50s innocence at the mall” (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 26 November 2006).

But then, who’s to say what’s right or wrong anyway? The prevailing secular worldview elevates no moral code as superior over another—certainly not that of Christianity over, say, Islam. This is true even though in the largely Sunni Muslim nation of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov ordered the massacre of hundreds in the city of Andijan. Countless more in Sudan and Nigeria have suffered displacement and torture at the hands of radicals hell-bent to impose Islamic law over all.

While the morally relative liberal would be hard pressed to dismiss such travesties as neither right nor wrong, he readily castigates the traditional Christian for applying his “spurious moral compass” to fornication and adultery; lying and pot-smoking; profanity and pornography. This, of course, begs the question: “How can either the Muslim radical or the Christian moralist be ‘wrong’ if moral distinctions are bogus?”

Fact is moral distinctions are legitimate and needful. Dr. Rossiter reminds us that a society’s very character is reflected in whether or not its people are governed by the rule of law grounded in individual liberty rights. To revere ordered liberty, he maintains, is to commit to standards of morality and ethics.

Judicial Activism

Lake Tawakoni State Park ranger Freddie Gowen recently happened upon a creepy-crawly, 200-yard stretch of sprawling spider web east of Dallas. Ensnaring millions of mosquitoes, it blanketed seven large trees and dozens of bushes, not to mention a nature trail (The Seattle Times, 31 August 2007).

In contemplating this phenomenon, I can’t help but reflect on the vast web of our nation’s supremacist judiciary—most specifically, its abuse of our national civil forfeiture law.

What makes a transaction lawful should be mutual consent, not “just compensation”; however, innate and inalienable freedoms have fallen prey to the far-reaching web of radical liberalism embodied in judicial activism—the first duty for which has become support of collective purposes. To this end, government is increasingly authorized to regulate affairs (and property) of its collective family to serve the so-called greater good.

Cato the Younger once warned against allowing “the greater” to sell interests of “the less-er.” This enables the former to divide illicitly-acquired estates among themselves. Published in the London Journal from 1720-1723, Cato’s widely read letters served as the philosophical foundation for the American Revolution.

Although the enforceable right to own property remains the greatest single protector of individual freedom, preservation of property no longer defines the primary business of government. Property reassignment—i.e., wealth redistribution—actually favors citizens with disproportionate resources and clout within the political process. All the while the rich get richer (and the poor, poorer), our shrinking affluent middle class is threatened with extinction. Over time, private property rights and access to public lands have become what associate editor Peyton Knight calls “endangered species” (Insider’s Report, February 2001).

Autonomous, albeit steerage-class immigrants streamed through Ellis Island in New York Harbor from 1892-1943—most in search of new-frontier freedom and opportunities. Even today, vast numbers of the world’s “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” continue to rush our golden shores. Problem is, all too many of them look for an omnipotent benefactor to kiss their “owies” and, thus, ease their pain.

Regretfully, with help of judicial activists and their liberal cohorts, “the land of the free and home of the brave” is fast becoming the land of the childlike free-loader and the home of his indulgent Nanny State.

Crippling Dependency

Ideals of Western society reflect an intuitively accurate grasp of what is required for nations and their citizens to thrive. For example, the decidedly Western ideal of rugged individualism gives legs to what author-attorney James Hirsen references as “the grand experiment we call America,” whose “divinely inspired and uniquely political perspective” holds that individual rights do not come from government. They are endowed by the Creator Himself.

From Puritan times to the eve of the Civil War, rugged individuals within the church worked for betterment of Western society. Long before America’s infrastructure of interstate highways, bridges and motels (not to forget Starbucks!), apostles on horseback and Methodist circuit riders courageously forged the rough frontier. In doing so, Francis Asbury was said to have worn out six faithful horses! Trail blazers, as these, are rightly credited with how the West was won.

For his forthright, individualistic style of preaching, Charles Finney offended many who gathered to hear him. But this did not thwart waves of spiritual awakenings that spread not only the Gospel, but the cause of higher education as well. Historian Whitney R. Cross linked Finney to the “lawyers, real-estate magnates, millers, manufacturers and commercial tycoons who led the parade of the regenerated.” The social impact was felt in the anti-slavery movement generated by the Second Great Awakening. Movements for prison reform, child labor laws, women’s rights and inner-city missions likewise rode respective waves of spiritual revival.

In the 19th century, a great network of volunteer societies (Benevolent Empire) organized to attack social problems (Christian History, Volume VIII, No. 3, Issue 23). Their collective efforts advanced the moral imperative to cooperate voluntarily as responsible, competent, ruggedly individualistic adults—not as “a great corps of mutual servants.”

To ensure freedom and peace for all citizens, society must provide an overarching social structure. But a flourishing, free society never undermines legitimate rights of the individual for the elusive good of the State. It does, however, acknowledge dependence toward God. “One nation under God” presupposes generous acts of altruism; but societal goodness predictably springs from the voluntary expression of living faith—never from coercive government.

Class Conflict

Charles Sykes has observed that “American life is increasingly characterized by the plaintive insistence, I am a victim.” This is because of my status as “worker”—or my state of unemployment. Perhaps it’s because I am a minority—e.g., a woman—or simply “the little guy.” No matter, I perceive myself as oppressed, disenfranchised and/or exploited and, therefore, entitled.

But, wait!

Life’s hard reality is that inequalities are inherent in nature. Who among us has not, at some point, been counted as poor, weak, sick, wronged or cheated? Justice is not based solely on need, inequality, disadvantage or suffering. Simply put, all of us are “born into trouble as the sparks fly upward.” The Bible makes it clear that rains of blessings and of adversity fall on the just and the unjust alike.

When one’s “just due” remains unrealized, the affluent, therefore presumed-to-be selfish are not necessarily to blame. Only a spoiled finger-pointing child is perpetually demanding and chronically resentful. Mature enough adults make no rightful claims to the fruit of another’s labors. They accept that, despite titanic claims, Big Government is ill equipped to eradicate poverty, ignorance, ill health and all other forms of social injustice.

In an equitable, free society, no one is exempt from constraints that others must respect. Similarly, none is exempt from exercising rights of self-ownership, first possession, ownership/exchange/transference of property, self-defense, just compensation/restitution, and limited access to another’s property in emergencies. Even a disabled, minimally competent adult can enjoy a life of his own.

Freedom-lovers take the bull by the horns, accepting that life’s inherent inequalities are not injustices to be remedied by the parental State. They understand that, when the State forfeits individual rights to satisfy group demands, productive adults suffer loss of earned benefits, just title, freedom of exchange and due process. This, they oppose.

No matter how they are packaged, liberal entitlements often damage the poor and perpetuate poverty by treating entire groupings of citizens as if they were helpless children. Most agree that human slavery is egregious; but, when the adult “child” becomes a willing “slave” to the Nanny State, no one’s the better for it.

[Click here for: Emergency Supplies and Survival Kits For Disaster Preparadness]

 

© 2007 Debra Rae – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale


Daughter of an Army Colonel, Debra graduated with distinction from the University of Iowa. She then completed a Master of Education degree from the University of Washington. These were followed by Bachelor of Theology and Master of Ministries degrees-both from Pacific School of Theology.

While a teacher in Kuwait, Debra undertook a three-month journey from the Persian Gulf to London by means of VW “bug”! One summer, she tutored the daughter of Kuwait’s Head of Parliament while serving as superintendent of Kuwait’s first Vacation Bible School.

Having authored the ABCs of Globalism and ABCs of Cultural -Isms, Debra speaks to Christian and secular groups alike. Her radio spots air globally. Presently, Debra co-hosts WOMANTalk radio with Sharon Hughes and Friends, and she contributes monthly commentaries to Changing Worldviews and NewsWithViews.com. Debra calls the Pacific Northwest home.

Web Site: www.debraraebooks.com

E-Mail: ABCs@debraraebooks.com 

http://www.newswithviews.com/Rae/debra25.htm

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original/The Only” Gunny G
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
http://gunnygcops.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********


Can Any Candidate Stop This Policy Group?

October 31, 2007


 

 

 

Can Any Candidate Stop This Policy Group?

Dr. Eugene Narrett, Ph.D
October 31, 2007
NewsWithViews.com


http://www.newswithviews.com/Narrett/eugene8.htm

 

Congressmen Ron Paul has won adherents by sustained resistance to expanding Federal government authority and the taxes that support it. Taxes are about power: lower taxes prevent the American people from being further reduced to peonage while their lives, labor and capital are seized to build the pyramid of their oppressors. For opposing this, more power to the Congressman and those like him. Starve the beast-regime of its food, the lives and money of citizens and it will shrink to proper size.

Rule by crisis-creation and management is a primary means of increasing taxes and governmental authority. Following Britain’s re-ignition of jihad in the 1920s and its still present global ambitions, American involvement in Middle Eastern politics and the geopolitics they sub-serve has led us to a “War on Terror” and the engorgement of life by Homeland Security Department. Almost anything can be done in the name of security and government’s ability to foment or contribute to crises is enormous. The Reichstag fire was the signature political event of modern times. The black flag flies over the era in which feminist policies and attitudes have destroyed the family: sovereignty dies with deference and patriarchy; the sequel is terror, a culture of terror, offspring of Aphrodite. That’s a related story for another day.

Some people, like Ron Paul would like America to withdraw its armed forces from the Middle East. America should get out of the inflammatory diplomatic-intelligence games of the “peace process” which is a major engine for globalization. But would corporate powers allow the government to leave the field to Russian and German economic and military forces? Their power, slogans and categories of thought already pervade American culture from industry to academia. We could secure our borders but can, or will any President detach America from globalism? If the heads of the Departments of State, Defense, Treasury and the CIA were replaced, would anything change but the names? Do George Bush and Condoleeza Rice make American foreign policy?

The National Security Council, led by the State Department has been prepping for its latest Middle East “Peace” Conference scheduled for Annapolis in late November. The goal is to implement the end game that, ostensibly, will resolve “the cycle of violence in the region.” This bromide is the opposite of the actual goals of the pressure session which will be more like the surrender to which Chamberlain summoned the Czechs in late September 1938. The goal then was not to end a series of border incursions — the Czechs could have handled that themselves, but to prepare the region for a vast immersion in violence.

The Secretary of State typically is the point wo/man for such initiatives in the era of American hegemony. With the goals of the Road Map being a massive ethnic cleansing of Jews from the most ancient part of their homeland and all their holiest sites, Colin Powell and even more, his successor Condoleeza Rice often is perceived as an enemy of the Children of Israel and Jewish sovereignty. In the case of Rice, this may well be true for she goes about her business with a zest like that of James Baker of the Carlisle Group and Reagan-Bush administrations. But Rice’s feelings are not relevant at this level: like Goneril’s Butler Oswald in King Lear she is a tool, an enforcer for policy-makers that do and will bend any president toward their own designs as may be seen by a recent public letter titled, “Failure Risks Devastating Consequences.”

The letter appears in Vol. 54, #177 of the New York Review of Books (11-08-07) and its list of signatories indicate the font of American policy: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Trilateral co-founder and author most recently of The Grand Chessboard; Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the Iraq Study Group also known as “the Baker Group” after its principle-member, supra; Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor to Gerald Ford and G.H.W. Bush; Paul Volcker, former Chair of the Federal Reserve System; Carla Hills, G.H.W. Bush’s trade coordinator; Thomas Pickering, State Department top cadre; Nancy Kassebaum-Baker and Theodore Sorenson. Even without the names of key figures like Richard Holbrooke, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn here is a section of America’s elite from the 1960s till today. If the Dulles brothers were alive, no doubt they would be represented, too.

The Washington Post tells us that Rice has “a spiritual passion about the need for peace overcoming pain and grievance” (10-17-07, A12), a passion she pursues by pressing to cleanse Judea of Jews. But her “spiritual passion” for expelling Jews doesn’t impress the writers of the above letter. Brzezinski, the head of the group states that “her legacy right now is really very poor” and that only “if she can pull this off,” a retreat of Israel to its 1949 armistice lines, from the Temple Mount, City of David, Hebron and more “will she be a real historical figure.” Moreover, she will gain the approval and perks of the group and achieve a basic goal: the severing of the world from its roots and memory.

One goal of the group is a “two-state solution.” This cliché has been a misnomer since 1922 when Britain’s Foreign Ministry under Churchill severed the eastern 77% of the Mandate from the Jewish National Home. They also banned Jewish settlement there although the Emir Abdallah, their puppet, and leading sheiks were eager for Jewish settlers to develop the land and already had signed leasing agreements for that purpose. The British intervened to block them in their drive toward “an Arab Federation” from Baghdad to Cairo and Aswan. The British wanted conflict leading to the synthesis of an Arab Federation under its hegemony. The third state, Hamastan, was seeded in 1948 when Egypt seized and held the Gaza strip which the Bush-Sharon-UN-EU group cleansed of Jews in 2005. It now is a launching pad for missiles that require another “peace” conference and agreement.

[To order Dr. Eugene Narrett's books click here]

The Brzezinski group’s letter is an interesting stick with no carrots, at least for Israel (though emoluments for the Israeli puppets who will sell out their people are in place including ‘get out of jail free’ cards for the compromised). One of these brandished sticks is the warning that “the Quartet” will take over direct management of the created crisis if the Annapolis conference fails to divide Jerusalem, create a “Palestinian” capital there, and bring “Palestinian refugees” west of the Jordan. (UNRWA counts and militarizes these “refugees” while Arab states refuse to settle them. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, for example, accept none. Read chapter two of Samuel Katz’s Battleground to read what Arabs were saying and writing about this issue in the 1940s and ’50s). [1] The letter writers state that Israel must “remove unjustified checkpoints, dismantle Israeli [i.e. Jewish] outposts” and “freeze Israeli settlements” to assuage the Arabs’ “deep sense of injustice” with which Secretary Rice is said to identity deeply.

This letter illustrates how false issues and managed crises cloak real goals: Jewish settlement (though not illegal Arab building) was effectively frozen by the Road Map late in 2001. Jewish buildings, even sheds serving as homes or synagogues have been regularly demolished since then. The checkpoints prevent attacks on civilian populations. Whenever some are removed, murders follow. All Israelis stand on line in public places: that’s what happens when your nation’s victories are aborted: eventually even the right to fight and win is suppressed, so get in line.

It’s an outcome-based process: the Group signals that murders will follow unless there is total Israeli capitulation: unless Syria and Hamas are included in “the genuine dialog [sic] …there could be escalating violence from the West Bank and Gaza.” That’s a threat that Western and Russian arms will help fulfill just as the British armed their artificial Arab states beginning in 1920. As far as escalating violence goes, since Washington’s puppet, Mr. Olmert declared a unilateral Israeli ceasefire as rockets rained from the Gaza Strip, cleansed of its 20 Jewish villages by Ariel Sharon in August 2005 rocket and mortar fire have increased, half-emptying nearby Jewish towns and cities within the 1949 armistice lines. Yet America continues to arm Hamas via Fatah as in the predictable if not pre-arranged Hamas takeover of Gaza last winter. Having encouraged this, the great powers will provide the synthesis, a regional group, overt or de facto, Britain’s “Arab Federation.” Peace and prosperity or endless attrition, contested borders and population control?

That the synthesis is as explosive as the Fatah-Hamas “unity government” serves the Group’s greater goals of eternal crisis, population control and burial of the integrated nation that testifies to the Creator not the “New World Religion” or “Alliance of Civilizations,” the new Babel.

PM Ehud Olmert’s approval ratings have ranged from 3 – 15% since the summer 2006 rockets from Hezbollah taught Israelis to live in bomb shelters because their State would not fight to protect them (could it happen here). Still PM, he stated last week that he does not need the Israeli parliament to make agreements at Annapolis: his supporters are in Foggy Bottom. The growing irrelevance and dereliction of our own Congress is exemplified by many supposedly representative governments that actually serve regional groups. An example is “nationalist” leader Avigdor Lieberman who took the votes of Israelis who want an intact nation that asserts and defends its borders and then brought his party into the ruling leftist-internationalist client-regime. Although this destroyed his party in the polls, Lieberman cares about this no more than Olmert or Ehud Barak: his constituency too is overseas. He has been calling for NATO forces to patrol Judea and Samaria; the Labor party prefers EU forces. As we have shown in “Web upon Web” there is much overlap between them and though the EU rapidly is developing an independent military, NATO remains the main military arm of the “European-American space, a united humanitarian space [which] will come to building a united military space as well…based on the principles of collective security.” [2] Collective Security about which Russian and American diplomats and media pretend to bicker is being put into place to police the enemies of “peace” like the Jewish settlers of Judea and Samaria; like the Serbs; like Americans in the Southwest.

Since April 1999, NATO’s principle, as enunciated by Tony Blair in Washington has been an aggressive policy of “humanitarian intervention” for the “united humanitarian space which is a united military space as well…based on collective security.” East and West join hands, as Julian Huxley wished, to put the world on a grid.

No individual can resist the entrenched financial, diplomatic, military and intelligence forces that have fashioning this horror. Could champions of national sovereignty better rouse the people from outside of government? Within they would be compromised, browbeaten, neutered or removed by servants of the chess-masters.

What is being done to the Jews, the western powers squeezing like a python vividly exemplifies what’s in store for everyone in the world space in which “the human element” will be managed and used. If the Jews of Israel could assert their boundaries and sovereignty it would be a light to the nations. But after eighty-five years of great power blackmail and dialectical attrition via western-armed jihad and apologetics for it, that possibility is all but gone. The people of America should learn from the example.

Footnotes:

1. “The Palestinian people does not exist…only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people [which] we posit to oppose Zionism. The creation of a Palestinian State is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel,” Zuheir Muhsein, Executive committee of the PLO, March 31, 1977, Trouw. Arafat and his head man, Farouk Kaddumi often spoke of the Oslo accords as being “a Trojan Horse” for the destruction of Israel. It was not jihadists who crafted the Camp David, Madrid-Oslo Accords or Road Map. Katz, Samuel, Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine (1973; 2002), 12-37.

2. Eduard Shevardnadze, November 19, 1991 quoted in the intro to Christopher Story’s The European Union Collective (London 2002), xxxii, xxxvii.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2007 Eugene Narrett – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale



Eugene Narrett received his BA, MA and PhD from Columbia University in NYC. His writings on American politics and culture and on the Middle East and geopolitics have been widely published. These include four books, the most recent being WW III: the War on the Jews and the Rise of the World Security State (2007) which examines the historical roots and purposes of the war on terror as a late stage in the undoing of the West. His previous book, Israel and the Endtimes (2006) lays the basis for these questions.

Dr. Narrett has appeared on scores of radio programs, both major networks like WABC, Radio America, Eagle Forum Radio and Westwood Communications, as well as regional and local stations. He has been honored for his essays on art and literature and on behalf of the pro-life movement.

Since receiving his doctorate in 1978, Dr. Narrett has been teaching literature and art and creating interdisciplinary courses in the Humanities. He lectures on a variety of topics relating to western civilization, geopolitics and the multi-faceted war on the family that is a striking feature of the postmodern west.

See his web site, www.israelendtimes.com for information on booking a lecture and for contact information.

Website: IsraelEndTimes.com

Contact Eugenne Narrett:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Narrett/eugene8.htm

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original/The Only” Gunny G
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
http://gunnygcops.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********


GyG: Will Post To…”Cops Out of Control”

October 31, 2007

Re Cops Out of Control

http://gunnygcops.wetpaint.com/

**********************************
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1918875/posts?page=1

Prohibition Returns! – Teetotaling do-gooders attack your right to drink
Reason ^ | 10/31/07 | David Harsanyi
Posted on 10/31/2007 9:03:00 AM EDT by SubGeniusX
On a May night in 2005, Debra Bolton, a lawyer and single mom from the Washington suburb of Alexandria, Virginia, was leaving the Café Milano in Georgetown after socializing with some friends. She had driven her SUV only a few hundred yards before she was pulled over by D.C. police for driving with the headlights off. She told the officer the parking attendant at Café Milano probably had turned off her vehicle’s automatic light feature.

Not mollified, the officer asked Bolton to step out of the car, walk in a straight line, recite the alphabet, stand on one foot, and count to 30. He checked her eyes for suspicious jerkiness and insisted on a breath test for alcohol.

The breath test revealed that Bolton’s blood alcohol content (BAC) was 0.03 percent, a level a 120-pound woman could expect after drinking one glass of wine. It was well below the 0.08 percent limit that marks a driver as legally intoxicated in D.C. It was not low enough for the arresting officer, however. This middle-aged mother of two, who hadn’t drunk to excess, who hadn’t run a red light or run a stop, was arrested, handcuffed, and fingerprinted for an innocent mistake. She sat in a jail cell for hours and was finally released at 4:30 a.m. Bolton spent four court appearances and over $2,000 fighting a $400 ticket. She then spent a month fighting to get her license back after refusing to submit to the 12-week alcohol counseling program.

The arresting officer, inaptly named Dennis Fair, insists: “If you get behind the wheel of a car with any measurable amount of alcohol, you will be dealt with in D.C. We have zero tolerance….Anything above 0.01, we can arrest.” Fair recognized that nearly everyone in D.C. was unaware of this zero tolerance policy. Still, he told The Washington Post, if “you don’t know about it, then you’re a victim of your own ignorance.”

Bolton’s arrest was not the result of a single cop’s overzealousness. In 2004 D.C. police arrested 321 people with BACs below the legal limit of 0.08 percent for driving under the influence. The year before, the number was 409.

After the Bolton incident, James Klaunig, a toxicology expert at the Indiana University School of Medicine, told The Washington Post, “There’s no way possible she failed a [sobriety] test from impairment with a .03 blood alcohol level.” Fair had claimed that Bolton swayed and lost her balance when taking the sobriety test, triggering the breath test.

A BAC test, one of the main tools used by law enforcement to catch drunk drivers, determines how much alcohol is present in the bloodstream. A BAC of 0.08 percent, for instance, means 0.0008 of your blood is alcohol. At that level, though, you’re hardly slurring your words or staggering.

In 2000 President Clinton signed a federal law aimed at pressuring states to lower their BAC limits from 0.1 percent to 0.08 percent. States that didn’t go along were threatened with the loss of federal highway funds. Karolyn Nunnallee, president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), predicted that a nationwide 0.08 percent standard “will save nearly 600 lives every year.”

It hasn’t worked out that way. In the July 2007 issue of Contemporary Economic Policy, Sam Houston State University economist Donald Freeman examines the most recent data available and concludes “there’s no evidence that lowering the BAC limits…reduced fatality rates, either in total or in crashes likely to be alcohol related.” This is true, he found, both in states that adopted a 0.08 percent BAC standard on their own and in states that did so under federal pressure.

During the last decade, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), alcohol contributed to between 16,000 and 17,000 traffic-related fatalities a year, about two-fifths of the total such deaths. It used to be a good deal worse. Back in 1982, three-fifths of all traffic related fatalities were attributed to alcohol. Since then, ad campaigns and education have raised public awareness about the dangers of driving smashed. States have instituted stricter punishment for drunk driving, and law enforcement officials are also better prepared to ferret out drunk drivers. A lot of the credit must be given to the hard work MADD did in educating the public about the menace of drinking and driving.

But the decline in alcohol-related deaths persisted only until 1997. Since then the vehicular death toll attributed to alcohol has remained stable at around 40 percent. This stagnation in drunk driving deaths has caused considerable consternation among activists and law enforcement officials. Lately, the fight against drunk driving has shifted from serious alcohol abusers with no regard for the law toward responsible drinkers.

Neoprohibitionists aim to muddle the distinction between drunk diving and driving after drinking any amount of alcohol. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) endorsed the idea at a Senate Environment and Public Committee hearing way back in 1997, contending that we “may wind up in this country going to zero tolerance, period.” Former MADD President Katherine Prescott concurred, in a letter to the Chicago Tribune, where she stated “there is no safe blood alcohol, and for that reason responsible drinking means no drinking and driving.”

Technically she’s correct. Driving is never completely safe, and many things drivers commonly do-including speaking on a cell phone, talking to passengers, applying lipstick, eating a sandwich, drinking coffee, adjusting the radio, reprimanding the kids in the back seat, and daydreaming about weekend plans-can make it riskier. As states and cities have begun focusing on zero tolerance (or “driving while distracted” laws, which target the diversions laid out above) they are losing focus on the real threat, namely habitually drunk drivers.

Drinking is under attack these days in ways we haven’t seen since the failed experiment with national alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. Indeed, for many neoprohibitionists, that experiment wasn’t a failure at all, since it did cut alcohol consumption, which is all that matters. We can see that mentality today in policies that go beyond preventing drunk driving or punishing drunk drivers and aim to discourage drinking per se.

Founder’s Remorse Although alcohol nannies generally support zero tolerance, one dissenting voice doesn’t. “I thought the emphasis on .08 laws was not where the emphasis should have been placed,” Candace Lightner told the Los Angeles Times in 2002. “The majority of crashes occur with high blood-alcohol levels, the .15, .18 and .25 drinkers. Lowering the blood-alcohol concentration was not a solution to the alcohol problem.”

Lightner’s views can’t be easily dismissed by anti-alcohol activists. In 1980 her 12-year-old daughter, Cari, was killed by a hit-and-run driver on a suburban street in Southern California. When the perpetrator was apprehended, he was drunk. It turned out he had been convicted of driving while intoxicated four previous times-once just days before he killed Lightner’s daughter. Even after his fifth, fatal offense, he received just a two-year sentence and avoided prison by serving time in a work camp and a halfway house.

The light sentence her daughter’s killer received spurred Lightner to “fight to make this needless homicide count for something positive in the years ahead.” She did that by founding MADD in 1980. She changed the world for the better by raising public awareness about the serious nature of drunk driving and promoting tough legislation against the crime. Due to Lightner’s potent grassroots work, aggressive campaigning, and popularization of the concept of designated drivers, MADD grew rapidly in its first five years. By 1985 it boasted 364 chapters, 600,000 members, and a $12.5 million budget.

Lightner has moved on from MADD, and since then has protested the shift from attacking drunk driving to attacking drinking in general. “I worry that the movement I helped create has lost direction,” she told The Cleveland Plain Dealer in 1992. BAC legislation, she said, “ignores the real core of the problem….If we really want to save lives, let’s go after the most dangerous drivers on the road.” Lightner said MADD has become an organization far more “neoprohibitionist” than she had envisioned. “I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol,” she said. “I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving.”

While it seems safe to assume that nearly every parent in the United States opposes drunk driving, the same cannot be said for MADD’s efforts to stop drinking. Neither is every politician on board. In October 2005, responding to noisy complaints from local residents and negative national publicity, the D.C. Council decided, by a 9-3 vote, to abandon the zero tolerance policy that snared Debra Bolton. “D.C. is once again open for business,” said council member Carol Schwartz. She said visitors “can come in and have a glass of wine and not be harassed or intimidated.” That’s good news. Sadly, it’s not the case everywhere.

Ignition Failure More than 40 states require convicted drunk drivers to install ignition interlock devices: The driver breathes into a tube attached to the device, and if his blood alcohol concentration is measurable the vehicle won’t start. Considering the high recidivism rate among drunk drivers, the interlock system may be a reasonable preventive measure for those who have proven they pose a danger to others. But what about people who have never been arrested, perhaps never even had a ticket, or who never drink under any circumstances? Can they be trusted to start their cars without taking a breath test?

In 2004 New Mexico state Rep. Ken Martinez (D-Grants) introduced a bill that would have forced every driver in his state to install an ignition interlock device. In addition to the indignity and inconvenience of breathing into a tube every time they start their cars, this requirement would cost drivers about $1,000 each to install the device, according to estimates by the states that require them. Incredibly, the bill breezed through the state’s House of Representatives by a 45-to-22 vote. “Honestly, I put forward this bill to start some dialogue,” Martinez told Wired.com. “And it became a very thought-provoking process….We want New Mexico to be a leader at using technology to curb some societal ills.”

The New Mexico Senate, thankfully, let the bill die. But soon legislators in New York and Oklahoma were making noise about a universal interlock requirement. “If the public wants it and the data support it, it is literally possible that the epidemic of drunk driving could be solved where cars simply could not be operated by drunk drivers,” Chuck Hurley, MADD’s executive director, told USA Today in 2006. “What a great day that would be.”

Pre-emptive War on Drunk Driving Unfortunately, there is considerable precedent for such pre-emptive measures. In 2005 a Pennsylvania court rejected an appeal from a man whose driver’s license was revoked by the state after he told doctors he knocked back more than a six-pack of beer a day. State law requires doctors to report any of a patient’s physical or mental impairments if the doctors think it could compromise his ability to drive safely. Keith Emerich hadn’t gotten in any legal trouble, related to drinking, driving, or anything else, and his job attendance was as exemplary. Yet a three-judge Commonwealth Court panel said the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation was justified in taking away Emerich’s license-not because he had driven while intoxicated but because he might.

Numerous anti-DUI law enforcement tactics now taken for granted are not only unduly invasive but ineffective. Consider roadblocks, a well-intentioned preventive measure that does little more than waste time and create pollution. This form of anticipatory law enforcement intimidates social drinkers and fails to address hardcore drunks, who often simply avoid roadblocks, turning on side streets when they see the flashing sideshow ahead. It targets those who aren’t driving recklessly, haven’t had a single drink, and have places to go.

According to numerous studies and reports dating back to 1987, the chance of getting picked up at a roadblock for being intoxicated is minuscule. MADD is nonetheless an enthusiastic supporter of sobriety checkpoints. It claims roadblocks reduce fatal alcohol-related crashes by as much as 20 percent. Yet recent fluctuations in such crashes have no correlation with states that do or don’t use checkpoints.

During the Christmas season of 2003 in Fairfax County, Virginia, a suburb of Washington not far from the site of Debra Bolton’s arrest, local police took pre-emptive law enforcement to an absurd extreme, launching a sting operation that targeted 20 local bars and restaurants. The mission: apprehend “drunk” patrons before they try to drive. These drinkers were far from their cars and in some cases did not even own cars. What type of evidence did the police use to measure intoxication? According to one law enforcement official involved in the sting, the determination could be made based on unflicked cigarette ashes, an excessive number of restroom visits, noisy cursing, or a wobbly walk.

The raids involved 10 cops in SWAT-like outfits. In an interview with The Reston Times, the general manager of one targeted establishment said “they tapped one lady on the shoulder-who was on her first drink and had just eaten dinner-to take her out on the sidewalk and give her a sobriety test. They told her she fit the description of a woman they had complaints about, and that they heard she was dancing topless.”

In one raid, of the 18 drinkers tested for sobriety, nine were hauled to jail for public intoxication. When asked to explain the rationale for the raids, then-Fairfax County Police Chief J. Thomas Mange declared that you “can’t be drunk in a bar.” Where can you be drunk? “At home. Or at someone else’s home. And stay there until you’re not drunk.”

Following the logic of such operations, watching television under the influence in your own home may soon be grounds for paramilitary raids. A Super Bowl party, a wedding shower, or a bachelor party can attract dozens of guests, many of whom will be drinking. Why not target those people as well? They have cars.

It’s true that “public intoxication” is illegal. So is jaywalking. Police should use common sense, allocating their resources to protect citizens as efficiently as possible. It’s hard to believe the most pressing problem in all of Northern Virginia that night was an inebriated and allegedly topless woman. The immediate effect of hauling a few boozy bar patrons down to jail is insignificant. But the alcohol nannies are counting on the long-term impact: Once word gets out, people will be less inclined to get sloshed anywhere, anytime.

Such policies sometimes backfire. After the Fairfax County raids, the entire city council of Herndon, Virginia, criticized the practice of targeting law-abiding businesses and drinkers. “It is the unanimous opinion of the council that police overstepped their bounds and overreacted,” one member said.

Yet numerous states and municipalities are experimenting with Fairfax-style intimidation. In 2005 the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission warned that it would be conducting “Sales to Intoxicated Person Stings” in various parts of the Lone Star State. “We believe responsible adults should drink responsibly,” said Heather Hodges, a MADD victims advocate involved in planning the operation, in a MADD press release. “A bar is not intended to be a place to get fall-down drunk.” In March 2006, one of the first sting operations was conducted in a Dallas suburb where agents infiltrated 36 bars and arrested 30 people for public intoxication.

“It’s killed our business,” one Dallas bar owner told a local TV station. “People are scared to come out. I don’t even drink, and I’m scared to go out, and it’s not right. We don’t want to put drunks on the road, but we don’t want people to be afraid to do something that’s legal. If they don’t want people drinking, they should outlaw alcohol.”

Bar None MADD officials say they “strongly support” the right of alcohol-related crash victims to seek “financial recovery from establishments and servers who have irresponsibly provided alcohol to those who are intoxicated or to underage persons, or who serve past the point of intoxication individuals who then cause fatal or injurious crashes.”

I’m not sure if any MADD leaders have been to a saloon lately, but the local Cheers-style tavern where everyone knows your name is all but dead. In large cities, working at a bar can mean serving alcohol to hundreds, if not thousands, of patrons each night. Once we train servers to double as psychics, MADD’s liability principle will make sense. Until then, we can have mandatory breath tests for patrons. Once again, the neoprohibitionists stand for seemingly sensible policies that in practice make the sale and consumption of alcohol nearly impossible.

Most states have dram shop liability laws, which generally allow lawsuits to be brought by those injured by an inebriated person against the establishment which contributed to that person’s intoxication. In Texas minors can sue a drinking establishment for their own injuries should they get their hands on enough alcohol to be intoxicated and hurt themselves. Under Illinois law, plaintiffs don’t even have to prove a bartender was aware of the consumer’s inebriation. In other states, dram shop liability extends to serving the “habitually intoxicated,” who will be a cinch to identify for all those clairvoyant bartenders.

If getting drunk in a bar is to be forbidden, it makes sense to ban happy hour. Back in 1984, the Massachusetts legislature banned the practice of offering cheaper drinks during the traditional “happy hours” of 4 p.m. and 7 p.m.-or any other time. That law kicked off a wave of happy hour restrictions around the country. From Ohio, where bars were compelled to end two-for-the-price-of-one premiums at 9 p.m., to West Virginia, where bars must have food available during happy hours, to Mississippi and Oregon, where happy hours are still allowed but cannot be advertised, happiness is being snatched from law-abiding Americans across the land.

Such laws often have unintended consequences. When a 1990 Illinois law banning “happy hours” took effect, bars came up with a creative solution, changing “happy hours” to the even better “happy days.” A “happy day” means reduced prices on drinks for the entire day, since the price of drinks cannot be legally changed during any one business day.

On its website, MADD condemns “Practices Which Encourage Excessive Alcohol Consumption,” including happy hours, ladies’ nights, and any fluctuations in prices that bring in consumers during what are usually slow hours. The group calls upon the “hospitality industry to voluntarily end all practices associated with excessive alcohol consumption.” As a backup, MADD also supports the legal prohibition of such practices in all 50 states.

Sometimes bars want the state to help stop practices consumers love. Bar crawling is common in cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Friends, typically in their 20s and 30s, get together and go from bar to bar. To attract such groups, some bars offer unlimited drinks for a fixed price. In 1999 New York Gov. George Pataki signed into law a ban of the practice, asserting that it encourages “irresponsible binge-drinking.”

Even if that’s true, adult binge drinking is none of Pataki’s business, since adults have the right to get smashed as long as they don’t hurt anyone else. But bar and nightclub owners didn’t mind when Albany prevented them from engaging in this sort of expensive price war. The pubs’ chief trade group lobbied strenuously to get the state to stop the practice.

Alcohol nannies also have targeted sporting arenas, blaming alcohol for every brawl or other instance of misconduct by fans. George Hacker, director of alcohol studies at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, suggests several solutions, including a ban on selling beer in the stands, a reduction in the size of a beer serving from 16 to 10 ounces, a 3.2 percent limit on beer alcohol content, the elimination of beer signs, and aggressive police identification of “people who are obviously intoxicated.” Although brawls occur at a tiny percentage of sporting events, alcohol nannies latch onto them as an excuse to interfere with the enjoyment of millions of fans.

Drinking may not be a prerequisite for a happy life, but it’s a ritual most Americans have enjoyed as long as the nation has existed, and harmlessly so in the overwhelming majority of cases. Although I’m not an exceptionally heavy drinker, I can’t, and don’t want to, imagine a life without alcohol. As long as I’m not endangering anyone else, I shouldn’t have to.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1918875/posts?page=1

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original/The Only” Gunny G
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
http://gunnygcops.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********


“Reeducation Camps” ???

October 30, 2007

Hmm…
Now it seems to me I’ve heard tell of…”reeducation camps” before somewhere…now lemme think about this…
GunnyG
~~~~~
**************************

**********************************
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1918723/posts

University of Deleware Require Students to Undergo Ideological Reeducation
FIRE – Foundation for Individual Rights in Education ^ | 10/30/07 | FIRE
Posted on 10/30/2007 10:28:05 PM EDT by cowtowney


NEWARK, Del., October 30, 2007—The University of Delaware subjects students in its residence halls to a shocking program of ideological reeducation that is referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs.

The organization cited excerpts from the university’s Office of Residence Life Diversity Education Training documents, including the statement:

“A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. ‘The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….’”

(Excerpt) Read more at thefire.org

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1918723/posts
******************************

University of Deleware Require Students to Undergo Ideological Reeducation

October 30, 2007

FIRE Press Release

NEWARK, Del., October 30, 2007—The University of Delaware subjects students in its residence halls to a shocking program of ideological reeducation that is referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The Orwellian program requires the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students’ rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech.

“The University of Delaware’s residence life education program is a grave intrusion into students’ private beliefs,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “The university has decided that it is not enough to expose its students to the values it considers important; instead, it must coerce its students into accepting those values as their own. At a public university like Delaware, this is both unconscionable and unconstitutional.”

The university’s views are forced on students through a comprehensive manipulation of the residence hall environment, from mandatory training sessions to “sustainability” door decorations. Students living in the university’s eight housing complexes are required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The RAs who facilitate these meetings have received their own intensive training from the university, including a “diversity facilitation training” session at which RAs were taught, among other things, that “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”

The university suggests that at one-on-one sessions with students, RAs should ask intrusive personal questions such as “When did you discover your sexual identity?” Students who express discomfort with this type of questioning often meet with disapproval from their RAs, who write reports on these one-on-one sessions and deliver these reports to their superiors. One student identified in a write-up as an RA’s “worst” one-on-one session was a young woman who stated that she was tired of having “diversity shoved down her throat.”

According to the program’s materials, the goal of the residence life education program is for students in the university’s residence halls to achieve certain “competencies” that the university has decreed its students must develop in order to achieve the overall educational goal of “citizenship.” These competencies include: “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,” “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,” and “Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.”

At various points in the program, students are also pressured or even required to take actions that outwardly indicate their agreement with the university’s ideology, regardless of their personal beliefs. Such actions include displaying specific door decorations, committing to reduce their ecological footprint by at least 20%, taking action by advocating for an “oppressed” social group, and taking action by advocating for a “sustainable world.”

In the Office of Residence Life’s internal materials, these programs are described using the harrowing language of ideological reeducation. In documents relating to the assessment of student learning, for example, the residence hall lesson plans are referred to as “treatments.”

In a letter sent yesterday to University of Delaware President Patrick Harker, FIRE pointed out the stark contradiction between the residence life education program and the values of a free society. FIRE’s letter to President Harker also underscored the University of Delaware’s legal obligation to abide by the First Amendment. FIRE reminded Harker of the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), a case decided during World War II that remains the law of the land. Justice Robert H. Jackson, writing for the Court, declared, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

“The fact that the university views its students as patients in need of treatment for some sort of moral sickness betrays a total lack of respect not only for students’ basic rights, but for students themselves,” Lukianoff said. “The University of Delaware has both a legal and a moral obligation to immediately dismantle this program, and FIRE will not rest until it has.”

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process rights, freedom of expression, and rights of conscience on our campuses. FIRE would like to thank the Delaware Association of Scholars (DAS) for its invaluable assistance in this case. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty at the University of Delaware and elsewhere can be seen by visiting www.thefire.org.

CONTACT:

Greg Lukianoff, President, FIRE: 215-717-3473; greg_lukianoff@thefire.org

Samantha Harris, Director of Legal and Public Advocacy, FIRE: 215-717-3473; samantha@thefire.org

Patrick Harker, President, University of Delaware: 302-831-2111; president@udel.edu

Kathleen G. Kerr, Director of Residence Life, University of Delaware: 302-831-1201; kkerr@udel.edu

http://tinyurl.com/2ajkca

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original/The Only” Gunny G
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
http://gunnygcops.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********


China? Yeah, The Marines’ve Been There Before…Several Times

October 30, 2007


http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmchist/nochina.txt

The United States Marines

in North China

1945 – 1949

By

Henry I. Shaw, Jr.

Printed 1960

Revised 1962
Reprinted 1968

Historical Branch, G-3 Division

Headquarters, U. S. Marine Corps

Washington, D. C. 20380

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20380

FOREWORD

The United States Marines in North China, 1945-1949 is a concise
narrative of the major events which took place when Marine ground and air

units were deployed to the Asian mainland at the close of World War II. The
text and appendices are based on official records, interviews with
participants in the operations described, and reliable secondary sources. The

pamphlet is published for the information of Marines and others interested in
this significant period of Marine Corps history.

<SIGNATURE>

R. G. OWENS, JR

Brigadier General, U. S. Marine Corps
Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3

REVIEWED AND APPROVED: 29 April 1968

THE UNITED STATES MARINES IN

NORTH CHINA, 1945-1949

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Original Online
Page Page

The United States Marines In North China, 1945-1949 1 6

Notes 27 32
Appendix A – Major Armed Clashes Between U.S. Marines
and Chinese Communists A-1 35

Appendix B – Marine Casualties Incurred as a Result of

Attacks on Sentries, Recreation Parties, and
Individuals B-1 37
Appendix C – Aircrew Losses Incurred by Marine

Squadrons in Operational Crashes in North China C-1 38

The United States Marines in North China, 1945-1949

By

Henry I. Shaw, Jr.

HOPEH OPERATIONS<1>

The III Amphibious Corps (IIIAC) had just begun a period of intensive
training, in preparation for the invasion of the Tokyo Plain, when the war

ended abruptly. Within 48 hours, a warning order had been dispatched to all

units of the corps to be prepared to mount out for the Shanghai area about 1
October. In anticipation of a wide variety of possible military operations,

the training schedule was modified and accelerated. But before a week had

passed, Admiral Nimitz advised the Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force,
Pacific (FMFPac), that tentative plans contemplated the employment of IIIAC in

North China, to accept the surrender of Japanese troops for the Chinese

Central Government and to supervise the repatriation of Japanese military and
civilians. The corps headquarters and corps troops together with the 1st

Marine Division would occupy positions in the vicinity of Tangku, Tientsin,

Peiping, and Chinwangtao in Hopeh Province and the 6th Marine Division (less
the 4th Marines) would move into Tsingtao in Shantung Province. The 1st

Marine Aircraft Wing would move its planes and men to airfields in the

Tsingtao, Tientsin, and Peiping areas. (See maps inside covers). Commitment
of the entire corps in the Shanghai region was assigned as an alternate

mission. Tentative plans for these operations were issued on 29 August,

setting the mounting-out date for 15 September. The 3d Marine Division on
Guam and the 4th Marine Division on Maui were designated area reserve for the

operation.

According to plan, the Hopeh occupation force got underway first. The

corps embarkation order was issued on 8 September, and loading of the corps
troops began at Guam on the 11th. Loading was completed on 19 September, and

the IIIAC Chief of Staff, Brigadier General William A. Worton, departed by air

with an advance party to report to Lieutenant General Albert C. Wedemeyer,
USA, commanding the China Theater (ComGenChina), at Shanghai and proceeded to

Tientsin to prepare for the reception

1

of the occupation forces there. The Commanding General, IIIAC, Major General
Keller E. Rockey, sailed with the convoy from Guam for Okinawa the following

day. Here, ships carrying the troops of the 1st Marine Division (Major

General DeWitt Peck) rendezvoused with this convoy on 24 September. Two days
later, corps troops and the 1st Marine Division sailed from Okinawa for the

anchorage off Taku.

Long before daybreak on 30 September the convoy anchored in the bay off

the mouth of Hai River. With dawn, as if out of nowhere, appeared a swarm of
sampans manned by enthusiastic Chinese crews who sculled their small craft

close to the transports to exchange mutually unintelligible badinage with the

troops lining the rails and to trade cheap trinkets. The aura of good-natured
welcome continued as the Assistant Division Commander of the 1st Division,

Brigadier General Louis R. Jones, and his staff boarded a patrol craft to lead

a procession of LCTs carrying men of the 7th Marines over Taku bar and into
the narrow channel that led upriver to the Tangku docks. It was the start of

a daylong victory parade. “Until long after dark groups of Chinese lined the

river banks, gathered…outside their…houses to cheer each boatload of
Marines.”<2>

At 1030, General Jones set foot on the docks and met with Chinese port

officials to complete arrangements initiated by General Worton’s advance party

for the reception, transportation, and billeting of the Marines. The 3d
Battalion, 7th Marines, entrained for Tientsin, while 2/7 bivouacked in the

warehouse area beside the docks. Elements of the IIIAC Shore Brigade, built

around the 7th Service Regiment, also disembarked on the 30th to start
unloading cargo. On every hand, the “Chinese military and civilian

authorities were cooperative in the extreme,”<3> and no trouble of any kind

was experienced with the Japanese garrison.

The tumultuous welcome that greeted 3/7 when it arrived in Tientsin was

repeated and reinforced the following day as the 1st Marines and Division
Headquarters Battalion reached the city by rail and road. The streets were

packed with Chinese of all classes and European expatriates. Trucks and

marching troops literally had to force their way through the happy,
flag-waving throngs to reach their assigned billets in the former

International Concessions. To many of the men, it seemed that their welcome

must have out shone and out shouted “any welcome given to troops any time, any
place, and anywhere during the war.”<4>

2

The first element of IIIAC to come in direct contact with the highly

explosive internal situation prevailing in North China was the 1st Battalion,

7th Marines. On 1 October, 1/7, reinforced, under Lieutenant Colonel John J.
Gormley, sailed from Taku for the all-weather port of Chinwangtao, rail

terminal for the shipment of coal from the Tangshan mining area. Former

Japanese puppet troops occupying the town were engaged in desultory fighting
with Communist regulars and guerrillas who held most of the surrounding

countryside. Because, as Gormley reported, “all factions, civilian and

military, were anxious to cooperate with our troops,”<5> the Marine commander
was able to stop the fighting. He ordered the puppet forces withdrawn from

their perimeter defenses and replaced them with his own men. The local

Communist commander disclaimed any designs on the area without full American
cooperation. The aura of universal trust was short-lived, however, and before

the month was out, the Communists were regularly sabotaging rail lines leading

into the city and firing on Marine-guarded trains.

Chinwangtao was only one of many spots where the Marines, in pursuing

their assigned mission in China, clashed with the Communists. While open
warfare was avoided by both sides, the area of intermittent conflict spread as

IIIAC expanded its hold on key cities and vital routes of communication. The

first Marine casualties were incurred in a fire fight on the Tientsin-Peiping
road.

On 5 October, reconnaissance parties proceeding from Tientsin to Peiping

found 36 unguarded roadblocks scattered along the route; jeeps were the only

vehicles that could get through. The following day a detail of engineers,
guarded by a rifle platoon, was sent out to clear the road. About 22 miles

northwest of Tientsin, the engineer group was fired on by an estimated 40-50

Chinese troops, later identified as Communists, and forced to withdraw. Three
Marines were wounded. On 7 October, the engineers went out again, this time

with a rifle company of the 1st Marines, a platoon of tanks, and carrier air

cover, and the road was cleared without incident. A convoy of 95 vehicles of
the 5th Marines reached Peiping to join men of the regiment who arrived by

rail. Regular road patrols were established to insure that the

Tientsin-Peiping road stayed open.

The harassing tactics of the communist Eighth Route Army and its
affiliated partisans were all too familiar to the Japanese troops who had

guarded the areas being taken over by the

3

Marines were was strong evidence to indicate that the Japanese had a great
deal of respect, even fear, of the Communists,<6> and that they were quite

willing to get free of incessant forays, ambushes, and sabotage. General
Rockey, acting for the Chinese Central Government, accepted the surrender of
the 50,000 Japanese troops in the Tientsin-Tangku-Chinwangtao area at Tientsin

on 6 October. Four days later, the Japanese forces in the Peiping area, an
additional 50,000 men, surrendered to the Eleventh War Area commander, General
Lien Chung Sun, Chiang Kai-shek’s personal representative in North China. Most

of the Japanese were concentrated in centrally located bivouac and barrack
areas to await repatriation, but those who held outlying posts were given
orders to remain on guard duty until relieved by recognized Central Government

forces or U. S. Marines.

Many of the puppet troops transferred their allegiance to Chiang
Kai-shek after the defeat of Japan, and most units were accepted and given
official status. Other formations remained unrecognized or went over to the

Communists. In addition, the Chiang-appointed mayors of Tientsin and Peiping
organized their own armed supporters to back up their powers. It was a
chaotic situation and one that pointed up the need for stability, which was

provided by the potential strength of the Marines.

By 30 October, all major 1st Division units were ashore and established
in their initial areas of responsibility. The Peiping Group, headed by General

Jones and built around the 5th Marines (less 1/5) reinforced by 2/11, was
established in the Legation Quarter of the ancient capital, with a rifle
company at each of the city’s two airfields. The 1st and 11th Marines

controlled Tientsin, its airfield, and its approaches. The Taku-Tangku area
was garrisoned by 1/5, and the 1st and 3d Battalions of the 7th Marines held
strongpoints along the Tangku-Chinwangtao railroad. Corps troops were

stationed mainly in Tientsin, with necessary supporting detachments in the
field with division units.

Headquarters of the 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, under Major General Claude
E. Larkin, was set up on 6 October at the French Arsenal near the airfield

east of Tientsin. Headquarters and service squadrons of the wing and its air
groups (MAGs) arrived in China with their equipment throughout the month, and
flight echelons staged into their assigned firelds at Tsingtao, Peiping, and

Tientsin as facilities were readied for them. A destructive typhoon which
raged over Okinawa from 9-11 October damaged much of the heavy equipment of
wing units stopping there en route

4

and materially hampered Marine air operations in North China during the
remainder of the year.

The first extensive use of the airfields under Marine control was made by
the Chinese Central Government. The 50,000 men comprising the Ninety-second

and Ninety-fourth Chinese Nationalist Armies (CNA) were airlifted to Peiping
from Central and South China by the U. S. Fourteenth Air Force between 6-29
October. The Ninety-second CNA remained in the Peiping area while the

Ninety-fourth moved to Tientsin, Tangku, Tangshan, and Chinwangtao. One cause
of gradually increasing anti-Marine activity on the part of the Communists is
found in the IIIAC war diary’s statement that “movement of these armies was

facilitated by our forces, in that lines of communication, which made it
possible, were kept open by our guards.”<7>

The scope of Marine rail guard activities increased rapidly after the

initial deployment of the 1st Division. First, intermediate stations between
the principal rail centers were occupied, then outposts were established at
strategic points, and, finally, vital coal and supply trains were guarded.

Chinese track repair gangs, fair game for the guerrillas, needed protection if
the railroad was to be kept operating. The presence of CNA forces may have
made the Eighth Route Army more wary, but it did not prevent frequent

Communist incursions into areas where destruction of roadbed and bridges would
be most damaging. The III Corps’ first month in China revealed the pattern of
future months which stretched into years. Set down in the midst of a

fratricidal war with ambiguous instructions to abstain from active
participation while “cooperating” with Central Government forces,<8> the
Marines walked a tightrope to maintain the illusion of friendly neutrality.

Although the enormous task of processing over 630,000 Japanese military
and civilian repatriates in North China fell mostly to IIIAC, the process was
well started by the end of October and promised to proceed smoothly so long as

the Japanese could reach American-controlled areas. However, the disciplined
strength and tactical and technical know-how of the Japanese appealed to both
sides in the Chinese civil war and hard-pressed local Communist and

Nationalist commanders were wont to detain or attempt to recruit their former
enemies as allies. This situation revealed itself first at Tsingtao,
destination of the 6th Marine Division, and the planned repatriation port of

more than half of the Japanese in North China.

5

SHANTUNG OPERATIONS<9>

Immediately after he accepted the surrender of Japanese forces in the

Tientsin area, General Rockey left for Chefoo to investigate conditions at
that port, the objective of the 29th Marines of the 6th Division. Communist
troops had already seized the city from the Japanese, installed a party

official as mayor, and were not sympathetic to the request from Admiral Thomas
C. Kinkaid, Commander of the Seventh Fleet, that they withdraw before the
Marines landed. After a conference on 7 October with the Communist mayor, who

asked for withdrawal terms incompatible with IIIAC’s mission,<10> Vice Admiral
Daniel E. Barbey, Commander, VII Amphibious Force, recommended that the
landing be temporarily postponed. Rockey concurred in a decision to delay the

Chefoo operation, and on 9 October, ComGenChina was informed by Rockey that
the 29th Marines would land at Tsingtao with the rest of the 6th Division.

An advance party under Colonel William N. Best, 6th Division

Ouartermaster, preceded the main convoy to Tsingtao to make arrangements for
billeting troops and to obtain information regarding the local civil,
military, and political situation. The division commander, Major General

Lemuel C. Shepherd, Jr., and a small staff transferred to the destroyer escort
NEWMAN en route to the target. They wished to arrive on 10 October, a day
ahead of the scheduled landing, to confer with Chinese officials.

During the early afternoon of 11 October, the first of the division’s
transports docked at Tsingtao’s wharfs. The 6th Reconnaissance Company,
landing first, moved through the crowded streets, lined with a cheering,

flag-waving throng, to secure Tsangkou airfield, about 10 miles from the city.
The observation planes of VMO-6 were launched from the escort carrier
BOUGAINVILLE the next day and landed safely at the field. The remainder of the

division landed amidst the bin of enthusiastic applause during the next few
days. By 16 October, all troops were ashore and established in their assigned
billets

Local adherents of Chiang Kai-shek, backed up by armed irregulars

recognized by the Central Government, were running Tsingtao. The Communists,
who held most of Shantung Province, controlled the countryside to the
outskirts of Tsangkou airfield. The Japanese and their puppet troops held the

rail route

6

leading into the interior. Until CNA units arrived at Tsingtao in sufficient
strength to replace the Japanese, there was little hope of rapid fulfillment

of repatriation plans.

On 13 October, an emissary from the Communist commander in Shantung
arrived in Tsingtao with a letter for General Shepherd. In it was an offer to
cooperate with the Marines “to destroy the remaining Japanese military forces

and the rest of the traitor army (puppet army).” In order to “best establish
local peace and order,” Communist troops would be sent into Tsingtao with the
expectation that the Marines would not oppose them. The Communist leader

noted that CNA troops were preparing to enter Tsingtao with American help for
the express purpose of attacking the Communists. In the resultant “open
conflict,” he hoped “that our both armies continue to maintain friendly

relations.”<11>

The Communist emmissary was soon sent back with the general’s short and
pointed reply. Shepherd stated that the mission of the 6th Division was a
peaceful one and did not involve the destruction of either the Japanese or

their puppets; there would be no such cooperation as the Communist commander
desired. He further indicated that it was neither necessary nor desirable
that the Communists enter Tsingtao as the city was peaceful and should

disorders of any form arise his “division of well-trained combat veterans
“would be” entirely capable of coping with the situation.” As to the
preparations for CNA troops to enter Tsingtao, such matters were entirely

beyond the control of 6th Division Headquarters, however, Shepherd stated his
own credo in regard to the civil war:

On my own behalf, however, I can say without reservation that
it is my determination that the sixth Marine Division will in no

way assist any Chinese group in conflict against another.<12>

The formal Japanese surrender of the Tsingtao garrison, about 10,000 men,
took place on the city’s racecourse on 25 October before the assembled troops

of the 6th Division. General Shepherd and Lieutenant General Chen Pao-tsang,
Chiang’s representative, took the surrender in the name of the Chinese Central
Government. The Marines assumed responsibility for disarming, subsisting, and

repatriating those Japanese within their area of control.

Clashes between the communists and the Japanese and former

7

puppet troops were frequent in Shantung during October, and at General

Shepherd’s request, planes of MAG-32 started regular reconnaissance patrols on
26 October to check the status of the rail lines and their Japanese guards and
to insure adequate warning of any Communist move against Tsingtao.

The flight echelon of MAG-32 reached Tsingtao on 21 October, and it was
followed soon after the planes of MAG-12 staging up from the Philippines to
their base at Peiping. By the end of October, elements of all the wing’s

major units had landed in China. MAGs-12 and -24 were established at
Peiping’s airfields and MAGs-25 and -32 were stationed at Tsingtao together
with the wing’s personnel reception and processing center.<13> Major General

Louis E. Woods arrived in Tientsin on 31 October to assume command of the wing
from General Larkin.

The first few weeks of the 6th Division’s occupation of Tsingtao revealed
a situation somewhat different from that which faced IIIAC in the

Peiping-Tientsin-Chinwangtao area. The Chinese Central Government’s
effective strength in Hopeh Province gained rapidly during October, due in
large part to the Marines’ control of the major cities and lines of

communication between them. CNA troops there soon reached a position of
strength in relation to their Communist opponents. In Shantung, however, the
Communists held most of the coastline and vast areas of the interior prior to

the arrival of the Marines, and had withdrawn most of their troops from
Central China to make a fight for this vital province. Because the Communists
respected the implied threat of the 6th Division’s air and ground strength,

backed up by the guns and planes of the Seventh Fleet, Tsingtao remained a
Nationalist island in a Communist sea.

The primary mission of the Marines in China, as expressed by the
Secretary of the Navy, was “to accomplish the disarmament of the Japanese and

to provide for their repatriation up to the point where General Wedemeyer
considers that the Chinese Nationalist government troops can alone carry out
this mission.”<14> This mission could not be fulfilled in Shantung until CNA

forces could gain control of the interior and release the Japanese from their
vital guard duties. The prospect of a short tour of duty in China, at least
by the Marine forces in Tsingtao, was not good.

8

MARINE TROOP REDUCTION<15>

IIIAC’s disposition in Hopeh placed it squarely astride the route to
Manchuria along which Chiang Kai-shek moved to regain the rich northeastern

provinces. After U. S. ships landed the Thirteenth CNA at Chinwangtao on
30-31 October, a steady stream of Manchuria-bound troops funnelled into North
China through the Marine-controlled area. Although the Nationalists had a

relatively safe point of debarkation and protected rail-heads, their lifeline
into Manchuria was tenuous. From the Great Wall to Mukden and on to
Changchun, every mile of track, every bridge, and every switch was the

potential target of Communist attacks. As the American military attache at
Chungking reported, “the principal weapon of the Communists in their efforts
to prevent the Central Government from occupying areas dominated by them is

the effectiveness of Communist troops against the railroads in those
areas.”<16>

General Wedemeyer, in his capacity as military advisor to Chiang
Kai-shek, had warned the Chinese leader early in November that he should first

consolidate his grip on North China before attempting to occupy Manchuria.
Despite the Nationalists’ marked superiority in men and equipment, Wedemeyer
felt that the CNA had neither adequate forces nor transport to insure

appropriate logistic support and security for the long and vulnerable supply
route. The effective suppression of Communist guerrilla activity in North
China required the commitment of overwhelmingly superior CNA forces. When

large numbers of these troops were drained off for the Manchuria drive, vast
areas in the interior of Shantung and Hopeh fell to Communist control. The
Nationalists’ premature Manchuria operation contained within it the seeds of

Nationalist destruction, and they ripened in a few short and bloody years into
total defeat.

On both political and moral grounds, it was impossible for the United
States to take a decisive military role in another nation’s civil war, and the

average Marine on postwar duty in China found himself an uneasy spectator or
sometimes an unwilling participant in a war which he little understood and
could not prevent. A steady procession of “incidents” involving Marine guards

and raiding Communists continued until the last Marine cleared Tsingtao in the
spring of 1949.<17>

9

The explosive nature of the situation is best illustrated by an incident

that occurred soon after the Marines arrived in China. On 14 November, a
train carrying General Peck and an inspection party was fired on near Kuyeh,
while en route from Tangshan to Chinwangtao. A desultory fire fight lasting

several hours ensued between the Marine train guards and Communist forces
located around a village some 500 yards north of the track. General Rockey
approved Peck’s request for a bombing mission against the village, but only

simulated strafing runs were made because of the danger to innocent civilians
and the lack of a clearly definable target of hostile troops. Late in the
afternoon, a company from the 7th Marines, sent to aid the beleaguered train,

found that the opposing forces had melted away. Peck’s train returned to
Kuyeh after dark.

Next day, the general’s train was halted in the same general area by a
break in the track, and again it was taken under fire. During the night, some

400 yards of the rail line had been torn up. Several Chinese section hands,
attempting to repair the break, were killed or injured by mines planted near
the right of way, but there were no Marine casualties. Since repair work was

expected to take two days, General Peck returned to Tangshan, headquarters of
the 7th Marines, where he boarded a light observation plane and continued to
Chinwangtao by air.

The Kuyeh incident demonstrated the need for strong CNA offensive action

to clear the railroad line, and to arrange this, General Peck was authorized
to deal directly with Lieutenant General Tu Li-ming, Commanding General,
Northeast China Command. The Nationalist leader agreed to drive back the

Communist guerrillas and to avoid Marine positions while he was doing so, in
order to keep American forces out of the conflict. The Marines, in turn,
would help release Nationalist troops for this operation by assuming

responsibility for guarding all rail bridges over 100 meters long between
Tangku and Chinwangtao, a distance of approximately 135 miles.

Even before this new task was added to the extensive security commitments

of the 7th Marines, IIIAC had recognized the need for additional troops in the
regiment’s zone of responsibility, which extended from Tangku to Chinwangtao,
and on 30 October, the corps had ordered the 6th Marine Division to provide a

reinforced infantry battalion for duty in the Chinwangtao area. General
Shepherd sent the 1st Battalion, 29th Marines, from Tsingtao on 6 November,
and it landed the next day at Chinwagtao. There, these 6th Division men were

placed under operational control of the 7th Marines. They soon were plagued by

10

incidents involving blown tracks, train derailments, and ambushes, which were

to be the lot of Marines on duty in the midst of the Chinese civil war. While
American casualties amounted to only a handful compared to the toll from an
island assault, these China dangers were particularly distasteful because the

war was supposed to be over, and the slowly rising casualty list loomed large
in the eyes of the men who manned the isolated guard posts and rode the dusty
coal trains.

China duty had been coveted in the prewar Marine Corps, and, for the men

who garrisoned the major cities in 1945, a China assignment still had much of
that appeal. Marine commanders set up a system to rotate troops on dangerous
and exposed outposts, and to grant liberty in Peiping and Tientsin to the men

on rail guard duty. Rest from the constant strain of watching and waiting was
brief, however; in a few days, the Marines again were standing guard along the
rail line.

Coal shipments guarded by the 1st Marine Division were vital to the

Chinese people. General Wedemeyer pointed out that it was “a military
necessity that at least 100,000 tons of coal reach Shanghai every month,”<18>
and his orders to IIIAC were to insure that this coal reached its destination.

Without it, the public utilities and factories needed to keep the economy of
that key city alive would cease to operate, and the lack of coal would mean
starvation for thousands of people. Perhaps the average Marine standing his

turn on guard and huddling against the biting winter wind that blew down out
of the Mongolian desert was not aware of this, but his superiors were, and
they lived under the constant pressure of that knowledge.

The United States was determined to try every feasible measure to achieve
peace in China and promote the country’s economic recovery. On 27 November
1945, President Truman appointed General of the Army George C. Marshall as his

Special Representative in China to attempt mediation of the differences
between the Nationalists and Communists. Truman said it was “in the most
vital interest of the United States and all the United Nations that the people

of China overlook no opportunity to adjust their internal differences promptly
by methods of peaceful negotiation.”<19>

The immediate Chinese reaction to the President’s appointment was very

favorable, and it was evident that a man of Marshall’s unquestioned personal
integrity was essential in

11

she role of mediator. But the basic problem proved insoluble. either the

Nationalists nor the Communists could overcome their distrust of each other:

The National Government was convinced that the U.S.S.R. had
obstructed the efforts of the National Government to assume control

over Manchuria in spite of the provisions of the Sino-Soviet Treaty
of August 1945 and that the Chinese Communists were tools of the
U.S.S.R. The Chinese Communist Party was suspicious of the

Kuomintang and believed that its aim was the destruction of the

Chinese Communist Party. The Government leaders were unwilling
to permit Communist participation in the Government until the

Communists had given up their armed forces, while the Communists

believed that to do so without guarantees of their legal political
status would end in their destruction.<20>

General Marshall managed some cooperation early in his mission, when both

groups agreed to meet with him and form a top-level negotiating Committee of

Three. Chiang Kai-shek appointed General Chang Chun as his representative,
and Mao Tse-tung, Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, appointed Chou

En-lai. The committee held its first formal session at Chungking on 7 January

1946, and three days later, agreed on a cease-fire to take effect at midnight
on 13 January. The terms of the agreement were simple. Both sides were to

cease hostilities and halt all troop movements except those of the CNA forces

into and within Manchuria, where Chinese sovereignty was being reasserted. An
Executive Headquarters would be established at Peiping following the Committee

of Three pattern to supervise the cease-fire agreement, and operational teams

including a Nationalist, a Communist, and an American officer, would go into
the field to insure compliance with cease-fire provisions. It was made clear,

however, that American participation in the work of the Executive Headquarters

would be restricted to aiding the Chinese members. In effect, each American
team member acted as did General Marshall, but in a greatly restricted

capacity.

For IIIAC the cease-fire agreement meant a lessening of the hit-and-run

guerrilla attacks, but there was never a time in the following months when a
guard detachment could consider itself safe. By March, political and military

differences had again split China wide open and, although a pretense at

negotiation continued, clashes increased between Communists and

12

Nationalists. Neither side was blameless in the covert renewal of

hostilities, but the major share of blame fell to the Communists, who

definitely violated the 10 January agreement in wholesale manner in March and
April by moving troops from Shansi and Hopeh into Manchuria. With the

assistance of the Soviet occupation forces, which conveniently withdrew when

Chinese Communists arrived to take over, and which left large stockpiles of
Japanese weapons and munitions behind, Mao Tse-tung managed to strengthen

considerably his military position during the respite gained by the

cease-fire.

At the same time that the Communists built up strength for the
forthcoming show-down campaign and the Nationalists reinforced their

Manchurian armies, Marine units in China were hit by the severe postwar

reduction of America’s troop strength. By December 1945, thousands of men in
the III Amphibious Corps were eligible to return to the States under the point

discharge and rotation plan, and increasing numbers would become eligible in

each month of the new year. Although some replacements (low point men and
regulars) were available from Marine units disbanding elsewhere in the

Pacific, or from the United States, this number did not meet the minimum

requirements of the units remaining in China.

In the first quarter of 1946, substantial reductions in the number of
Marines in China were made and many veteran units were deactivated. Approval

for IIIAC to disband the 6th Marine Division was received from General

Wedemeyer on 13 December 1945. The division would shrink into a reinforced
brigade, with its infantry component organized around the skeletonized 4th

Marines, whose headquarters was then in Japan. On 24 December, General

Shepherd, commander of the division since its formation on Guadalcanal in
September 1944, turned over his command to Major General Archie B. Howard, and

returned to the United States.

January brought the end to one major Marine responsibility in North

China. Arrangements were completed to turn over custody of remaining Japanese
personnel and equipment and the responsibility for Japanese subsistence and

repatriation to the CNA. The actual transfer was well underway. To pursue

their operations in North China and Manchuria, the Nationalists needed the
large stores of Japanese munitions held under Marine guard, but as a matter of

American policy, General Wedemeyer had refused this materiel to the CNA unless

the Central Government assumed complete responsibility for the Japanese. The
Marines, however, were still to play a prominent part in repatriation

activities.

13

Wedemeyer directed that American forces in the Ghina Theater furnish
supervisory assistance in processing, staging, and loading out the

repatriates. In addition, Marines would continue to furnish guard details for

American-manned repatriation ships. Approximately 300,000 Japanese, both
military personnel and civilians, remained in North China at the end of

January 1946.

On 14 February, IIIAC issued its Operation Plan 1-46 which noted that

“incident” to the turnover of responsibility for Japanese prisoners of war and
civilians together with all their supplies, equipment, and repatriation to

Chinese authorities, the work load of this Corps has been materially

reduced.”<21> The plan outlined the scope of the postwar reorganization of
IIIAC and directed immediate action to release eligible personnel in order to

assist in the demobilization of the Marine Corps. It was expected that the

necessary reorganization and redeployment would be effected in February and
March. Shipping to return 12,000 Marines to the United States was scheduled

to arrive in China during the latter month.

In addition to the deactivation of the 6th Marine Division, the plan

called for a reduction and regrouping of headquarters and service troops at
all levels of command, a disbanding of 1/29 and the third battalion of each

infantry regiment, and deactivation of the last lettered battery of each

artillery battalion within the 1st Marine Division. The 4th Marines, backbone
of the proposed brigade at Tsingtao, would be the only infantry regiment in

the Marine Corps to retain the World War II organization of three rifle

battalions. The 1st Marine Aircraft Wing was to return the headquarters and
service squadrons of MAG-12, as well as VMF(N)-541 and VMTB-l34 to the United

States, and to turn over control of the south airfield at Peiping to the Army

Air Forces units supporting the Executive Headquarters.

By the end of March, this reorganization had taken place at Tsingtao, and

on 1 April 1946, the remaining elements of the 6th Marine Division became the

3d Marine brigade, consisting of headquarters, service, medical, and artillery
battalions in addition to the 4th Marines.<22> On 17 April, Brigadier General

William T. Clement relieved General Howard as brigade commander. The 1st

Marine Division completed its last ordered deactivation on 15 April, and the
III Amphibious Corps staff and units were pared down to skeleton strength.

The personnel situation of IIIAC was still far from ideal, however, even

though its operational commitments had been drastically cut. By mid-April,
nearly all Marines who had taken part

14

in the original movement of China had been sent home or were being processed

for return. Except for a relatively small number of regular officers and NCOs

with combat experience, the majority of IIIAC was composed of men fresh from
boot camp. The tremendous public pressure to release combat veterans and other

men eligible for discharge had been responsible for severe restrictions on the

length and scope of both recruit and advanced training. Many of the thousands
of Marines who arrived in China late in 1945 and in the early months of 1946

were badly in need of training in even the most basic military subjects. To

meet this serious problem, IIIAC set up a comprehensive program which provided
for corps, division, and regimental schools in needed specialties, and

established extensive unit training in basic military subjects. Since the

corps continued to be heavily committed during this transition period, a large
part of this schooling was accomplished by on-the-job training.

On 1 May, the China Theater was deactivated and most of the residual

functions were assumed by the Commanding General, U. S. Army Forces in China
(Lieutenant General Alvin C. Gillem, Jr.). Operational control of Marine

forces reverted to the Commander, Seventh Fleet, and III Amphibious Corps was

directed to contribute to the fleet’s mission “to support the foreign policy
of the United States in China.”<23> With the exception of security guard for

coal shipments from the Tangshan area, Marines had accomplished most of their

original missions, such as the repatriation of Japanese. The primary
remaining function for the Marine garrison forces was to provide “security of

areas occupied by, or necessary for the support of, United States

installations, property, and personnel.”<24> General Rockey was also directed
to maintain liaison with the Peiping Executive Headquarters for the seventh

Fleet.

Although not stated in IIIAC’s instructions implied was directive that

the corps give all assistance possible to the United Nations’ efforts to ease
China’s economic distress resulting from her long years of war. The United

States was the strongest supporter of the United Nations Relief and

Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) which was set up to distribute food,
clothing, and other needs to the victims of World War II. China was allotted

more of these supplied than any other country. Considerable numbers of UNRRA

personnel, many of them Americans, arrived in China after November 1945 to
administer the program, and they added substantially to the security burdens

of Marine forces. Since political considerations were secondary to the needs

of the people, UNRRA operated in both Nationalist and

15

Communist-controlled territory. At General Marshall’s suggestion, the Marine

commanders at Tsingtao participated in the early arrangements for delivery of
relief supplies to Communist areas in an effort to foster better understanding
between the Marines and the Communists. But these efforts brought about no

significant improvement in the Communist attitude, and the constant round of
harassing attacks continued.

The progress of reorganization and reduction of Marine forces continued
after the IIIAC came under control of the Seventh Fleet. During May and June,

both MAG-25 and MAG-32 returned to the States, leaving the Headquarters of the
1st Wing, with attached transport and observation squadrons and the fighter
squadrons of MAG-24, to execute Marine air commitments. On 10 June, at

Tsingtao, the headquarters and supporting troops of the 3d Brigade merged with
those of the 4th Marines. III Corps headquarters was also deactivated on 10
June, and most of the corps staff was reassigned similar duties on the 1st

Division staff. Corps headquarters and service-type units were disbanded.
Excess staff officers and other personnel were either reassigned or returned
to the United States.

The resulting organization, with a total authorized strength of 24,252,

received the task force designation of Marine Forces, China. It included the
1st Marine Aircraft Wing and 1st Marine Division (Reinforced), with the 4th
Marines (Reinforced) attached. General Rockey assumed command of both the task

force and the division.

By the end of June, the number of Marines in North China had been cut to
less than half the original strength committed in September 1945, and there
was every prospect that the reduction would continue. Unfortunately, there

was no corresponding decrease in the number of incidents involving the
Communists and Marine train guards and outposts. After an initial interval of
relative calm following Marshall’s cease-fire arrangement, the tempo of the

harassing attacks mounted. On 7 July, the Chinese Communist Party issued a
manifesto bitterly attacking the United States’ policy toward China and its
support of the Central Government. Following this propaganda outburst, two

serious incidents indicated that the Marines were going to bear the brunt of
this Communist displeasure.

In one instance, on 13 July, the Communists ambushed and captured seven
Marine bridge guards in an area about 15 miles from Peitaiho, while the men

were attempting to procure ice for

16

their detachment mess from a nearby village. Strong Marine and CNA patrols
combed the area, but were unable to locate the men. After an Executive

Headquarters field team conducted extensive negotiations with the local
Communist command, the Marines were released unharmed on 24 July; but as a
price for setting them free, the Communists demanded an apology for what they

called unlawful entry into the “liberated area.” U. S. authorities answered
with a strong protest.

Five days after the release of these Marines, the second incident
occurred in another area of the 1st Division’s zone. A routine motor patrol of

1 officer and 40 enlisted men was escorting six supply trucks from Tientsin to
Peiping when it was ambushed near the village of Anping by a strong force of
uniformed Chinese armed with automatic weapons, rifles, and hand grenades.

The lieutenant commanding the escort was killed in the first burst of enemy
fire, and a fight which lasted for four hours ensued. An air-supported relief
column rushed out from Tientsin, but arrived on the scene too late to trap the

ambush party. Three Marines were killed and 12 wounded in the fire fight; one
man later died of wounds. Two others were injured when a jeep, returning to
Tientsin for aid, turned over.

This was by far the most serious clash that had occurred between Marines

and the Communists up to that time. A specially selected fact-finding team
from the Executive Headquarters in Peiping, formed at the specific request of
Chiang Kai-shek and Chou En-lai, investigated the incident. Communist

delaying tactics and vicious misrepresentations finally caused General
Marshall to instruct the United States team personnel to withdraw and submit
their report to him. In essence this report stated:

…that a Communist force had ambushed the motor convoy of

Executive Headquarters and UNRRA supplies escorted by a United
States Marine unit, that it had killed three Marines and wounded 12

others and that no National Government troops were present or

involved in the incident.

The deliberate Communist ambush was additional proof that the chances for
peace in China were nonexistent. Without regard to their truce agreements,

both sides initiated hostilities wherever the military situation seemed to

favor them, and “each side took the stand with General Marshall that the other
was provoking the fighting and could not be trusted to go through

17

with an agreement.”<26> A general war was in progress by the end of August,
despite every reasonable effort by American representatives to stop it, and

Marines were placed in the unenviable position of remaining neutral in the

middle of a battlefield.

MARINE WITHDRAWAL<27>

Marine commitments in the Tsingtao area were never as extensive as those

which the 1st Division encountered in Hopeh Province, and by midsummer of

1946, even the mission of supervisory assistance to the Nationalists in
repatriation activities had ended. Except for those Japanese held prisoner in

Siberian labor camps by the Soviets and a small number of technicians retained

by the Chinese, all Japanese had been returned to their home islands. The
primary responsibility of the 4th Marines became that of supporting American

naval activities at Tsingtao, which was an important base for the Seventh

Fleet and, in addition, the location of the training center where Nationalist
crews were taught to man and maintain the ships transferred to the Central

Government under United States naval aid programs.

On 1 August 1946, the 1st Division directed that Marine forces in
Tsingtao be reduced to a reinforced infantry battalion and that the 4th
Marines (Reinforced) return to the United States. The regiment’s 3d Battalion

was to remain in China as a separate unit under operational control of the
Commander, Naval Port Facilities, Tsingtao. The 12th Service battalion would
also remain to continue its role of furnishing logistic support for Marine

activities in Tsingtao.<28> A company of 3/4 was assigned to guard 1st Wing
facilities at Tsangkou airfield, from which VMO-6 would operate as a
reconnaissance and liaison agency for 3/4.

The last elements of the 4th Marines embarked on 3 September, and on the

same date, 3/4 came under direct naval command. The deletion of the 4th
Marines from the 1st Division troop list came at the same time that the last
Marines were being withdrawn from guard duty on the coal trains operating

between Tangshan and Chinwangtao. During August and early September, the CNA
finally assumed all responsibility for the security of the coal fields and the
rail line between Peiping and Chinwangtao. After 6 September, Marine guards

were assigned solely to those trains which transported American personnel and
supplies.

18

The ending of the dangerous coal train and bridge guard assignments

enabled General Rockey to pull in his outposts and concentrate the 1st
Division units in the major cities. The 7th Marines, reinforced by 3/11,
moved to barracks in the Peitaiho-Chinwangtao area while division headquarters

and special troops, the 1st Marines, and the rest of the 11th Marines set up
in Tientsin. The 5th Marines Regimental Headquarters and its 2d Battalion
moved to Peiping as the security force for American property and personnel at

the Executive Headquarters, and 1/5, with a detachment of the 7th Service
Regiment, provided the guard and operated the fort and supply installation in
the Taku-Tangku area. After its regrouping, the division was better able to

coordinate and vigorously prosecute a new training program aimed at a goal of
maintaining its units in a high state of combat readiness.

General Rockey, who as senior Marine commander in China had borne the

major share of responsibility for avoiding open conflict throughout a
protracted period of Communist harassing attacks, was finally relieved on 18
September 1946. The new commander of Marine Forces, China and the 1st Marine

Division was Major General Samuel L. Howard, a veteran “China-hand.”<29> Soon
after Howard took over, he received convincing proof that the Marine
withdrawal from the rail line had not brought an end to Communist attacks.

The munitions stored at the 1st Division ammunition supply point (ASP) at Hsin
Ho, six miles northwest of Tangku, proved to be an irresistible magnet for
raiding parties.

On the night of 3-4 October, a Communist company broke into the Hsin Ho

dump to steal ammunition. A sentry from the 1/5 guard detachment discovered
the attempt and exchanged fire with the Communists. A rescue party from the
main guard which entrucked to come to his aid was forced to dismount and build

up a firing line when a fusillade of small arms fire struck the truck,
wounding the driver. Before additional reinforcements could arrive from
Tangku, the Communists disappeared into the darkness. An investigation in the

morning revealed that several cases of ammunition had been stolen from one of
the storage tents near the compound’s fence; most of these were recovered,
however, in the immediate dump area. Papers found on the body of a man killed

in the raid and the statement of another, who was wounded and abandoned in the
hasty withdrawal, established conclusively that the attack had been made by an
organized Communist unit.

The civil war was not going well for the Communists in the fall of 1946,

and they emitted a constant stream of

19

vilification and accusations which placed the blame for their predicament on
American aid to the Nationalists. General Marshall, who was the personal

target of much of this political abuse, was still willing to continue in his
role as mediator, but could get no honest cooperation from either side. The
Nationalists, flushed by temporary successes in Manchuria and North China,

were striving for an overwhelming position of strength from which they could
dictate peace terms. The Communists, fighting for their political existence,
felt that they could not afford to negotiate from weakness. Both Mao Tse-tung

and the top American observers realized that the Nationalists were becoming
seriously overextended in both a military and an economic sense; so much of
the gross production of Nationalist China was being diverted to the war effort

that General Marshall warned Chiang Kai-shek that economic collapse was
inevitable before military victory could be achieved. Most of the members of
the Nationalist hierachy, convinced that the CNA would prevail, refused to

accept the fact that immediate peace was essential to their political
well-being.

Although truce negotiations dragged on fitfully through the remainder of
1946, there was seldom evidence of good faith on the part of either

belligerent and the days of the Marshall mission were numbered. On 6 January
1947, President Truman, acting on Marshall’s recommendation, ordered the
general to return to Washington<30> and directed that American participation

in Peiping’s Executive Headquarters be ended. This action also had the effect
of ending a stormy era of Marine involvement in China’s internal strife since:

…”it” made it possible to withdraw all United States Marines

from North China, except for a guard contingent at Tsingtao, the
location of the United States Naval Training Group engaged in
training Chinese naval personnel.<31>

By this time, many Marine units already had orders to new duty

assignments dictated by postwar commitments of the division and the wing. In
December, the 7th Marines, with 3/11 and 4/11 attached, departed for the
United States, and the depleted 11th Marines and the 1st Tank Battalion (less

Companies B and C) sailed for Guam. Two squadrons of the 1st Wing, VMF(N)-533
and VMF-115, were transferred to the Hawaiian islands, and VMO-6 was released
from the Tsingtao garrison for return to the States. The 1st Marines assumed

all guard duties in Tientsin from the relieved units and sent two companies to
Chinwangtao as a security detachment for the rear echelon of the 7th Marines,
which was

20

directed to dispose of all surplus government property in the
Peitaiho-Chinwangtao area. At the end of January, all units had cleared China
and passed to operational control of FMFPac. The remaining elements of Marine

Forces, China, were not long in following.

On 1 April 1947, operation plans were issued detailing the steps to be
taken in the withdrawal and redeployment from China of the 1st Marine Division

and 1st Marine Aircraft Wing. Most of the wing units, including headquarters

and MAG-24, were slated for Guam as was the 5th Marines, which was to join the
1st Marine Brigade then forming on the island. Division headquarters

battalion and division troops (less reinforcing detachments to infantry units)

were to return to the United States to the amphibious training base at Camp
Pendleton. A rear echelon of about 1,900 men, composed of the 7th Service

Regiment with 1/1 as security troops, was to remain temporarily at Tientsin to

load out heavy equipment and dispose of surplus government property. When the
division headquarters left China, the rear echelon would come under

operational control of the Marine commander at Tsingtao.

A new command, Fleet Marine Force, Western Pacific (FMFWesPac), was to be
activated at Tsingtao on 1 May under Brigadier General Omar T. Pfeiffer. Its

principal mission was to be security of United States naval training

activities. In addition to the 3d Battalion, 4th Marines already at Tsingtao,
the 1st Marines (less 1/1) was to join the garrison, the regimental

headquarters and service company being redesignated Headquarters Company,

FMFWesPac. Air support for Pfeiffer’s command would be provided by the three
squadrons remaining at Tsingtao (Air FMFWesPac): the wing service squadron,

VMF-211, and VMR-153. The composition of FMFWesPac after all necessary

transfers were completed would be: Headquarters and Service Battalion; 3/4;
2/1; 12th Service Battalion; AirFMFWesPac.<32>

The last major clash between Marines of the 1st Division and Communist

forces occurred shortly after the withdrawal plans were issued. The scene was
again the isolated ammunition supply point at Hsin Ho, and the attack gave

every evidence of being well planned and coordinated. On the night of 4-5

April, an enemy raiding party with an estimated strength of 350 men made
simultaneous attacks at three widely separated points on the dump perimeter.

Five Marine sentries were killed in the initial exchange of fire, and the

Communists broke into the ammunition storage area. Eight more Marines were
wounded as the heavily

21

outnumbered guard detachment attempted to contain and beat back the

penetration. In accordance with their carefully laid plan, the Communists
brought up horse-drawn carts and pack animals to haul away captured ammunition

and set up an ambush on the road to Tangku, anticipating the fact that the

commanding officer of 1/5 would immediately dispatch reinforcements to Hsin
Ho. The lead vehicle of the Company C rescue column was disabled by land

mines, and heavy fire forced the Marines to dismount and engage the ambush

party, which closed to grenade range before it was finally driven off. Using
their preponderance of strength at the supply point and the time advantage

gained by their ambush, the Communists were able to disengage and withdraw

from the scene of action, covering their retreat by blowing up two of the
ammunition stockpiles. Although Company C pursued the raiders through the

darkness for more than eight miles it was unable to reestablish contact, and

dawn air searches revealed that the Communist force had disappeared into the
maze of fields, villages, and brush, that dotted the countryside north of

Tangku. The bodies of six uniformed Communists were found at Hsin Ho, and it

was estimated that 20-30 wounded men had been carried away during the
withdrawal. Marine casualties totaled 5 dead and 16 wounded in the worst

incident in the history of strained relations between the Marines and the

Communists.<33> On 21 April, the division turned over the ASP and its
contents to Nationalist troops as part of the American program of postwar

lend-lease aid.

During April and May, units of the 5th Marines and the 1st Wing loaded

out and sailed for Guam, and the 1st Marines (less 1/1) joined FMFWesPac at
Tsingtao. Marine activities were terminated at Peiping, Tangku, and

Chinwangtao. The remaining elements of the division not assigned to the rear

echelon embarked in June, and on the 21st, the division command post closed in
Tientsin and opened in the USS RENVILLE. The 1st Marine Division, now little

more than a skeleton outfit of headquarters and service troops, had ended 21

months of quasi-war with the Chinese Communists.

After June 1947, the mission of protecting American lives and property in

China fell to General Pfeiffer’s forces at Tsingtao. On orders from the

Commander, Naval Forces, Western Pacific, successor to Seventh Fleet,
FMFWesPac was to have an infantry battalion ready at all times to be

air-transported to Shanghai, Nanking, or Tientsin where most American

nationals were located. Surprise alerts and practice air lifts were a
constant feature of the Marine training program thereafter.

22

FMFWesPac was an unusual command in the sense that it functioned

simultaneously as a naval base guard detachment and a major FMF air-ground
team. Coupled with instruction and practice in interior guard duties was a

program of individual training and small unit combat exercises designed to

prepare for the possibility of Communist attacks on Tsingtao and to meet the
continuing requirement that a FMF unit be ready for amphibious operations.

Reinforcements in the form of landing parties from ships of the fleet were

regularly instructed in infantry tactics by the Marines, and periodically the
two battalions, organized as battalion landing teams,<34> boarded ship to

participate in landing exercises with fleet units.

Tsingtao became the only Marine duty station in China on 1 September 1947
when the rear echelon of the 1st Division cleared Tientsin and left for the

United States. A month later, the ground units of FMFWesPac were all

redesignated and reorganized under the new “J” Tables of Organization which
were aimed at making the most efficient use of the limited manpower available.

Most of the reinforcing elements of Pfeiffer’s command became detached

companies or platoons of the separate battalions of the 1st Marine Division.
The infantry battalions assumed the names, battle honors, and traditions of

regiments: 2/1 was redesignated the 1st Marines and 3/4 the 3d Marines.

All types of combat training sought to give both officers and men
experience in handling the problems of larger units, even though a great deal

of this practice dealt with woefully under strength and often “paper”

organizations. The Marine Corps reorganization in autumn of 1947 obviously
had many shortcomings, but it attempted to cope with the budgetary and

personnel restrictions of the period, and to keep in being units whose combat

tradition and reputation were an invaluable morale factor.

Military training and guard duty filled only a portion of the Tsingtao

garrison’s time during the next year. Liberty in the Chinese city was

generously granted, an extensive recreation program was implemented, and
off-duty educational activities, both through local studies and by

correspondence, were encouraged. A considerable number of dependents were

permitted to come out from the States in keeping with a postwar policy of
reuniting service families wherever possible. Duty at Tsingtao was much like

that at any overseas station, but there was one critical difference. The

fighting between the Nationalists and Communists grew steadily more violent
and bitter and the possibility of Marine involvement was always present.

23

In the fall of 1948, the economic and military collapse of the
Nationalists, predicted by Wedemeyer, Marshall, and a host of other qualified

observers, came about in Manchuria. In a few short months, the Communists

captured vast quantities of munitions and absorbed thousands of defecting
Nationalist troops who had lost all desire to fight. In the cities of South

and Central China, the pauperized populace, led by agitators, became

increasingly more dissatisfied with its lot of continuous war and gave strong
evidence that it would accept any change which promised peace. By December,

the ultimate success of the Communists was so obvious that the Director of the

American Military Advisory Group of Nanking, Major General David Barr, USA,
told his superiors at the Pentagon that:

Only a policy of unlimited United States aid including the

immediate employment of United States armed forces to block the

southern advance of the Communists, which I emphatically do not
recommend, would enable the Nationalist Government to maintain a

foothold in southern China against a determined Communist advance…

The complete defeat of the Nationalist Army…is inevitable.<35>

The safety of many Americans and nationals of friendly foreign powers was

imperiled by the steady Communist advance into North China. In November, the

State Department had ordered their evacuation, and to meet the need for
security troops in Shanghai, port for the Yangtze Valley and an announced

Communist objective, the Secretary of the Navy ordered the 9th Marines

(actually a reinforced battalion) to embark for China. The unit left Guam on
28 November, staged through Tsingtao where evacuation plans were coordinated

with FMFWesPac, and arrived at Shanghai on 16 December.

FMFWesPac was under orders to withdraw from China once its evacuation
mission was completed. While civilians were sent directly to the States or

transshipped to Shanghai for further movement, essential Marine Corps and Navy

equipment was loaded out and the vanguard of the garrison boarded ship.
VMF-211, which was to fly fighter cover for the evacuation, completed carrier

qualification flights on 21 January and reported to the CVE Rendova. The rest

of AirFMFWesPac had departed Tsingtao by 1 February. With the exception of
Company C, 3d Marines, quartered ashore to patrol the harbor area, all

elements of FMFWesPac were afloat by 3 February. Headquarters and service

troops and the 1st Marines (Reinforced)<36> left China on

24

8 February to rejoin the 1st Division, leaving the 3d Marines and 9th Marines

to continue evacuation operations.

For more than a month, the 3d Marines remained afloat in Tsingtao harbor,
while the Communist drive gained momentum against disintegrating Nationalist
opposition. On 17 March, the 3d Marines, less Company C, sailed to Shanghai

to take over the mission of the 9th Marines, which left for the United States
at the end of the month.<37) While the battalion stayed on board ship at
Shanghai, the Communists reached their Yangtze valley objectives, crossed the

river, and on 24 April, occupied the Nationalist capital at Nanking. On the
28th, the 3d Marines left Shanghai for Tsingtao, pausing there for a few days
before it left for the states. On 6 May, the 3d sailed, leaving Company C as

a cruiser-borne reinforcement for Naval Forces, Western Pacific. A relief for
this company, C of the 7th Marines, arrived at Tsingtao on 14 May to take over
the watch, and the last element of the 3d Marines departed. In less than a

month, the 7th Marines company was also on its way home. The possibility of
landing American troops in China without precipitating costly fighting was now
remote, and the American fleet stood off from the Communist coast.

As an instrument of American policy, the Marines were first committed to
assist in the repatriation of more than a half million Japanese and to help
the Chinese Central Government reestablish its sovereignty over occupied

territory. Ordered to avoid involvement in the civil strife but to defend
themselves if attacked, “the Marines were the balance of order”<38> in North
China, while they controlled the vital coastal cities and lines of

communication. They reinforced General Marshall’s attempt to secure peace,
and when this failed, were given their traditional role as protectors of
American lives, interests, property in China.

After postwar demobilization drastically cut American troop strength, the

skeletal Marine units strung out along Hopeh’s rail lines invited Communist
harassing attacks. Even after the rail guard duty ended and the Marines

concentrated their forces, the communists occasionally tested the defenses

with minor success. When the last Marine garrison was set up at Tsingtao, the
combination of infantry and air, backed up by guns of the fleet, proved a

sufficient deterrent, and the port city remained inviolate even though the

Communists controlled most of Shantung Province.

25

When the defeat of the Nationalist armies forced an American withdrawal,

the Marines provided a security force that insured the escape of hundreds of

foreign nationals who might otherwise have ended up in Communist prisons.
Faced with a round of trying and often, dangerous assignments during the

postwar years of China duty, when their full fighting power was always held in

check, the Marines acquitted themselves well. The Communists, concerned
solely with their drive to conquer China, did not choose to meet the Marines

head on. Once they were secure in their control of the mainland, however, the

time of that encounter was not long delayed. In November 1950, they met the
Marines again, this time in full-scale battle, in the rugged hills of North

Korea.

26

NOTES

(1) Unless otherwise noted the material in this section is derived from:
IIIAC WarDs (War Diaries), Aug-Sep45; 1st MarDiv WarDs, Sep-Oct45; 1st

MAW WarDs, Sep-Oct45. Unless otherwise noted, all material cited is
located in the Historical Archives, Historical Branch, G-3, HQMC.

(2) Eyewitness account quoted in George McMillan, “The Old Breed: A History

of the First Marine Division in World War II,” (Washington: Infantry
Journal Press, 1949), p. 428.

(3) 1st MarDiv WarD, Sep45, p. 2.

(4) Quoted in McMillan, “op. cit.,” p. 428.

(5) 1st MarDiv WarD, Oct45, p. 2.

(6) Col Charles W. Harrison interview by HistBr, G-3, HQMC, dtd 15Nov55.

(7) IIIAC WarD, Oct45, p. 5.

(8) IIIAC OPlan 26-45, dtd 1Sep45, App I to IIIAC WarD, Sep45.

(9) Unless otherwise noted the material in this section is derived from:
IIIAC WarDs, Sep-Oct45; 6th MarDiv WarDs, Sep-Oct45; 1st MAW WarD, Oct45.

(10) The mayor’s terms were: (1) Advance information of the time or landing;

(2) No CNA troops to accompany the Marines; (3) No change in the city
administration.

(11) 6th MarDiv WarD, Oct45, Encl A.

(12) “Ibid.,” Encl B. General Worton, Chief of Staff, IIIAC, received a

similar emissary in Tientsin in mid-October. An offer to share control of
Tientsin with the Communists was refused. Harrison interview, “op. cit.”

(13) Because of its location, Tsangkou airfield was a major staging stop for

most transports en route to Tientsin and Peiping from South China or
bases in the Pacific. As a result, and because Tsingtao was an
all-weather port, the wing service squadron established a personnel

center for all wing operations at Tsangkou, taking over the functions or
Marine Air Depot Squadron 1.

(14) James V. Forrestal, “The Forrestal Diaries”, Walter Millis, ed. (New
York: The Viking Press, 1951), p. 108

27

(15) Unless otherwise noted the material in this section is derived from:
IIIAC WarDs, Nov45-Jul46 1st MarDiv WarDs, Nov45-Mar46; 1st MAW WarDs,

Nov45-Ju146; 3d MarBrig WarDs, Apr-May46; 4th Mar WarDs, Jun-Jul46; U. S.
Dept of State, “United States Relations with China” (Washington, 1949),
hereafter “State Dept Rept.”

(16) “State Dept Rept,” p. 110.

(17) See summary of incidents at the end of this article, Appendices A and B.

(18) IIIAC SpecO No. 226-45, dtd 6Dec45, in IIIAC WarD, Dec45.

(19) “State Dept Rept,” p. 133.

(20) “Ibid.,” p. 136.

(21) IIIAC OPlan 1-46, dtd 14Feb46, in IIIAC WarD, Feb46.

(22) The Medical Battalion, 3d Marine Brigade, was formally activated on 8
April 1946.

(23) IIIAC OPlan 2-46, dtd 1May46, Annex C, in IIIAC WarD, Apr46.

(24) “Ibid”.

(25) “State Dept Rept”, p. 173n.

(26) “Ibid.,” p. 178.

(27) Unless otherwise noted the material in this section is derived from: 1st
MarDiv WarDs, Aug46-Jun47; 1st MAW WarDs, Aug46-Apr47; FMFWesPac WarDs,

May47-Jan48; AirFMFWesPac WarDs, May47-Feb48; FMFWesPac G-1, G-2,G-3,
G-4, and Air 5-3 Repts, Mar48-Jan49, variously dated and incomplete (HQMC
S&C Files); 3d Mar S-3 PeriodicRepts Nos. 1 and 2, Feb-Mar49 (HQMC S&C

Files); Unit Muster Rolls, Nov48-May49 (Unit Diary Sect, Pers Dept,
HQMC).

(28) The 12th Service Battalion remained under operational control of the
senior Marine supply echelon in China, the 7th Service Regiment at

Tientsin.

(29) General Howard, who spent three and a half years as a Japanese prisoner,
had commanded the 4th Marines in China just prior to the outbreak of the
war and led the regiment during the defense of the Philippines.

28

(30) On 7 January 1947, General Marshall was appointed Secretary of State.

(31) Forrestal, “op. cit.,” p. 219.

(32) The 12th Service Battalion and AirFMFWesPac were attached for operational

control only; administrative control remained with 7th Service Regiment
and 1st MAW respectively.

(33) 1st MarDiv G-2 PeriodicRept No. 52, dtd 8Apr47, Encl A. Convincing
evidence that this attack was long in preparation was furnished by the

discovery on the body of a Communist of a copy of the dump’s guard roster
for 29 January 1947.

(34) As there was no organic artillery unit assigned to FMFWesPac, one rifle
company in each battalion received an augmentation of artillerymen to

provide a provisional firing battery, and a small artillery staff section
was added to Headquarters Company, FMFWesPac.

(35) “State Dept Rept,” p. 336.

(36) Company B, 3d Marines, was attached to the 1st Marines on 29 January

1949.

(37) Company C, 9th Marines, including one platoon on security guard at the U.
S. Embassy in Nanking, was transferred to the 3d Marines on 28 March 1949
and redesignated Company B, 3d Marines.

(38) Forrestal, “op. cit.,” p. 179.

29

Appendix A
Major Armed Clashes Between

U. S. Marines and Chinese Communists

October 1945 – May 1947

Marine Communist
Date Location KIA WIA KIA WIA Remarks

6Oct45 Tientsin- 3 unk unk Ambush of road recon-
Peiping Road naissance party by
an estimated 40-50

troops.

18Oct45 Langfang- – – 6 unk Ambush of train by
Peiping rail- force of unknown

road strength.

2Nov45 Village 3 miles – – 1 unk Motor patrol attacked
north of Tientsin by group of irregulars

14- Kuyeh vicinity – – unk unk CG, 1stMarDiv inspec-
15Nov45 on railroad tion train fired on
by force of unknown

strength.

8Jan46 Bridge near – – unk unk Bridge guard attacked
Anshan by 25-30 irregulars.

16Apr46 Bridge near – – unk unk Bridge guard attacked
Lutai by irregulars of un-
known strength.

5May46 Bridge near – 1 unk unk Bridge guard attacked
Hanku by force of unknown
strength with mortars.

21May46 Village 10 1 1 2 unk Reconnaissance party
miles south of attacked by 50-75
Tientsin irregular troops.

1Jun46 Bridge near – – 5 unk Force of unknown
Peitaiho strength attacked
bridge guard.

26Jul46 Anping between – – unk unk Motor patrol attacked
Tientsin and by group of unknown
Peiping strength.

A-1

29Jul46 Apring between 4 11 12 unk Motor convoy attacked
Tientsin and by group of about 300

strength

5Aug46 Hsin-Ho ASP near – – unk unk Fire fight with Com-
Tangku munist raiding party.

9Aug46 Railroad 2 miles – – unk 4 Coal train derailed
north of Lntai est and ambushed by an
estimated 50 troops.

12Aug46 Hsin-Ho ASP near – – unk unk Fire fight with Com-
Tangku nunist raiding party.

3-
4Oct46 Hsin-Ho ASP near – 1 1 1 Attack by organized

Tangku group of about 100
Communists.

4- Hsin-Ho ASP near 5 16 6 25 Attack by two com-

5Apr47 Tangku est panies of Communists,
about 350 men.

27Aug47 North Shore – – unk unk Landing party attempt-

Shantung ing to destroy crashed
Peninsula plane attacked by
force of unknown

strength.

31Jan48 Tsankou – – unk unk Patrol pinned down
airfield by fire from force of

unknown strength.

Totals 10 33 33* 30*

* Throughout this period it was customary for the attacking Communist troops

to carry off their casualties if it was possible.

A-2

Appendix B

Marine Casualties Incurred as a Result of

Attacks on Sentries, Recreation Parties, and Individuals

Casualties
Date Location KIA WIA Remarks

19Oct45 Tangshan vicinity – 2 Jeep ambushed.

29Oct45 Peiping vicinity – 1 Jeep ambushed.
4Dec45 Anshan vicinity 1 1 Hunting party attacked.
9Dec45 Tientsin vicinity – 1 Individual on recreation

liberty attacked.
15Jan45 Tangshan vicinity – 2 Trucks ambushed.
7Apr46 Lutai vicinity 1 – Hunting party attacked.

7May46 Lutai – 1 Sentry attacked.
2Jul46 Hangku – 1 Sentry attacked.

Total 2 9

B-1

Appendix C

Aircrew Losses Incurred by Marine Squadrons in
Operational Crashes in North China

Date Location Plane Type Losses

22Oct45 Hopeh Fighter 1
8Dec45 Shantung 6 Dive Bombers 10
11Dec45 Shantung Photo-Reconnaissance 2

11Mar46 Hopeh Fighter 1
22Apr46 Hopeh Fighter 1
25Apr46 Shantung Utility 1

13Jun46 Hopeh Fighter 1
22Sep46 En route to Hawaii Transport 4
24May47 Hopeh Fighter 1

Total 22*

* On 26 August 1948, one of an R5C transport’s engines temporarily failed in
flight and a part of the crew bailed out over water; one man was not

recovered.

C-1

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmchist/nochina.txt

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original and Only” Gunny G!
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html

HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmchist/nochina.txt

The United States Marines

in North China

1945 – 1949

By

Henry I. Shaw, Jr.

Printed 1960

Revised 1962
Reprinted 1968

Historical Branch, G-3 Division

Headquarters, U. S. Marine Corps

Washington, D. C. 20380

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20380

FOREWORD

The United States Marines in North China, 1945-1949 is a concise
narrative of the major events which took place when Marine ground and air

units were deployed to the Asian mainland at the close of World War II. The
text and appendices are based on official records, interviews with
participants in the operations described, and reliable secondary sources. The

pamphlet is published for the information of Marines and others interested in
this significant period of Marine Corps history.

<SIGNATURE>

R. G. OWENS, JR

Brigadier General, U. S. Marine Corps
Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3

REVIEWED AND APPROVED: 29 April 1968

THE UNITED STATES MARINES IN

NORTH CHINA, 1945-1949

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Original Online
Page Page

The United States Marines In North China, 1945-1949 1 6

Notes 27 32
Appendix A – Major Armed Clashes Between U.S. Marines
and Chinese Communists A-1 35

Appendix B – Marine Casualties Incurred as a Result of

Attacks on Sentries, Recreation Parties, and
Individuals B-1 37
Appendix C – Aircrew Losses Incurred by Marine

Squadrons in Operational Crashes in North China C-1 38

The United States Marines in North China, 1945-1949

By

Henry I. Shaw, Jr.

HOPEH OPERATIONS<1>

The III Amphibious Corps (IIIAC) had just begun a period of intensive
training, in preparation for the invasion of the Tokyo Plain, when the war

ended abruptly. Within 48 hours, a warning order had been dispatched to all

units of the corps to be prepared to mount out for the Shanghai area about 1
October. In anticipation of a wide variety of possible military operations,

the training schedule was modified and accelerated. But before a week had

passed, Admiral Nimitz advised the Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force,
Pacific (FMFPac), that tentative plans contemplated the employment of IIIAC in

North China, to accept the surrender of Japanese troops for the Chinese

Central Government and to supervise the repatriation of Japanese military and
civilians. The corps headquarters and corps troops together with the 1st

Marine Division would occupy positions in the vicinity of Tangku, Tientsin,

Peiping, and Chinwangtao in Hopeh Province and the 6th Marine Division (less
the 4th Marines) would move into Tsingtao in Shantung Province. The 1st

Marine Aircraft Wing would move its planes and men to airfields in the

Tsingtao, Tientsin, and Peiping areas. (See maps inside covers). Commitment
of the entire corps in the Shanghai region was assigned as an alternate

mission. Tentative plans for these operations were issued on 29 August,

setting the mounting-out date for 15 September. The 3d Marine Division on
Guam and the 4th Marine Division on Maui were designated area reserve for the

operation.

According to plan, the Hopeh occupation force got underway first. The

corps embarkation order was issued on 8 September, and loading of the corps
troops began at Guam on the 11th. Loading was completed on 19 September, and

the IIIAC Chief of Staff, Brigadier General William A. Worton, departed by air

with an advance party to report to Lieutenant General Albert C. Wedemeyer,
USA, commanding the China Theater (ComGenChina), at Shanghai and proceeded to

Tientsin to prepare for the reception

1

of the occupation forces there. The Commanding General, IIIAC, Major General
Keller E. Rockey, sailed with the convoy from Guam for Okinawa the following

day. Here, ships carrying the troops of the 1st Marine Division (Major

General DeWitt Peck) rendezvoused with this convoy on 24 September. Two days
later, corps troops and the 1st Marine Division sailed from Okinawa for the

anchorage off Taku.

Long before daybreak on 30 September the convoy anchored in the bay off

the mouth of Hai River. With dawn, as if out of nowhere, appeared a swarm of
sampans manned by enthusiastic Chinese crews who sculled their small craft

close to the transports to exchange mutually unintelligible badinage with the

troops lining the rails and to trade cheap trinkets. The aura of good-natured
welcome continued as the Assistant Division Commander of the 1st Division,

Brigadier General Louis R. Jones, and his staff boarded a patrol craft to lead

a procession of LCTs carrying men of the 7th Marines over Taku bar and into
the narrow channel that led upriver to the Tangku docks. It was the start of

a daylong victory parade. “Until long after dark groups of Chinese lined the

river banks, gathered…outside their…houses to cheer each boatload of
Marines.”<2>

At 1030, General Jones set foot on the docks and met with Chinese port

officials to complete arrangements initiated by General Worton’s advance party

for the reception, transportation, and billeting of the Marines. The 3d
Battalion, 7th Marines, entrained for Tientsin, while 2/7 bivouacked in the

warehouse area beside the docks. Elements of the IIIAC Shore Brigade, built

around the 7th Service Regiment, also disembarked on the 30th to start
unloading cargo. On every hand, the “Chinese military and civilian

authorities were cooperative in the extreme,”<3> and no trouble of any kind

was experienced with the Japanese garrison.

The tumultuous welcome that greeted 3/7 when it arrived in Tientsin was

repeated and reinforced the following day as the 1st Marines and Division
Headquarters Battalion reached the city by rail and road. The streets were

packed with Chinese of all classes and European expatriates. Trucks and

marching troops literally had to force their way through the happy,
flag-waving throngs to reach their assigned billets in the former

International Concessions. To many of the men, it seemed that their welcome

must have out shone and out shouted “any welcome given to troops any time, any
place, and anywhere during the war.”<4>

2

The first element of IIIAC to come in direct contact with the highly

explosive internal situation prevailing in North China was the 1st Battalion,

7th Marines. On 1 October, 1/7, reinforced, under Lieutenant Colonel John J.
Gormley, sailed from Taku for the all-weather port of Chinwangtao, rail

terminal for the shipment of coal from the Tangshan mining area. Former

Japanese puppet troops occupying the town were engaged in desultory fighting
with Communist regulars and guerrillas who held most of the surrounding

countryside. Because, as Gormley reported, “all factions, civilian and

military, were anxious to cooperate with our troops,”<5> the Marine commander
was able to stop the fighting. He ordered the puppet forces withdrawn from

their perimeter defenses and replaced them with his own men. The local

Communist commander disclaimed any designs on the area without full American
cooperation. The aura of universal trust was short-lived, however, and before

the month was out, the Communists were regularly sabotaging rail lines leading

into the city and firing on Marine-guarded trains.

Chinwangtao was only one of many spots where the Marines, in pursuing

their assigned mission in China, clashed with the Communists. While open
warfare was avoided by both sides, the area of intermittent conflict spread as

IIIAC expanded its hold on key cities and vital routes of communication. The

first Marine casualties were incurred in a fire fight on the Tientsin-Peiping
road.

On 5 October, reconnaissance parties proceeding from Tientsin to Peiping

found 36 unguarded roadblocks scattered along the route; jeeps were the only

vehicles that could get through. The following day a detail of engineers,
guarded by a rifle platoon, was sent out to clear the road. About 22 miles

northwest of Tientsin, the engineer group was fired on by an estimated 40-50

Chinese troops, later identified as Communists, and forced to withdraw. Three
Marines were wounded. On 7 October, the engineers went out again, this time

with a rifle company of the 1st Marines, a platoon of tanks, and carrier air

cover, and the road was cleared without incident. A convoy of 95 vehicles of
the 5th Marines reached Peiping to join men of the regiment who arrived by

rail. Regular road patrols were established to insure that the

Tientsin-Peiping road stayed open.

The harassing tactics of the communist Eighth Route Army and its
affiliated partisans were all too familiar to the Japanese troops who had

guarded the areas being taken over by the

3

Marines were was strong evidence to indicate that the Japanese had a great
deal of respect, even fear, of the Communists,<6> and that they were quite

willing to get free of incessant forays, ambushes, and sabotage. General
Rockey, acting for the Chinese Central Government, accepted the surrender of
the 50,000 Japanese troops in the Tientsin-Tangku-Chinwangtao area at Tientsin

on 6 October. Four days later, the Japanese forces in the Peiping area, an
additional 50,000 men, surrendered to the Eleventh War Area commander, General
Lien Chung Sun, Chiang Kai-shek’s personal representative in North China. Most

of the Japanese were concentrated in centrally located bivouac and barrack
areas to await repatriation, but those who held outlying posts were given
orders to remain on guard duty until relieved by recognized Central Government

forces or U. S. Marines.

Many of the puppet troops transferred their allegiance to Chiang
Kai-shek after the defeat of Japan, and most units were accepted and given
official status. Other formations remained unrecognized or went over to the

Communists. In addition, the Chiang-appointed mayors of Tientsin and Peiping
organized their own armed supporters to back up their powers. It was a
chaotic situation and one that pointed up the need for stability, which was

provided by the potential strength of the Marines.

By 30 October, all major 1st Division units were ashore and established
in their initial areas of responsibility. The Peiping Group, headed by General

Jones and built around the 5th Marines (less 1/5) reinforced by 2/11, was
established in the Legation Quarter of the ancient capital, with a rifle
company at each of the city’s two airfields. The 1st and 11th Marines

controlled Tientsin, its airfield, and its approaches. The Taku-Tangku area
was garrisoned by 1/5, and the 1st and 3d Battalions of the 7th Marines held
strongpoints along the Tangku-Chinwangtao railroad. Corps troops were

stationed mainly in Tientsin, with necessary supporting detachments in the
field with division units.

Headquarters of the 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, under Major General Claude
E. Larkin, was set up on 6 October at the French Arsenal near the airfield

east of Tientsin. Headquarters and service squadrons of the wing and its air
groups (MAGs) arrived in China with their equipment throughout the month, and
flight echelons staged into their assigned firelds at Tsingtao, Peiping, and

Tientsin as facilities were readied for them. A destructive typhoon which
raged over Okinawa from 9-11 October damaged much of the heavy equipment of
wing units stopping there en route

4

and materially hampered Marine air operations in North China during the
remainder of the year.

The first extensive use of the airfields under Marine control was made by
the Chinese Central Government. The 50,000 men comprising the Ninety-second

and Ninety-fourth Chinese Nationalist Armies (CNA) were airlifted to Peiping
from Central and South China by the U. S. Fourteenth Air Force between 6-29
October. The Ninety-second CNA remained in the Peiping area while the

Ninety-fourth moved to Tientsin, Tangku, Tangshan, and Chinwangtao. One cause
of gradually increasing anti-Marine activity on the part of the Communists is
found in the IIIAC war diary’s statement that “movement of these armies was

facilitated by our forces, in that lines of communication, which made it
possible, were kept open by our guards.”<7>

The scope of Marine rail guard activities increased rapidly after the

initial deployment of the 1st Division. First, intermediate stations between
the principal rail centers were occupied, then outposts were established at
strategic points, and, finally, vital coal and supply trains were guarded.

Chinese track repair gangs, fair game for the guerrillas, needed protection if
the railroad was to be kept operating. The presence of CNA forces may have
made the Eighth Route Army more wary, but it did not prevent frequent

Communist incursions into areas where destruction of roadbed and bridges would
be most damaging. The III Corps’ first month in China revealed the pattern of
future months which stretched into years. Set down in the midst of a

fratricidal war with ambiguous instructions to abstain from active
participation while “cooperating” with Central Government forces,<8> the
Marines walked a tightrope to maintain the illusion of friendly neutrality.

Although the enormous task of processing over 630,000 Japanese military
and civilian repatriates in North China fell mostly to IIIAC, the process was
well started by the end of October and promised to proceed smoothly so long as

the Japanese could reach American-controlled areas. However, the disciplined
strength and tactical and technical know-how of the Japanese appealed to both
sides in the Chinese civil war and hard-pressed local Communist and

Nationalist commanders were wont to detain or attempt to recruit their former
enemies as allies. This situation revealed itself first at Tsingtao,
destination of the 6th Marine Division, and the planned repatriation port of

more than half of the Japanese in North China.

5

SHANTUNG OPERATIONS<9>

Immediately after he accepted the surrender of Japanese forces in the

Tientsin area, General Rockey left for Chefoo to investigate conditions at
that port, the objective of the 29th Marines of the 6th Division. Communist
troops had already seized the city from the Japanese, installed a party

official as mayor, and were not sympathetic to the request from Admiral Thomas
C. Kinkaid, Commander of the Seventh Fleet, that they withdraw before the
Marines landed. After a conference on 7 October with the Communist mayor, who

asked for withdrawal terms incompatible with IIIAC’s mission,<10> Vice Admiral
Daniel E. Barbey, Commander, VII Amphibious Force, recommended that the
landing be temporarily postponed. Rockey concurred in a decision to delay the

Chefoo operation, and on 9 October, ComGenChina was informed by Rockey that
the 29th Marines would land at Tsingtao with the rest of the 6th Division.

An advance party under Colonel William N. Best, 6th Division

Ouartermaster, preceded the main convoy to Tsingtao to make arrangements for
billeting troops and to obtain information regarding the local civil,
military, and political situation. The division commander, Major General

Lemuel C. Shepherd, Jr., and a small staff transferred to the destroyer escort
NEWMAN en route to the target. They wished to arrive on 10 October, a day
ahead of the scheduled landing, to confer with Chinese officials.

During the early afternoon of 11 October, the first of the division’s
transports docked at Tsingtao’s wharfs. The 6th Reconnaissance Company,
landing first, moved through the crowded streets, lined with a cheering,

flag-waving throng, to secure Tsangkou airfield, about 10 miles from the city.
The observation planes of VMO-6 were launched from the escort carrier
BOUGAINVILLE the next day and landed safely at the field. The remainder of the

division landed amidst the bin of enthusiastic applause during the next few
days. By 16 October, all troops were ashore and established in their assigned
billets

Local adherents of Chiang Kai-shek, backed up by armed irregulars

recognized by the Central Government, were running Tsingtao. The Communists,
who held most of Shantung Province, controlled the countryside to the
outskirts of Tsangkou airfield. The Japanese and their puppet troops held the

rail route

6

leading into the interior. Until CNA units arrived at Tsingtao in sufficient
strength to replace the Japanese, there was little hope of rapid fulfillment

of repatriation plans.

On 13 October, an emissary from the Communist commander in Shantung
arrived in Tsingtao with a letter for General Shepherd. In it was an offer to
cooperate with the Marines “to destroy the remaining Japanese military forces

and the rest of the traitor army (puppet army).” In order to “best establish
local peace and order,” Communist troops would be sent into Tsingtao with the
expectation that the Marines would not oppose them. The Communist leader

noted that CNA troops were preparing to enter Tsingtao with American help for
the express purpose of attacking the Communists. In the resultant “open
conflict,” he hoped “that our both armies continue to maintain friendly

relations.”<11>

The Communist emmissary was soon sent back with the general’s short and
pointed reply. Shepherd stated that the mission of the 6th Division was a
peaceful one and did not involve the destruction of either the Japanese or

their puppets; there would be no such cooperation as the Communist commander
desired. He further indicated that it was neither necessary nor desirable
that the Communists enter Tsingtao as the city was peaceful and should

disorders of any form arise his “division of well-trained combat veterans
“would be” entirely capable of coping with the situation.” As to the
preparations for CNA troops to enter Tsingtao, such matters were entirely

beyond the control of 6th Division Headquarters, however, Shepherd stated his
own credo in regard to the civil war:

On my own behalf, however, I can say without reservation that
it is my determination that the sixth Marine Division will in no

way assist any Chinese group in conflict against another.<12>

The formal Japanese surrender of the Tsingtao garrison, about 10,000 men,
took place on the city’s racecourse on 25 October before the assembled troops

of the 6th Division. General Shepherd and Lieutenant General Chen Pao-tsang,
Chiang’s representative, took the surrender in the name of the Chinese Central
Government. The Marines assumed responsibility for disarming, subsisting, and

repatriating those Japanese within their area of control.

Clashes between the communists and the Japanese and former

7

puppet troops were frequent in Shantung during October, and at General

Shepherd’s request, planes of MAG-32 started regular reconnaissance patrols on
26 October to check the status of the rail lines and their Japanese guards and
to insure adequate warning of any Communist move against Tsingtao.

The flight echelon of MAG-32 reached Tsingtao on 21 October, and it was
followed soon after the planes of MAG-12 staging up from the Philippines to
their base at Peiping. By the end of October, elements of all the wing’s

major units had landed in China. MAGs-12 and -24 were established at
Peiping’s airfields and MAGs-25 and -32 were stationed at Tsingtao together
with the wing’s personnel reception and processing center.<13> Major General

Louis E. Woods arrived in Tientsin on 31 October to assume command of the wing
from General Larkin.

The first few weeks of the 6th Division’s occupation of Tsingtao revealed
a situation somewhat different from that which faced IIIAC in the

Peiping-Tientsin-Chinwangtao area. The Chinese Central Government’s
effective strength in Hopeh Province gained rapidly during October, due in
large part to the Marines’ control of the major cities and lines of

communication between them. CNA troops there soon reached a position of
strength in relation to their Communist opponents. In Shantung, however, the
Communists held most of the coastline and vast areas of the interior prior to

the arrival of the Marines, and had withdrawn most of their troops from
Central China to make a fight for this vital province. Because the Communists
respected the implied threat of the 6th Division’s air and ground strength,

backed up by the guns and planes of the Seventh Fleet, Tsingtao remained a
Nationalist island in a Communist sea.

The primary mission of the Marines in China, as expressed by the
Secretary of the Navy, was “to accomplish the disarmament of the Japanese and

to provide for their repatriation up to the point where General Wedemeyer
considers that the Chinese Nationalist government troops can alone carry out
this mission.”<14> This mission could not be fulfilled in Shantung until CNA

forces could gain control of the interior and release the Japanese from their
vital guard duties. The prospect of a short tour of duty in China, at least
by the Marine forces in Tsingtao, was not good.

8

MARINE TROOP REDUCTION<15>

IIIAC’s disposition in Hopeh placed it squarely astride the route to
Manchuria along which Chiang Kai-shek moved to regain the rich northeastern

provinces. After U. S. ships landed the Thirteenth CNA at Chinwangtao on
30-31 October, a steady stream of Manchuria-bound troops funnelled into North
China through the Marine-controlled area. Although the Nationalists had a

relatively safe point of debarkation and protected rail-heads, their lifeline
into Manchuria was tenuous. From the Great Wall to Mukden and on to
Changchun, every mile of track, every bridge, and every switch was the

potential target of Communist attacks. As the American military attache at
Chungking reported, “the principal weapon of the Communists in their efforts
to prevent the Central Government from occupying areas dominated by them is

the effectiveness of Communist troops against the railroads in those
areas.”<16>

General Wedemeyer, in his capacity as military advisor to Chiang
Kai-shek, had warned the Chinese leader early in November that he should first

consolidate his grip on North China before attempting to occupy Manchuria.
Despite the Nationalists’ marked superiority in men and equipment, Wedemeyer
felt that the CNA had neither adequate forces nor transport to insure

appropriate logistic support and security for the long and vulnerable supply
route. The effective suppression of Communist guerrilla activity in North
China required the commitment of overwhelmingly superior CNA forces. When

large numbers of these troops were drained off for the Manchuria drive, vast
areas in the interior of Shantung and Hopeh fell to Communist control. The
Nationalists’ premature Manchuria operation contained within it the seeds of

Nationalist destruction, and they ripened in a few short and bloody years into
total defeat.

On both political and moral grounds, it was impossible for the United
States to take a decisive military role in another nation’s civil war, and the

average Marine on postwar duty in China found himself an uneasy spectator or
sometimes an unwilling participant in a war which he little understood and
could not prevent. A steady procession of “incidents” involving Marine guards

and raiding Communists continued until the last Marine cleared Tsingtao in the
spring of 1949.<17>

9

The explosive nature of the situation is best illustrated by an incident

that occurred soon after the Marines arrived in China. On 14 November, a
train carrying General Peck and an inspection party was fired on near Kuyeh,
while en route from Tangshan to Chinwangtao. A desultory fire fight lasting

several hours ensued between the Marine train guards and Communist forces
located around a village some 500 yards north of the track. General Rockey
approved Peck’s request for a bombing mission against the village, but only

simulated strafing runs were made because of the danger to innocent civilians
and the lack of a clearly definable target of hostile troops. Late in the
afternoon, a company from the 7th Marines, sent to aid the beleaguered train,

found that the opposing forces had melted away. Peck’s train returned to
Kuyeh after dark.

Next day, the general’s train was halted in the same general area by a
break in the track, and again it was taken under fire. During the night, some

400 yards of the rail line had been torn up. Several Chinese section hands,
attempting to repair the break, were killed or injured by mines planted near
the right of way, but there were no Marine casualties. Since repair work was

expected to take two days, General Peck returned to Tangshan, headquarters of
the 7th Marines, where he boarded a light observation plane and continued to
Chinwangtao by air.

The Kuyeh incident demonstrated the need for strong CNA offensive action

to clear the railroad line, and to arrange this, General Peck was authorized
to deal directly with Lieutenant General Tu Li-ming, Commanding General,
Northeast China Command. The Nationalist leader agreed to drive back the

Communist guerrillas and to avoid Marine positions while he was doing so, in
order to keep American forces out of the conflict. The Marines, in turn,
would help release Nationalist troops for this operation by assuming

responsibility for guarding all rail bridges over 100 meters long between
Tangku and Chinwangtao, a distance of approximately 135 miles.

Even before this new task was added to the extensive security commitments

of the 7th Marines, IIIAC had recognized the need for additional troops in the
regiment’s zone of responsibility, which extended from Tangku to Chinwangtao,
and on 30 October, the corps had ordered the 6th Marine Division to provide a

reinforced infantry battalion for duty in the Chinwangtao area. General
Shepherd sent the 1st Battalion, 29th Marines, from Tsingtao on 6 November,
and it landed the next day at Chinwagtao. There, these 6th Division men were

placed under operational control of the 7th Marines. They soon were plagued by

10

incidents involving blown tracks, train derailments, and ambushes, which were

to be the lot of Marines on duty in the midst of the Chinese civil war. While
American casualties amounted to only a handful compared to the toll from an
island assault, these China dangers were particularly distasteful because the

war was supposed to be over, and the slowly rising casualty list loomed large
in the eyes of the men who manned the isolated guard posts and rode the dusty
coal trains.

China duty had been coveted in the prewar Marine Corps, and, for the men

who garrisoned the major cities in 1945, a China assignment still had much of
that appeal. Marine commanders set up a system to rotate troops on dangerous
and exposed outposts, and to grant liberty in Peiping and Tientsin to the men

on rail guard duty. Rest from the constant strain of watching and waiting was
brief, however; in a few days, the Marines again were standing guard along the
rail line.

Coal shipments guarded by the 1st Marine Division were vital to the

Chinese people. General Wedemeyer pointed out that it was “a military
necessity that at least 100,000 tons of coal reach Shanghai every month,”<18>
and his orders to IIIAC were to insure that this coal reached its destination.

Without it, the public utilities and factories needed to keep the economy of
that key city alive would cease to operate, and the lack of coal would mean
starvation for thousands of people. Perhaps the average Marine standing his

turn on guard and huddling against the biting winter wind that blew down out
of the Mongolian desert was not aware of this, but his superiors were, and
they lived under the constant pressure of that knowledge.

The United States was determined to try every feasible measure to achieve
peace in China and promote the country’s economic recovery. On 27 November
1945, President Truman appointed General of the Army George C. Marshall as his

Special Representative in China to attempt mediation of the differences
between the Nationalists and Communists. Truman said it was “in the most
vital interest of the United States and all the United Nations that the people

of China overlook no opportunity to adjust their internal differences promptly
by methods of peaceful negotiation.”<19>

The immediate Chinese reaction to the President’s appointment was very

favorable, and it was evident that a man of Marshall’s unquestioned personal
integrity was essential in

11

she role of mediator. But the basic problem proved insoluble. either the

Nationalists nor the Communists could overcome their distrust of each other:

The National Government was convinced that the U.S.S.R. had
obstructed the efforts of the National Government to assume control

over Manchuria in spite of the provisions of the Sino-Soviet Treaty
of August 1945 and that the Chinese Communists were tools of the
U.S.S.R. The Chinese Communist Party was suspicious of the

Kuomintang and believed that its aim was the destruction of the

Chinese Communist Party. The Government leaders were unwilling
to permit Communist participation in the Government until the

Communists had given up their armed forces, while the Communists

believed that to do so without guarantees of their legal political
status would end in their destruction.<20>

General Marshall managed some cooperation early in his mission, when both

groups agreed to meet with him and form a top-level negotiating Committee of

Three. Chiang Kai-shek appointed General Chang Chun as his representative,
and Mao Tse-tung, Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, appointed Chou

En-lai. The committee held its first formal session at Chungking on 7 January

1946, and three days later, agreed on a cease-fire to take effect at midnight
on 13 January. The terms of the agreement were simple. Both sides were to

cease hostilities and halt all troop movements except those of the CNA forces

into and within Manchuria, where Chinese sovereignty was being reasserted. An
Executive Headquarters would be established at Peiping following the Committee

of Three pattern to supervise the cease-fire agreement, and operational teams

including a Nationalist, a Communist, and an American officer, would go into
the field to insure compliance with cease-fire provisions. It was made clear,

however, that American participation in the work of the Executive Headquarters

would be restricted to aiding the Chinese members. In effect, each American
team member acted as did General Marshall, but in a greatly restricted

capacity.

For IIIAC the cease-fire agreement meant a lessening of the hit-and-run

guerrilla attacks, but there was never a time in the following months when a
guard detachment could consider itself safe. By March, political and military

differences had again split China wide open and, although a pretense at

negotiation continued, clashes increased between Communists and

12

Nationalists. Neither side was blameless in the covert renewal of

hostilities, but the major share of blame fell to the Communists, who

definitely violated the 10 January agreement in wholesale manner in March and
April by moving troops from Shansi and Hopeh into Manchuria. With the

assistance of the Soviet occupation forces, which conveniently withdrew when

Chinese Communists arrived to take over, and which left large stockpiles of
Japanese weapons and munitions behind, Mao Tse-tung managed to strengthen

considerably his military position during the respite gained by the

cease-fire.

At the same time that the Communists built up strength for the
forthcoming show-down campaign and the Nationalists reinforced their

Manchurian armies, Marine units in China were hit by the severe postwar

reduction of America’s troop strength. By December 1945, thousands of men in
the III Amphibious Corps were eligible to return to the States under the point

discharge and rotation plan, and increasing numbers would become eligible in

each month of the new year. Although some replacements (low point men and
regulars) were available from Marine units disbanding elsewhere in the

Pacific, or from the United States, this number did not meet the minimum

requirements of the units remaining in China.

In the first quarter of 1946, substantial reductions in the number of
Marines in China were made and many veteran units were deactivated. Approval

for IIIAC to disband the 6th Marine Division was received from General

Wedemeyer on 13 December 1945. The division would shrink into a reinforced
brigade, with its infantry component organized around the skeletonized 4th

Marines, whose headquarters was then in Japan. On 24 December, General

Shepherd, commander of the division since its formation on Guadalcanal in
September 1944, turned over his command to Major General Archie B. Howard, and

returned to the United States.

January brought the end to one major Marine responsibility in North

China. Arrangements were completed to turn over custody of remaining Japanese
personnel and equipment and the responsibility for Japanese subsistence and

repatriation to the CNA. The actual transfer was well underway. To pursue

their operations in North China and Manchuria, the Nationalists needed the
large stores of Japanese munitions held under Marine guard, but as a matter of

American policy, General Wedemeyer had refused this materiel to the CNA unless

the Central Government assumed complete responsibility for the Japanese. The
Marines, however, were still to play a prominent part in repatriation

activities.

13

Wedemeyer directed that American forces in the Ghina Theater furnish
supervisory assistance in processing, staging, and loading out the

repatriates. In addition, Marines would continue to furnish guard details for

American-manned repatriation ships. Approximately 300,000 Japanese, both
military personnel and civilians, remained in North China at the end of

January 1946.

On 14 February, IIIAC issued its Operation Plan 1-46 which noted that

“incident” to the turnover of responsibility for Japanese prisoners of war and
civilians together with all their supplies, equipment, and repatriation to

Chinese authorities, the work load of this Corps has been materially

reduced.”<21> The plan outlined the scope of the postwar reorganization of
IIIAC and directed immediate action to release eligible personnel in order to

assist in the demobilization of the Marine Corps. It was expected that the

necessary reorganization and redeployment would be effected in February and
March. Shipping to return 12,000 Marines to the United States was scheduled

to arrive in China during the latter month.

In addition to the deactivation of the 6th Marine Division, the plan

called for a reduction and regrouping of headquarters and service troops at
all levels of command, a disbanding of 1/29 and the third battalion of each

infantry regiment, and deactivation of the last lettered battery of each

artillery battalion within the 1st Marine Division. The 4th Marines, backbone
of the proposed brigade at Tsingtao, would be the only infantry regiment in

the Marine Corps to retain the World War II organization of three rifle

battalions. The 1st Marine Aircraft Wing was to return the headquarters and
service squadrons of MAG-12, as well as VMF(N)-541 and VMTB-l34 to the United

States, and to turn over control of the south airfield at Peiping to the Army

Air Forces units supporting the Executive Headquarters.

By the end of March, this reorganization had taken place at Tsingtao, and

on 1 April 1946, the remaining elements of the 6th Marine Division became the

3d Marine brigade, consisting of headquarters, service, medical, and artillery
battalions in addition to the 4th Marines.<22> On 17 April, Brigadier General

William T. Clement relieved General Howard as brigade commander. The 1st

Marine Division completed its last ordered deactivation on 15 April, and the
III Amphibious Corps staff and units were pared down to skeleton strength.

The personnel situation of IIIAC was still far from ideal, however, even

though its operational commitments had been drastically cut. By mid-April,
nearly all Marines who had taken part

14

in the original movement of China had been sent home or were being processed

for return. Except for a relatively small number of regular officers and NCOs

with combat experience, the majority of IIIAC was composed of men fresh from
boot camp. The tremendous public pressure to release combat veterans and other

men eligible for discharge had been responsible for severe restrictions on the

length and scope of both recruit and advanced training. Many of the thousands
of Marines who arrived in China late in 1945 and in the early months of 1946

were badly in need of training in even the most basic military subjects. To

meet this serious problem, IIIAC set up a comprehensive program which provided
for corps, division, and regimental schools in needed specialties, and

established extensive unit training in basic military subjects. Since the

corps continued to be heavily committed during this transition period, a large
part of this schooling was accomplished by on-the-job training.

On 1 May, the China Theater was deactivated and most of the residual

functions were assumed by the Commanding General, U. S. Army Forces in China
(Lieutenant General Alvin C. Gillem, Jr.). Operational control of Marine

forces reverted to the Commander, Seventh Fleet, and III Amphibious Corps was

directed to contribute to the fleet’s mission “to support the foreign policy
of the United States in China.”<23> With the exception of security guard for

coal shipments from the Tangshan area, Marines had accomplished most of their

original missions, such as the repatriation of Japanese. The primary
remaining function for the Marine garrison forces was to provide “security of

areas occupied by, or necessary for the support of, United States

installations, property, and personnel.”<24> General Rockey was also directed
to maintain liaison with the Peiping Executive Headquarters for the seventh

Fleet.

Although not stated in IIIAC’s instructions implied was directive that

the corps give all assistance possible to the United Nations’ efforts to ease
China’s economic distress resulting from her long years of war. The United

States was the strongest supporter of the United Nations Relief and

Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) which was set up to distribute food,
clothing, and other needs to the victims of World War II. China was allotted

more of these supplied than any other country. Considerable numbers of UNRRA

personnel, many of them Americans, arrived in China after November 1945 to
administer the program, and they added substantially to the security burdens

of Marine forces. Since political considerations were secondary to the needs

of the people, UNRRA operated in both Nationalist and

15

Communist-controlled territory. At General Marshall’s suggestion, the Marine

commanders at Tsingtao participated in the early arrangements for delivery of
relief supplies to Communist areas in an effort to foster better understanding
between the Marines and the Communists. But these efforts brought about no

significant improvement in the Communist attitude, and the constant round of
harassing attacks continued.

The progress of reorganization and reduction of Marine forces continued
after the IIIAC came under control of the Seventh Fleet. During May and June,

both MAG-25 and MAG-32 returned to the States, leaving the Headquarters of the
1st Wing, with attached transport and observation squadrons and the fighter
squadrons of MAG-24, to execute Marine air commitments. On 10 June, at

Tsingtao, the headquarters and supporting troops of the 3d Brigade merged with
those of the 4th Marines. III Corps headquarters was also deactivated on 10
June, and most of the corps staff was reassigned similar duties on the 1st

Division staff. Corps headquarters and service-type units were disbanded.
Excess staff officers and other personnel were either reassigned or returned
to the United States.

The resulting organization, with a total authorized strength of 24,252,

received the task force designation of Marine Forces, China. It included the
1st Marine Aircraft Wing and 1st Marine Division (Reinforced), with the 4th
Marines (Reinforced) attached. General Rockey assumed command of both the task

force and the division.

By the end of June, the number of Marines in North China had been cut to
less than half the original strength committed in September 1945, and there
was every prospect that the reduction would continue. Unfortunately, there

was no corresponding decrease in the number of incidents involving the
Communists and Marine train guards and outposts. After an initial interval of
relative calm following Marshall’s cease-fire arrangement, the tempo of the

harassing attacks mounted. On 7 July, the Chinese Communist Party issued a
manifesto bitterly attacking the United States’ policy toward China and its
support of the Central Government. Following this propaganda outburst, two

serious incidents indicated that the Marines were going to bear the brunt of
this Communist displeasure.

In one instance, on 13 July, the Communists ambushed and captured seven
Marine bridge guards in an area about 15 miles from Peitaiho, while the men

were attempting to procure ice for

16

their detachment mess from a nearby village. Strong Marine and CNA patrols
combed the area, but were unable to locate the men. After an Executive

Headquarters field team conducted extensive negotiations with the local
Communist command, the Marines were released unharmed on 24 July; but as a
price for setting them free, the Communists demanded an apology for what they

called unlawful entry into the “liberated area.” U. S. authorities answered
with a strong protest.

Five days after the release of these Marines, the second incident
occurred in another area of the 1st Division’s zone. A routine motor patrol of

1 officer and 40 enlisted men was escorting six supply trucks from Tientsin to
Peiping when it was ambushed near the village of Anping by a strong force of
uniformed Chinese armed with automatic weapons, rifles, and hand grenades.

The lieutenant commanding the escort was killed in the first burst of enemy
fire, and a fight which lasted for four hours ensued. An air-supported relief
column rushed out from Tientsin, but arrived on the scene too late to trap the

ambush party. Three Marines were killed and 12 wounded in the fire fight; one
man later died of wounds. Two others were injured when a jeep, returning to
Tientsin for aid, turned over.

This was by far the most serious clash that had occurred between Marines

and the Communists up to that time. A specially selected fact-finding team
from the Executive Headquarters in Peiping, formed at the specific request of
Chiang Kai-shek and Chou En-lai, investigated the incident. Communist

delaying tactics and vicious misrepresentations finally caused General
Marshall to instruct the United States team personnel to withdraw and submit
their report to him. In essence this report stated:

…that a Communist force had ambushed the motor convoy of

Executive Headquarters and UNRRA supplies escorted by a United
States Marine unit, that it had killed three Marines and wounded 12

others and that no National Government troops were present or

involved in the incident.

The deliberate Communist ambush was additional proof that the chances for
peace in China were nonexistent. Without regard to their truce agreements,

both sides initiated hostilities wherever the military situation seemed to

favor them, and “each side took the stand with General Marshall that the other
was provoking the fighting and could not be trusted to go through

17

with an agreement.”<26> A general war was in progress by the end of August,
despite every reasonable effort by American representatives to stop it, and

Marines were placed in the unenviable position of remaining neutral in the

middle of a battlefield.

MARINE WITHDRAWAL<27>

Marine commitments in the Tsingtao area were never as extensive as those

which the 1st Division encountered in Hopeh Province, and by midsummer of

1946, even the mission of supervisory assistance to the Nationalists in
repatriation activities had ended. Except for those Japanese held prisoner in

Siberian labor camps by the Soviets and a small number of technicians retained

by the Chinese, all Japanese had been returned to their home islands. The
primary responsibility of the 4th Marines became that of supporting American

naval activities at Tsingtao, which was an important base for the Seventh

Fleet and, in addition, the location of the training center where Nationalist
crews were taught to man and maintain the ships transferred to the Central

Government under United States naval aid programs.

On 1 August 1946, the 1st Division directed that Marine forces in
Tsingtao be reduced to a reinforced infantry battalion and that the 4th
Marines (Reinforced) return to the United States. The regiment’s 3d Battalion

was to remain in China as a separate unit under operational control of the
Commander, Naval Port Facilities, Tsingtao. The 12th Service battalion would
also remain to continue its role of furnishing logistic support for Marine

activities in Tsingtao.<28> A company of 3/4 was assigned to guard 1st Wing
facilities at Tsangkou airfield, from which VMO-6 would operate as a
reconnaissance and liaison agency for 3/4.

The last elements of the 4th Marines embarked on 3 September, and on the

same date, 3/4 came under direct naval command. The deletion of the 4th
Marines from the 1st Division troop list came at the same time that the last
Marines were being withdrawn from guard duty on the coal trains operating

between Tangshan and Chinwangtao. During August and early September, the CNA
finally assumed all responsibility for the security of the coal fields and the
rail line between Peiping and Chinwangtao. After 6 September, Marine guards

were assigned solely to those trains which transported American personnel and
supplies.

18

The ending of the dangerous coal train and bridge guard assignments

enabled General Rockey to pull in his outposts and concentrate the 1st
Division units in the major cities. The 7th Marines, reinforced by 3/11,
moved to barracks in the Peitaiho-Chinwangtao area while division headquarters

and special troops, the 1st Marines, and the rest of the 11th Marines set up
in Tientsin. The 5th Marines Regimental Headquarters and its 2d Battalion
moved to Peiping as the security force for American property and personnel at

the Executive Headquarters, and 1/5, with a detachment of the 7th Service
Regiment, provided the guard and operated the fort and supply installation in
the Taku-Tangku area. After its regrouping, the division was better able to

coordinate and vigorously prosecute a new training program aimed at a goal of
maintaining its units in a high state of combat readiness.

General Rockey, who as senior Marine commander in China had borne the

major share of responsibility for avoiding open conflict throughout a
protracted period of Communist harassing attacks, was finally relieved on 18
September 1946. The new commander of Marine Forces, China and the 1st Marine

Division was Major General Samuel L. Howard, a veteran “China-hand.”<29> Soon
after Howard took over, he received convincing proof that the Marine
withdrawal from the rail line had not brought an end to Communist attacks.

The munitions stored at the 1st Division ammunition supply point (ASP) at Hsin
Ho, six miles northwest of Tangku, proved to be an irresistible magnet for
raiding parties.

On the night of 3-4 October, a Communist company broke into the Hsin Ho

dump to steal ammunition. A sentry from the 1/5 guard detachment discovered
the attempt and exchanged fire with the Communists. A rescue party from the
main guard which entrucked to come to his aid was forced to dismount and build

up a firing line when a fusillade of small arms fire struck the truck,
wounding the driver. Before additional reinforcements could arrive from
Tangku, the Communists disappeared into the darkness. An investigation in the

morning revealed that several cases of ammunition had been stolen from one of
the storage tents near the compound’s fence; most of these were recovered,
however, in the immediate dump area. Papers found on the body of a man killed

in the raid and the statement of another, who was wounded and abandoned in the
hasty withdrawal, established conclusively that the attack had been made by an
organized Communist unit.

The civil war was not going well for the Communists in the fall of 1946,

and they emitted a constant stream of

19

vilification and accusations which placed the blame for their predicament on
American aid to the Nationalists. General Marshall, who was the personal

target of much of this political abuse, was still willing to continue in his
role as mediator, but could get no honest cooperation from either side. The
Nationalists, flushed by temporary successes in Manchuria and North China,

were striving for an overwhelming position of strength from which they could
dictate peace terms. The Communists, fighting for their political existence,
felt that they could not afford to negotiate from weakness. Both Mao Tse-tung

and the top American observers realized that the Nationalists were becoming
seriously overextended in both a military and an economic sense; so much of
the gross production of Nationalist China was being diverted to the war effort

that General Marshall warned Chiang Kai-shek that economic collapse was
inevitable before military victory could be achieved. Most of the members of
the Nationalist hierachy, convinced that the CNA would prevail, refused to

accept the fact that immediate peace was essential to their political
well-being.

Although truce negotiations dragged on fitfully through the remainder of
1946, there was seldom evidence of good faith on the part of either

belligerent and the days of the Marshall mission were numbered. On 6 January
1947, President Truman, acting on Marshall’s recommendation, ordered the
general to return to Washington<30> and directed that American participation

in Peiping’s Executive Headquarters be ended. This action also had the effect
of ending a stormy era of Marine involvement in China’s internal strife since:

…”it” made it possible to withdraw all United States Marines

from North China, except for a guard contingent at Tsingtao, the
location of the United States Naval Training Group engaged in
training Chinese naval personnel.<31>

By this time, many Marine units already had orders to new duty

assignments dictated by postwar commitments of the division and the wing. In
December, the 7th Marines, with 3/11 and 4/11 attached, departed for the
United States, and the depleted 11th Marines and the 1st Tank Battalion (less

Companies B and C) sailed for Guam. Two squadrons of the 1st Wing, VMF(N)-533
and VMF-115, were transferred to the Hawaiian islands, and VMO-6 was released
from the Tsingtao garrison for return to the States. The 1st Marines assumed

all guard duties in Tientsin from the relieved units and sent two companies to
Chinwangtao as a security detachment for the rear echelon of the 7th Marines,
which was

20

directed to dispose of all surplus government property in the
Peitaiho-Chinwangtao area. At the end of January, all units had cleared China
and passed to operational control of FMFPac. The remaining elements of Marine

Forces, China, were not long in following.

On 1 April 1947, operation plans were issued detailing the steps to be
taken in the withdrawal and redeployment from China of the 1st Marine Division

and 1st Marine Aircraft Wing. Most of the wing units, including headquarters

and MAG-24, were slated for Guam as was the 5th Marines, which was to join the
1st Marine Brigade then forming on the island. Division headquarters

battalion and division troops (less reinforcing detachments to infantry units)

were to return to the United States to the amphibious training base at Camp
Pendleton. A rear echelon of about 1,900 men, composed of the 7th Service

Regiment with 1/1 as security troops, was to remain temporarily at Tientsin to

load out heavy equipment and dispose of surplus government property. When the
division headquarters left China, the rear echelon would come under

operational control of the Marine commander at Tsingtao.

A new command, Fleet Marine Force, Western Pacific (FMFWesPac), was to be
activated at Tsingtao on 1 May under Brigadier General Omar T. Pfeiffer. Its

principal mission was to be security of United States naval training

activities. In addition to the 3d Battalion, 4th Marines already at Tsingtao,
the 1st Marines (less 1/1) was to join the garrison, the regimental

headquarters and service company being redesignated Headquarters Company,

FMFWesPac. Air support for Pfeiffer’s command would be provided by the three
squadrons remaining at Tsingtao (Air FMFWesPac): the wing service squadron,

VMF-211, and VMR-153. The composition of FMFWesPac after all necessary

transfers were completed would be: Headquarters and Service Battalion; 3/4;
2/1; 12th Service Battalion; AirFMFWesPac.<32>

The last major clash between Marines of the 1st Division and Communist

forces occurred shortly after the withdrawal plans were issued. The scene was
again the isolated ammunition supply point at Hsin Ho, and the attack gave

every evidence of being well planned and coordinated. On the night of 4-5

April, an enemy raiding party with an estimated strength of 350 men made
simultaneous attacks at three widely separated points on the dump perimeter.

Five Marine sentries were killed in the initial exchange of fire, and the

Communists broke into the ammunition storage area. Eight more Marines were
wounded as the heavily

21

outnumbered guard detachment attempted to contain and beat back the

penetration. In accordance with their carefully laid plan, the Communists
brought up horse-drawn carts and pack animals to haul away captured ammunition

and set up an ambush on the road to Tangku, anticipating the fact that the

commanding officer of 1/5 would immediately dispatch reinforcements to Hsin
Ho. The lead vehicle of the Company C rescue column was disabled by land

mines, and heavy fire forced the Marines to dismount and engage the ambush

party, which closed to grenade range before it was finally driven off. Using
their preponderance of strength at the supply point and the time advantage

gained by their ambush, the Communists were able to disengage and withdraw

from the scene of action, covering their retreat by blowing up two of the
ammunition stockpiles. Although Company C pursued the raiders through the

darkness for more than eight miles it was unable to reestablish contact, and

dawn air searches revealed that the Communist force had disappeared into the
maze of fields, villages, and brush, that dotted the countryside north of

Tangku. The bodies of six uniformed Communists were found at Hsin Ho, and it

was estimated that 20-30 wounded men had been carried away during the
withdrawal. Marine casualties totaled 5 dead and 16 wounded in the worst

incident in the history of strained relations between the Marines and the

Communists.<33> On 21 April, the division turned over the ASP and its
contents to Nationalist troops as part of the American program of postwar

lend-lease aid.

During April and May, units of the 5th Marines and the 1st Wing loaded

out and sailed for Guam, and the 1st Marines (less 1/1) joined FMFWesPac at
Tsingtao. Marine activities were terminated at Peiping, Tangku, and

Chinwangtao. The remaining elements of the division not assigned to the rear

echelon embarked in June, and on the 21st, the division command post closed in
Tientsin and opened in the USS RENVILLE. The 1st Marine Division, now little

more than a skeleton outfit of headquarters and service troops, had ended 21

months of quasi-war with the Chinese Communists.

After June 1947, the mission of protecting American lives and property in

China fell to General Pfeiffer’s forces at Tsingtao. On orders from the

Commander, Naval Forces, Western Pacific, successor to Seventh Fleet,
FMFWesPac was to have an infantry battalion ready at all times to be

air-transported to Shanghai, Nanking, or Tientsin where most American

nationals were located. Surprise alerts and practice air lifts were a
constant feature of the Marine training program thereafter.

22

FMFWesPac was an unusual command in the sense that it functioned

simultaneously as a naval base guard detachment and a major FMF air-ground
team. Coupled with instruction and practice in interior guard duties was a

program of individual training and small unit combat exercises designed to

prepare for the possibility of Communist attacks on Tsingtao and to meet the
continuing requirement that a FMF unit be ready for amphibious operations.

Reinforcements in the form of landing parties from ships of the fleet were

regularly instructed in infantry tactics by the Marines, and periodically the
two battalions, organized as battalion landing teams,<34> boarded ship to

participate in landing exercises with fleet units.

Tsingtao became the only Marine duty station in China on 1 September 1947
when the rear echelon of the 1st Division cleared Tientsin and left for the

United States. A month later, the ground units of FMFWesPac were all

redesignated and reorganized under the new “J” Tables of Organization which
were aimed at making the most efficient use of the limited manpower available.

Most of the reinforcing elements of Pfeiffer’s command became detached

companies or platoons of the separate battalions of the 1st Marine Division.
The infantry battalions assumed the names, battle honors, and traditions of

regiments: 2/1 was redesignated the 1st Marines and 3/4 the 3d Marines.

All types of combat training sought to give both officers and men
experience in handling the problems of larger units, even though a great deal

of this practice dealt with woefully under strength and often “paper”

organizations. The Marine Corps reorganization in autumn of 1947 obviously
had many shortcomings, but it attempted to cope with the budgetary and

personnel restrictions of the period, and to keep in being units whose combat

tradition and reputation were an invaluable morale factor.

Military training and guard duty filled only a portion of the Tsingtao

garrison’s time during the next year. Liberty in the Chinese city was

generously granted, an extensive recreation program was implemented, and
off-duty educational activities, both through local studies and by

correspondence, were encouraged. A considerable number of dependents were

permitted to come out from the States in keeping with a postwar policy of
reuniting service families wherever possible. Duty at Tsingtao was much like

that at any overseas station, but there was one critical difference. The

fighting between the Nationalists and Communists grew steadily more violent
and bitter and the possibility of Marine involvement was always present.

23

In the fall of 1948, the economic and military collapse of the
Nationalists, predicted by Wedemeyer, Marshall, and a host of other qualified

observers, came about in Manchuria. In a few short months, the Communists

captured vast quantities of munitions and absorbed thousands of defecting
Nationalist troops who had lost all desire to fight. In the cities of South

and Central China, the pauperized populace, led by agitators, became

increasingly more dissatisfied with its lot of continuous war and gave strong
evidence that it would accept any change which promised peace. By December,

the ultimate success of the Communists was so obvious that the Director of the

American Military Advisory Group of Nanking, Major General David Barr, USA,
told his superiors at the Pentagon that:

Only a policy of unlimited United States aid including the

immediate employment of United States armed forces to block the

southern advance of the Communists, which I emphatically do not
recommend, would enable the Nationalist Government to maintain a

foothold in southern China against a determined Communist advance…

The complete defeat of the Nationalist Army…is inevitable.<35>

The safety of many Americans and nationals of friendly foreign powers was

imperiled by the steady Communist advance into North China. In November, the

State Department had ordered their evacuation, and to meet the need for
security troops in Shanghai, port for the Yangtze Valley and an announced

Communist objective, the Secretary of the Navy ordered the 9th Marines

(actually a reinforced battalion) to embark for China. The unit left Guam on
28 November, staged through Tsingtao where evacuation plans were coordinated

with FMFWesPac, and arrived at Shanghai on 16 December.

FMFWesPac was under orders to withdraw from China once its evacuation
mission was completed. While civilians were sent directly to the States or

transshipped to Shanghai for further movement, essential Marine Corps and Navy

equipment was loaded out and the vanguard of the garrison boarded ship.
VMF-211, which was to fly fighter cover for the evacuation, completed carrier

qualification flights on 21 January and reported to the CVE Rendova. The rest

of AirFMFWesPac had departed Tsingtao by 1 February. With the exception of
Company C, 3d Marines, quartered ashore to patrol the harbor area, all

elements of FMFWesPac were afloat by 3 February. Headquarters and service

troops and the 1st Marines (Reinforced)<36> left China on

24

8 February to rejoin the 1st Division, leaving the 3d Marines and 9th Marines

to continue evacuation operations.

For more than a month, the 3d Marines remained afloat in Tsingtao harbor,
while the Communist drive gained momentum against disintegrating Nationalist
opposition. On 17 March, the 3d Marines, less Company C, sailed to Shanghai

to take over the mission of the 9th Marines, which left for the United States
at the end of the month.<37) While the battalion stayed on board ship at
Shanghai, the Communists reached their Yangtze valley objectives, crossed the

river, and on 24 April, occupied the Nationalist capital at Nanking. On the
28th, the 3d Marines left Shanghai for Tsingtao, pausing there for a few days
before it left for the states. On 6 May, the 3d sailed, leaving Company C as

a cruiser-borne reinforcement for Naval Forces, Western Pacific. A relief for
this company, C of the 7th Marines, arrived at Tsingtao on 14 May to take over
the watch, and the last element of the 3d Marines departed. In less than a

month, the 7th Marines company was also on its way home. The possibility of
landing American troops in China without precipitating costly fighting was now
remote, and the American fleet stood off from the Communist coast.

As an instrument of American policy, the Marines were first committed to
assist in the repatriation of more than a half million Japanese and to help
the Chinese Central Government reestablish its sovereignty over occupied

territory. Ordered to avoid involvement in the civil strife but to defend
themselves if attacked, “the Marines were the balance of order”<38> in North
China, while they controlled the vital coastal cities and lines of

communication. They reinforced General Marshall’s attempt to secure peace,
and when this failed, were given their traditional role as protectors of
American lives, interests, property in China.

After postwar demobilization drastically cut American troop strength, the

skeletal Marine units strung out along Hopeh’s rail lines invited Communist
harassing attacks. Even after the rail guard duty ended and the Marines

concentrated their forces, the communists occasionally tested the defenses

with minor success. When the last Marine garrison was set up at Tsingtao, the
combination of infantry and air, backed up by guns of the fleet, proved a

sufficient deterrent, and the port city remained inviolate even though the

Communists controlled most of Shantung Province.

25

When the defeat of the Nationalist armies forced an American withdrawal,

the Marines provided a security force that insured the escape of hundreds of

foreign nationals who might otherwise have ended up in Communist prisons.
Faced with a round of trying and often, dangerous assignments during the

postwar years of China duty, when their full fighting power was always held in

check, the Marines acquitted themselves well. The Communists, concerned
solely with their drive to conquer China, did not choose to meet the Marines

head on. Once they were secure in their control of the mainland, however, the

time of that encounter was not long delayed. In November 1950, they met the
Marines again, this time in full-scale battle, in the rugged hills of North

Korea.

26

NOTES

(1) Unless otherwise noted the material in this section is derived from:
IIIAC WarDs (War Diaries), Aug-Sep45; 1st MarDiv WarDs, Sep-Oct45; 1st

MAW WarDs, Sep-Oct45. Unless otherwise noted, all material cited is
located in the Historical Archives, Historical Branch, G-3, HQMC.

(2) Eyewitness account quoted in George McMillan, “The Old Breed: A History

of the First Marine Division in World War II,” (Washington: Infantry
Journal Press, 1949), p. 428.

(3) 1st MarDiv WarD, Sep45, p. 2.

(4) Quoted in McMillan, “op. cit.,” p. 428.

(5) 1st MarDiv WarD, Oct45, p. 2.

(6) Col Charles W. Harrison interview by HistBr, G-3, HQMC, dtd 15Nov55.

(7) IIIAC WarD, Oct45, p. 5.

(8) IIIAC OPlan 26-45, dtd 1Sep45, App I to IIIAC WarD, Sep45.

(9) Unless otherwise noted the material in this section is derived from:
IIIAC WarDs, Sep-Oct45; 6th MarDiv WarDs, Sep-Oct45; 1st MAW WarD, Oct45.

(10) The mayor’s terms were: (1) Advance information of the time or landing;

(2) No CNA troops to accompany the Marines; (3) No change in the city
administration.

(11) 6th MarDiv WarD, Oct45, Encl A.

(12) “Ibid.,” Encl B. General Worton, Chief of Staff, IIIAC, received a

similar emissary in Tientsin in mid-October. An offer to share control of
Tientsin with the Communists was refused. Harrison interview, “op. cit.”

(13) Because of its location, Tsangkou airfield was a major staging stop for

most transports en route to Tientsin and Peiping from South China or
bases in the Pacific. As a result, and because Tsingtao was an
all-weather port, the wing service squadron established a personnel

center for all wing operations at Tsangkou, taking over the functions or
Marine Air Depot Squadron 1.

(14) James V. Forrestal, “The Forrestal Diaries”, Walter Millis, ed. (New
York: The Viking Press, 1951), p. 108

27

(15) Unless otherwise noted the material in this section is derived from:
IIIAC WarDs, Nov45-Jul46 1st MarDiv WarDs, Nov45-Mar46; 1st MAW WarDs,

Nov45-Ju146; 3d MarBrig WarDs, Apr-May46; 4th Mar WarDs, Jun-Jul46; U. S.
Dept of State, “United States Relations with China” (Washington, 1949),
hereafter “State Dept Rept.”

(16) “State Dept Rept,” p. 110.

(17) See summary of incidents at the end of this article, Appendices A and B.

(18) IIIAC SpecO No. 226-45, dtd 6Dec45, in IIIAC WarD, Dec45.

(19) “State Dept Rept,” p. 133.

(20) “Ibid.,” p. 136.

(21) IIIAC OPlan 1-46, dtd 14Feb46, in IIIAC WarD, Feb46.

(22) The Medical Battalion, 3d Marine Brigade, was formally activated on 8
April 1946.

(23) IIIAC OPlan 2-46, dtd 1May46, Annex C, in IIIAC WarD, Apr46.

(24) “Ibid”.

(25) “State Dept Rept”, p. 173n.

(26) “Ibid.,” p. 178.

(27) Unless otherwise noted the material in this section is derived from: 1st
MarDiv WarDs, Aug46-Jun47; 1st MAW WarDs, Aug46-Apr47; FMFWesPac WarDs,

May47-Jan48; AirFMFWesPac WarDs, May47-Feb48; FMFWesPac G-1, G-2,G-3,
G-4, and Air 5-3 Repts, Mar48-Jan49, variously dated and incomplete (HQMC
S&C Files); 3d Mar S-3 PeriodicRepts Nos. 1 and 2, Feb-Mar49 (HQMC S&C

Files); Unit Muster Rolls, Nov48-May49 (Unit Diary Sect, Pers Dept,
HQMC).

(28) The 12th Service Battalion remained under operational control of the
senior Marine supply echelon in China, the 7th Service Regiment at

Tientsin.

(29) General Howard, who spent three and a half years as a Japanese prisoner,
had commanded the 4th Marines in China just prior to the outbreak of the
war and led the regiment during the defense of the Philippines.

28

(30) On 7 January 1947, General Marshall was appointed Secretary of State.

(31) Forrestal, “op. cit.,” p. 219.

(32) The 12th Service Battalion and AirFMFWesPac were attached for operational

control only; administrative control remained with 7th Service Regiment
and 1st MAW respectively.

(33) 1st MarDiv G-2 PeriodicRept No. 52, dtd 8Apr47, Encl A. Convincing
evidence that this attack was long in preparation was furnished by the

discovery on the body of a Communist of a copy of the dump’s guard roster
for 29 January 1947.

(34) As there was no organic artillery unit assigned to FMFWesPac, one rifle
company in each battalion received an augmentation of artillerymen to

provide a provisional firing battery, and a small artillery staff section
was added to Headquarters Company, FMFWesPac.

(35) “State Dept Rept,” p. 336.

(36) Company B, 3d Marines, was attached to the 1st Marines on 29 January

1949.

(37) Company C, 9th Marines, including one platoon on security guard at the U.
S. Embassy in Nanking, was transferred to the 3d Marines on 28 March 1949
and redesignated Company B, 3d Marines.

(38) Forrestal, “op. cit.,” p. 179.

29

Appendix A
Major Armed Clashes Between

U. S. Marines and Chinese Communists

October 1945 – May 1947

Marine Communist
Date Location KIA WIA KIA WIA Remarks

6Oct45 Tientsin- 3 unk unk Ambush of road recon-
Peiping Road naissance party by
an estimated 40-50

troops.

18Oct45 Langfang- – – 6 unk Ambush of train by
Peiping rail- force of unknown

road strength.

2Nov45 Village 3 miles – – 1 unk Motor patrol attacked
north of Tientsin by group of irregulars

14- Kuyeh vicinity – – unk unk CG, 1stMarDiv inspec-
15Nov45 on railroad tion train fired on
by force of unknown

strength.

8Jan46 Bridge near – – unk unk Bridge guard attacked
Anshan by 25-30 irregulars.

16Apr46 Bridge near – – unk unk Bridge guard attacked
Lutai by irregulars of un-
known strength.

5May46 Bridge near – 1 unk unk Bridge guard attacked
Hanku by force of unknown
strength with mortars.

21May46 Village 10 1 1 2 unk Reconnaissance party
miles south of attacked by 50-75
Tientsin irregular troops.

1Jun46 Bridge near – – 5 unk Force of unknown
Peitaiho strength attacked
bridge guard.

26Jul46 Anping between – – unk unk Motor patrol attacked
Tientsin and by group of unknown
Peiping strength.

A-1

29Jul46 Apring between 4 11 12 unk Motor convoy attacked
Tientsin and by group of about 300

strength

5Aug46 Hsin-Ho ASP near – – unk unk Fire fight with Com-
Tangku munist raiding party.

9Aug46 Railroad 2 miles – – unk 4 Coal train derailed
north of Lntai est and ambushed by an
estimated 50 troops.

12Aug46 Hsin-Ho ASP near – – unk unk Fire fight with Com-
Tangku nunist raiding party.

3-
4Oct46 Hsin-Ho ASP near – 1 1 1 Attack by organized

Tangku group of about 100
Communists.

4- Hsin-Ho ASP near 5 16 6 25 Attack by two com-

5Apr47 Tangku est panies of Communists,
about 350 men.

27Aug47 North Shore – – unk unk Landing party attempt-

Shantung ing to destroy crashed
Peninsula plane attacked by
force of unknown

strength.

31Jan48 Tsankou – – unk unk Patrol pinned down
airfield by fire from force of

unknown strength.

Totals 10 33 33* 30*

* Throughout this period it was customary for the attacking Communist troops

to carry off their casualties if it was possible.

A-2

Appendix B

Marine Casualties Incurred as a Result of

Attacks on Sentries, Recreation Parties, and Individuals

Casualties
Date Location KIA WIA Remarks

19Oct45 Tangshan vicinity – 2 Jeep ambushed.

29Oct45 Peiping vicinity – 1 Jeep ambushed.
4Dec45 Anshan vicinity 1 1 Hunting party attacked.
9Dec45 Tientsin vicinity – 1 Individual on recreation

liberty attacked.
15Jan45 Tangshan vicinity – 2 Trucks ambushed.
7Apr46 Lutai vicinity 1 – Hunting party attacked.

7May46 Lutai – 1 Sentry attacked.
2Jul46 Hangku – 1 Sentry attacked.

Total 2 9

B-1

Appendix C

Aircrew Losses Incurred by Marine Squadrons in
Operational Crashes in North China

Date Location Plane Type Losses

22Oct45 Hopeh Fighter 1
8Dec45 Shantung 6 Dive Bombers 10
11Dec45 Shantung Photo-Reconnaissance 2

11Mar46 Hopeh Fighter 1
22Apr46 Hopeh Fighter 1
25Apr46 Shantung Utility 1

13Jun46 Hopeh Fighter 1
22Sep46 En route to Hawaii Transport 4
24May47 Hopeh Fighter 1

Total 22*

* On 26 August 1948, one of an R5C transport’s engines temporarily failed in
flight and a part of the crew bailed out over water; one man was not

recovered.

C-1

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmchist/nochina.txt

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original and Only” Gunny G!
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html

HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********


Ron Paul’s inclusive message attracting African American voters (HUGE black voter shift)

October 30, 2007

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/rlc/1918252/posts?page=1

Ron Paul’s inclusive message attracting African American voters (HUGE black voter shift)
USA Daily ^ | 10-25-2007 | Maple Brown
Posted on 10/30/2007 2:31:08 AM EDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Ron Paul’s inclusive message attracting African American voters
Maple Brown, USA Daily
Published 10/25/2007 – 11:34 a.m. EDT

Ron Paul’s inclusive message of peace, freedom, and prosperity may be attracting African American voters. According to this poll, Ron Paul leads his GOP opponents among black voters in general election contests.

In general election matches Paul loses among African American voters 60% to 33% against Hillary Clinton and loses 61% to 31% to Barack Obama.

In 2004 CNN exit polls show Bush receiving 11% of the African American vote in the general election against Kerry.

The averages of general election match up against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are for Paul, Romney, McCain or Giuliani are, Ron Paul – 32%, Mitt Romney – 23.5%, John McCain – 20%, Rudy Giuliani – 16%.

If the polls are accurate it could mean that Ron Paul’s message that ‘Freedom unites people’ is working. Paul’s uncompromising defense of the Bill of Rights is making him a Civil Rights Leader in his own right. (”Ron Paul inspiring new Civil Rights movements”)

The poll, if accurate, could also mean that Ron Paul’s message of ‘repealing the police state’ is resonating with African American voters.

Paul does appear to be a uniting political force attracting supporters at his events from all walks of life.

USA Daily does not encourage its readers to allow polls to influence their voting decisions in any way. They are too often inaccurate. This statement is not a comment on the poll in question just on polling in general. (Discuss the election on www.usadaily.net)


TOPICS: Candidates; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: barf; blackvote; bravosierra; daviddukecandidate; endorsedbydu; marines; orthodoxnutcase; paulestinians; rino; rinoron; ronpaul; spambots; thedailykoscandidate; trutherron; Click to Add Keyword

[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100 101-150151-200 …  301-334 next last

“I got to know President Reagan in 1976 when, as a freshman congressman, I was one of only four members of that body to endorse then-Governor Reagan’s primary challenge to President Gerald Ford. I had the privilege of serving as the leader of President Reagan’s Texas delegation at the Republican convention of 1976, where Ronald Reagan almost defeated an incumbent president for his party’s nomination. I was one of the millions attracted to Ronald Reagan by his strong support for limited government and the free-market. I felt affinity for a politician who based his conservative philosophy on ‘…a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom.’ I wish more of today’s conservative leaders based their philosophy on a desire for less government and more freedom.” – Ron Paul, Remembering Ronald Reagan

In 2008, I’m voting for the REAGAN REPUBLICAN.
I’m voting for former Vietnam Conflict Flight
Surgeon, and Leader of Ronald Reagan’s
Electoral Delegation from Texas: In 2008,
I’m Voting for RON PAUL!

“The greatest champion of conservative principles we have seen in Congress in the past quarter century.”
(David T. Pyne, Esq., Vice President of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies) Let’s see if this Article is permitted to remain in the general News/Activism Forum — because if ANY Republican Candidate can pick up 33% of the Black Vote, that is HUGE, ground-breaking, paradigm-shifting Election News! It would throw the entire Democratic electoral calculus severely out of whack — and, get this… some of us Conservatives actually want to WIN the 2008 General Election. Imagine that!

1 posted on 10/30/2007 2:31:09 AM EDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/rlc/1918252/posts?page=1

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original/The Only” Gunny G
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
http://gunnygcops.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********


“We are not an empire. We’re a republic.”

October 30, 2007

 

Ron Paul: Utah turnout wows candidate
Before a crowd of 1,000, Republican hopeful speaks about foreign policy, war
By Sheena McFarland
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:09/16/2007 02:38:49 AM MDT
 
More than 1,000 people gathered Saturday at the Union Pacific Depot in Salt Lake City to rally behind U.S. Rep. Ron Paul in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.
Paul, an obstetrician from Texas, was impressed with the turnout.
“Wow. If they only knew you existed over in Washington, they’d change things over there,” he said as he greeted the cheering crowd.
Paul spoke fervently of his support of smaller government, including the abolition of agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service, and of his support for strictly following the Constitution. He also spoke out against the war in Iraq and any pre-emptive military action.
“Because of our careless attitude about foreign policy and how we go to war, we have allowed our government to build an American world empire,” he said. “We are not an empire. We’re a republic.”
Paul’s stances on such topics are “clearly proven” in his voting record, which has earned him the nickname of “Dr. No” in the House of Representatives, said supporter Ronald Levine Saturday.
“I tell people not to listen to what a candidate says before an election or what he does,” he said. “I tell them to look at what he has consistently done for the past 20 years.”
That voting record is what drives his grass-roots supporters, said Mark Hudson of Syracuse.
“He is the only candidate who attracts everyone from libertarians to constitutional conservatives to true conservatives,” Hudson said.
Paul visited Utah for the free rally and for a $1,000-a-plate brunch that drew fewer than 20 supporters and a $2,000-per-plate dinner. He is the eighth presidential candidate to visit Utah, the fourth Republican. Paul had raised about $13,000 in Utah as of the June 30 filing, according to the Federal Elections Commission.
Though polls show Paul garnering an average of only 2 percent of potential voters, many of his supporters believe the polls don’t accurately show how many people support him.
“He’s the only candidate I’ve seen homemade signs for,” said Tom Salt, who is studying mechanical engineering at Brigham Young University.
Salt sees many young people supporting Paul.
“We look at his principles and we’re too young to be cynical about his chances,” Salt said.
The mainstream media has not treated Paul fairly, said Jed Hardman of Springville, and neither have some of the other Republicans in the race, pointing to Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney “openly mocking” Paul after debates.
“They’re afraid because as soon as such a true conservative emerges, one who is anti-abortion and has conservative views on taxes, they’re going to lose,” he said.
smcfarland@sltrib.com

 

http://tinyurl.com/2ugrg3

 
 


*********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original/The Only” Gunny G
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
http://i17.tinypic.com/66wth84.gif
**********


Meyer apologizes in letter to students (Don’t Taze Me, Bro!!)

October 30, 2007

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1918570/posts

Meyer apologizes in letter to students (Don’t Taze Me, Bro!!)
Independent Florida Alligator ^ | 10/30/07 | KIM WILMATH
Posted on 10/30/2007 4:53:43 PM EDT by mowowie
Andrew Meyer has addressed an apology letter to UF students, UF President Bernie Machen and Student Government for his “failure to act calmly” during a Sept. 17 forum with Sen. John Kerry.

In a letter released to the Alligator on Monday afternoon, Meyer wrote that he “stepped out of line” and felt he had tarnished UF’s image.

“For that again, I am truly sorry,” Meyer wrote.

Meyer, a UF telecommunication senior, was tackled, Tasered and arrested by University Police Department officers during a question-and-answer session following the speech from Kerry, a Democrat who represents Massachusetts.

Meyer was charged with a third-degree felony for resisting arrest with violence and a second-degree misdemeanor for disturbing the peace.

(Excerpt) Read more at alligator.org

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1918570/posts
**********************************

 

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

News > Campus

 

Meyer apologizes in letter to students

 

(Charles Roop / Alligator Staff) Andrew Meyer sits near his attorney, Robert Griscti, at his office in Gainesville on Monday night.
By KIM WILMATH, Alligator Staff Writer

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:23 AM EDT

Andrew Meyer has addressed an apology letter to UF students, UF President Bernie Machen and Student Government for his “failure to act calmly” during a Sept. 17 forum with Sen. John Kerry.

In a letter released to the Alligator on Monday afternoon, Meyer wrote that he “stepped out of line” and felt he had tarnished UF’s image.

“For that again, I am truly sorry,” Meyer wrote.

Meyer, a UF telecommunication senior, was tackled, Tasered and arrested by University Police Department officers during a question-and-answer session following the speech from Kerry, a Democrat who represents Massachusetts.

Meyer was charged with a third-degree felony for resisting arrest with violence and a second-degree misdemeanor for disturbing the peace.

Meyer has since withdrawn from classes, said Robert Griscti, Meyer’s attorney. He plans to return in January.

Meyer has accepted punishment from UF for violating the Student Code of Conduct, stated a news release from Patricia Telles-Irvin, UF’s vice president of student affairs.

The details of Meyer’s penalty could not be disclosed, Telles-Irvin wrote.

“Students make mistakes,” she wrote. “What’s most important are the lessons learned by all of us and making things right.”

A decision from the State Attorney’s Office about Meyer’s criminal charges is due to become available today.

Spencer Mann, spokesman for the office, could not be reached for comment by press time.

Griscti said Monday he couldn’t comment on the decision. Although Meyer allowed himself to be photographed in Griscti’s office, he declined comment as well.

“This is beyond anybody’s expectations in terms of media interest,” Griscti said. “I’ve yet to find anybody who doesn’t know about this in Gainesville, Europe or elsewhere.”

The aggressive attention from other students and the media has been hard on Meyer, Griscti said, but he’s learned a lot about journalism in the process.

“Given that this is his chosen field, it’s been a good educational process,” Griscti said.

He said Meyer’s apology was completely self-prompted. He started drafting it immediately after his release from jail Sept. 18.

“In society, as in life, there are consequences for not following the rules,” Meyer wrote. “In this instance, not following the rules has imposed consequences for many people other than myself, people who have seen their school, and perhaps their degree, tarnished in the eyes of others through no fault of their own.”

Griscti said Meyer didn’t plan his outburst, as the UPD report might have suggested.

However, Meyer’s remark to officers in the police car, when he said they “did nothing wrong,” was accurate. Meyer had no animosity toward individual officers, Griscti said.

Meyer wrote that he attended the speech to ask Kerry about voter disenfranchisement in America and he “lost his cool.”

Griscti said he and Meyer are happy with Machen’s creation of a committee to examine UF’s policies on open forums, free speech and event security.

“The creation of the panel proved once and for all that UF cares about the direction it’s going in,” Meyer wrote.

Griscti said he attended the panel’s first meeting and is willing to contribute what he can to the committee’s future discussions.

He said he would examine the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s 300-page investigation of the officers’ Taser use.

“I just hope people stay interested,” he said. “This university could take a lead nationwide.”

UF Responds to Andrew Meyer Aplogies
Meyer’s Letter to The Alligator
Meyer’s Letter to President Machen

The Independent Florida Alligator[x] Close Window

http://tinyurl.com/277njf

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original/The Only” Gunny G
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
http://gunnygcops.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!


**********


Ron Paul Closes To Within Ten Points of Hillary Clinton

October 30, 2007

From NationalLedger.com
DC Journal
Ron Paul Closes to Within Ten Points of Hillary Clinton
By Gene Byrd
Oct 30, 2007

Can Ron Paul win the Republican nomination and then go on to be elected as the forty-fourth president of the United States?  He just might if he is able to run against Hillary Clinton.  Right now a full seventy-seven percent of people polled in a recent Rasmussen reports poll have now concluded that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee that the Democrats will put up for the 2008 elections for US President.  The Republican field seems wide open.

Ron Paul Closes to Within Ten Points of Hillary Clinton

A poll by Scott Rasmussen notes that among Likely Republican Primary Voters nationwide, Rudy Giuliani is preferred by 24% while Fred Thompson is the first choice for 17%. Mitt Romney moves back to third place with support from 14% while John McCain and Mike Huckabee earn the vote from 12%. No other Republican attracts more than 3%, including Dr. Paul.

***

Still, the polling firm has tossed out the question that places Ron Paul head to head with Hillary Clinton and the results may have some Paul supporters re-thinking their stance on polling.  Most of the time they will discount any poll that places their candidate at the bottom of polls with a plethora of excuses.

And this one seems promising not only for Paul, but for the entire Republican field.  If Paul were to face off against Hillary he would only lose by ten points, 48-38.  While this may be a good spring for Paul supporters it might also cause some alarm over at team Hillary.  Would it really be this close, against an unknown US Congressman from the state of Texas?

And how close would it be if Paul could get mainstream coverage?

© Copyright National Ledger, www.NationalLedger.com

http://tinyurl.com/28k2zn

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original/The Only” Gunny G
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
http://gunnygcops.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********


Kucinich Questions Bush’s Mental Health

October 30, 2007

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1918550/posts

Kucinich Questions Bush’s Mental Health
Breitbart.com ^ | Oct 30 03:36 PM | AP
Posted on 10/30/2007 3:52:39 PM EDT by Greystoke
PHILADELPHIA (AP) – Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich questioned President Bush’s mental health in light of comments he made about a nuclear Iran precipitating World War III…. “You cannot be a president of the United States who’s wanton in his expression of violence,” Kucinich said. “There’s a lot of people who need care. He might be one of them. If there isn’t something wrong with him, then there’s something wrong with us. This, to me, is a very serious question.”

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1918550/posts
***************************

Kucinich Questions Bush’s Mental Health
Oct 30 03:36 PM US/Eastern

PHILADELPHIA (AP) – Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich questioned President Bush’s mental health in light of comments he made about a nuclear Iran precipitating World War III. “I seriously believe we have to start asking questions about his mental health,” Kucinich, an Ohio congressman, said in an interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer’s editorial board on Tuesday. “There’s something wrong. He does not seem to understand his words have real impact.”

Kucinich, known for his liberal views, trails far behind the leading candidates in most Democratic polls. He was in Philadelphia for a debate at Drexel University.

Bush made the remarks at a news conference earlier this month.

He said: “I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”

Kucinich said he doesn’t believe his comments about the president’s mental health are irresponsible, according to a story posted on the newspaper’s Web site.

“You cannot be a president of the United States who’s wanton in his expression of violence,” Kucinich said. “There’s a lot of people who need care. He might be one of them. If there isn’t something wrong with him, then there’s something wrong with us. This, to me, is a very serious question.”
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original/The Only” Gunny G
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
http://gunnygcops.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********


Introducing Sheriff Gil Gilbertson

October 30, 2007


Introducing Sheriff Gil Gilbertson

by Sheriff Gil Gilbertson
Josephine County, Oregon

October 30, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Gilbertson/gil.htm

[NOTE: NWV would like it's readers to get aquainted with their newly elected Josephine County Sheriff, Gil Gilbertson. If you live in Josephine County and have questions for the Sheriff, feel free to send Gil an E-mail.]

During my campaign for Sheriff, among the commitments I made to the people of Josephine County was to seek out alternative sources of funding and to provide the best public safety environment possible with the funding available. Many of our citizens have expressed their dissatisfaction with the property tax solutions proposed to date. Practically speaking, there may not be a one-shot solution to our financial problems, but weaving together several different solutions could provide substantial benefits.

One of the first steps I took in this regard was the formation of a Sheriff’s Advisory Council (S.A.C.) comprised of well-qualified volunteers with many years of combined service to Josephine County to help identify and develop ideas. I have asked this Council to look beyond funding the Sheriff’s Office to considering solutions for the countywide issues. Some of the more promising ideas are:

  • New Construction Asset Buy-In. This proposal would assess all new dwelling units built in Josephine County to proportionately match the investment in existing community assets such as roads, Fair grounds, Parks, bridges, buildings and equipment that existing residents have already funded. Existing residents’ ability to remain in their homes would not be threatened, as their existing homes could be grandfathered in.

  • Two Separate Tax Districts for law enforcement. This would copy a system already implemented in Deschutes County by creating two tax districts. District One, would include everyone in the County – which would fund the lawfully mandated services to the community (i.e., Jail, Civil, Court Security, Search and Rescue). The second district would provide all “other” current services; including 911 response, patrol, investigations, records, etc. Only the residents directly benefiting from those services (everyone outside the City of Grants Pass) pay for district Two. We are currently developing this proposal.

  • Insurance Industry Program Funding. I have initiated discussions with several companies providing homeowner, and vehicle, coverage in our market to review with them how increased patrol presence might benefit them by reducing their claims losses; and provide an elevated level of safety to our community. So far, they have been receptive to the idea with more discussion on the horizon.

  • Deductible Contributions to Public Safety Trust Funds. The Sheriff’s Office currently has several line item “Trust Fund” accounts, similar to a non-profit 501(c)(3) – where tax deductible donations can be made directly to funding the Sheriff’s Office obligations. Since this type of account is legally insulated from the County, public confidence concerning how, and for what, the money is spent is dramatically enhanced.

  • Justice of the Peace (J.P.) System. A J.P. system would take over administration of minor civil matters arising in Josephine County such as traffic or parking tickets, code violations, etc, which would retain the related fine revenue that currently goes to the State of Oregon. By jointly occupying current building space owned by the County, and by staffing the J.P. position from the many well-qualified local retirees the accompanying costs remain low.

As you can see, these alternatives address the problem in a variety of ways. Some charge County residents for services that directly benefit them. Others charge new arrivals for incremental demands placed on our community services purely by their joining the community. I don’t expect any of these alone to solve our problems, and I don’t expect a free lunch to last. Perhaps you have some ideas as good, or better than these. If you email your ideas to jocosheriff@co.josephine.or.us my office will forward them to the Sheriff’s Advisory Council, who are open to any viable proposal and will appreciate your contributions and creativity.

It continues to be my honor and privilege to serve the people of Josephine County in these difficult times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2007 – Gil Gilbertson – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale


Gil Gilbertson has approximately thirty-years of national and international experience as a law enforcement officer, trainer, advisor, and senior administrator, in both military and civilian police units.

A veteran of Viet Nam, he has served in the U.S. Navy, Air National Guard, Army National Guard, and the Army Reserve. From 1975 to 1991 Gil was patrol and traffic officer, member of the special weapons tactical team, bomb squad, field-training officer, recovery diver, dispatcher, and jailer for the Waterloo, Iowa Police Department.

Between 1975 and 1996, Gil also served as a professional law enforcement instructor and advisor for the Special Tactics Association and the International Law Enforcement Training Group.

Beginning in 1996, Gilbertson served as the senior liaison for the International Police Task Force at Task Force Eagle, the American contingent of troops supporting the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This was a country suffering from anarchy and a bloody civil war. Gilbertson later took charge of an intelligence fusion center sharing information between the International Police Task Force and N.A.T.O.

In 2005, Gil spent a short tour in Iraq advising the local bomb squads, and a national highway patrol. Later Gil joined a tactical team in New Orleans to secure and defend hospitals that had come under sniper attack in the chaos immediately following hurricane Katrina.

January of 2007, Gil was elected as Sheriff of Josephine County, Oregon.

Website: Sheriff’s website

E-Mail: jocosheriff@co.josephine.or.us
http://www.newswithviews.com/Gilbertson/gil.htm

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original/The Only” Gunny G
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
http://gunnygcops.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********


Bush’s Toilet Bowl Treaty For America

October 30, 2007


 

Bush’s Toilet Bowl Treaty For America

By Cliff Kincaid

October 30, 2007
NewsWithViews.com


http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff183.htm

When State Department Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III gave a controversial June 6 speech on the subject of “The United States and International Law,” he mentioned that the Bush Administration had “put forward a priority list of over 35 treaty packages that we have urged the Senate to approve soon, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.” The latter is now up for Senate ratification, with a vote scheduled on Wednesday, and one of its many controversial provisions is the regulation of land-based sources of pollution. This treaty covers the water and the land. But now we have discovered that the Bush Administration has asked the Senate to ratify a treaty that defines one of those land-based sources of pollution as toilet flushing. No kidding.

It is amazing but true. The Bush Administration wants the Senate to ratify a treaty that will invite international inspections of what you flush down your toilet.

We are talking about Annex III of the “Protocol Concerning Pollution from Land-Based Sources and Activities to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region, with Annexes.” You can read it for yourself here.

Annex III is titled, “Domestic Wastewater,” which is defined as including “all discharges from households, commercial facilities, hotels, septage and any other entity…” These discharges are defined as encompassing (1) toilet flushing, (2) discharges from showers, wash basins, kitchens and laundries, or discharges from small industries, provided their composition and quantity are compatible with treatment in a domestic wastewater system.

Lawrence A. Kogan of the Institute for Trade, Standards, and Sustainable Development uncovered the dangerous details of this agreement and has termed it the “Toilet bowl treaty,” noting that it constitutes a sort of mini-Law of the Sea Treaty. The protocol, he says, is one of 11 “regional seas” agreements. It is on an October 1 State Department list of “Treaties Pending in the Senate.” (Not all of these treaties are currently being pushed by the Bush Administration).

Our major media were, as usual, asleep at the switch. It turns out that the White House issued a press release about submitting this treaty to the Senate for ratification. President Bush’s statement was quite specific. He noted that “It is estimated that 70 to 90 percent of pollution entering the marine environment emanates from land-based sources and activities,” and that parties to the treaty “are required to ensure that domestic wastewater discharges meet specific effluent limitations, and to develop plans for the prevention and reduction of agricultural nonpoint source pollution.”

Bush claimed that “The United States would be able to implement its obligations under the Protocol under existing statutory and regulatory authority.” In other words, he thinks this is supposed to affect others, not us. But this may not be the way some activist judges and international lawyers see it.

Bush’s admission that 70 to 90 percent of pollution entering the marine environment emanates from land-based sources and activities is directly relevant to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which has provisions relating to prohibiting pollution from such sources. That is why many observers have concluded that the Law of the Sea Treaty can serve as a back-door way to implement the (unratified) global warming treaty. Foreign judges and lawyers could easily interpret greenhouse gas emissions as contributing to pollution of the oceans. As a result, under UNCLOS they could order cuts in energy use.

Since the State Department submitted the protocol for ratification, along with the Law of the Sea Treaty, it’s a certainty that Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III knew all about the potential for regulating land-based pollution sources and activities, including toilet bowls, when he testified before the Senate about UNCLOS on September 27. But not only did he deny that UNCLOS had any such potential, he said it had no such provisions. When pressed, he claimed the provisions were “hortatory” and had no practical legal impact. This is why Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch and I have asked for a formal review (PDF) of his testimony. He clearly misled the Senate.

But now we find out that it’s worse than we thought. The State Department had previously submitted another treaty that specifically and explicitly defined a land-based source of pollution as being a toilet bowl. Ratification of this treaty, in conjunction with ratification of UNCLOS, would literally invite U.N. inspectors to review and manage discharge from your toilet bowl. Why didn’t Bellinger tell the Senate about that during his UNCLOS testimony?

Bellinger seems to be far more open and honest with international audiences that he is trying to appease and impress. In his June 6 speech to a group at The Hague, for example, Bellinger boasted about using his own staff of 171 lawyers to “integrate” international law “into the decision-making process” of the U.S. Government. He defended the President’s order to Texas to comply with a ruling by the U.N.’s International Court of Justice on giving convicted Mexican killers another hearing. Bellinger called this compliance with “an international obligation.”

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to vote on UNCLOS on Wednesday. UNCLOS is the first order of business and if it passes, as seems likely, Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid could call it up for a quick Senate floor vote.

Before the committee votes, it should recall Bellinger as a witness and determine why he has been less than open and honest about the “obligations” of the U.S. under UNCLOS. Then he should be asked to explain why we need a treaty targeting toilet bowls and showers. If he claims the need to adhere to “international obligations,” he should be laughed out of the hearing room, along with his treaties.

 

© 2007 Cliff Kincaid – All Rights Reserved

 

 

 

 

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale



Cliff Kincaid, a veteran journalist and media critic, Cliff concentrated in journalism and communications at the University of Toledo, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree.

Cliff has written or co-authored nine books on media and cultural affairs and foreign policy issues.

Cliff has appeared on Hannity & Colmes, The O’Reilly Factor, Crossfire and has been published in the Washington Post, Washington Times, Chronicles, Human Events and Insight.

Web Site: www.AIM.org

E-Mail: cliff.kincaid@aim.org

http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff183.htm

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original/The Only” Gunny G
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
http://gunnygcops.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********


Rumsfeld flees France fearing arrest

October 30, 2007

http://wor.ldne.ws/node/8596

Rumsfeld flees France fearing arrest
Sat, 10/27/2007 – 08:45

Former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld fled France today fearing arrest over charges of “ordering and authorizing” torture of detainees at both the American-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the US military’s detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, unconfirmed reports coming from Paris suggest.

US embassy officials whisked Rumsfeld away yesterday from a breakfast meeting in Paris organized by the Foreign Policy magazine after human rights groups filed a criminal complaint against the man who spearheaded President George W. Bush’s “war on terror” for six years.

Under international law, authorities in France are obliged to open an investigation when a complaint is made while the alleged torturer is on French soil.

According to activists in France, who greeted Rumsfeld shouting “murderer” and “war criminal” at the breakfast meeting venue, US embassy officials remained tight-lipped about the former defense secretary’s whereabouts citing “security reasons”.

Anti-torture protesters in France believe that the defense secretary fled over the open border to Germany, where a war crimes case against Rumsfeld was dismissed by a federal court. But activist point out that under the Schengen agreement that ended border checkpoints across a large part of the European Union, French law enforcement agents are allowed to cross the border into Germany in pursuit of a fleeing fugitive.

“Rumsfeld must be feeling how Saddam Hussein felt when US forces were hunting him down,” activist Tanguy Richard said. “He may never end up being hanged like his old friend, but he must learn that in the civilized world, war crime doesn’t pay.”

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) along with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), and the French League for Human Rights (LDH) filed the complaint on Thursday after learning that Rumsfeld was scheduled to visit Paris.

http://wor.ldne.ws/node/8596

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original and Only” Gunny G!
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html

HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********


Hand Over Heart/Lack thereof…(true)

October 30, 2007

Hand Over Heart/Lack thereof…(true)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original and Only” Gunny G!
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html

HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********


The Duke of Iwo Jima…by “Sully”

October 30, 2007

The “Duke of Iwo Jima”???

(Re Col Sully…)

http://sullyusmc.com/

Ghosts….

“Have you heard of the “Duke of Iwo Jima?.” This was supposedly a Japanese Officer who wore a “boat cloak” and trooped the Japanese lines every night. There were Marines (one of which I knew well, and was no BSer) who swore that they had seen this apparition.”
{Above info sent}
GyG
~~~~~

**********
***************

**************************
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1918228/posts

Stories tell of haunted places on U.S. bases
Stars and Stripes ^ | October 31, 2007 | Stars and Stripes
Posted on 10/30/2007 12:05:09 AM EDT by CurlyBill

Stories tell of haunted places on U.S. bases

Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Wednesday, October 31, 2007

It’s not your imagination — maybe that sound in the night really was a moan.

Stories of spirits and unexplained phenomena have persisted on U.S. military bases in the Pacific for years.

Doors slam, shadows creep and voices shout in the night. Could it be spirits of the dead reaching out?

As costumed ghosts and ghouls hit the streets for Halloween, Stars and Stripes has compiled some accounts of allegedly real ghosts and ghouls to keep the holiday creepy.

Creepy crematorium tale

Many of the buildings on Yongsan Garrison in South Korea have been there longer than the U.S. military. Some date back to Japan’s occupation of Korea before and during World War II.

One of those buildings, near the gas station on the garrison’s South Post, has been surrounded by rumors for years.

“I hate being here at night. The hairs on the back of my neck stand up just talking about it,” said Sgt. 1st Class Riviere Cools, 52nd Medical Battalion as he eyed the squat, red-brick building in the center of his unit’s complex of offices. “I don’t believe in that kind of stuff, but in the back of my mind, there are souls here.”

The entire compound, surrounded by a thick, crumbling, brick wall, was a prison during the occupation.

For years, said U.S. Army Garrison spokesman David McNally, soldiers working there have passed along stories claiming that the area, especially the small building in the center, was haunted.

McNally said the building was most likely the prison’s administrative office, but those working around it have a more sinister theory.

“Everybody that’s worked in that building right there has either seen something or heard something,” said Staff Sgt. Sae Kim, 52nd Medical Battalion. “Because that’s where they burned people.”

McNally was quick to point out there was no evidence to suggest that the building was a crematorium, but that doesn’t stop the stories from spreading.

“I haven’t seen any ghosts,” said Sgt. 1st Class Freeman Witherspoon. “But I definitely have heard the rumors. People say they see shadows when they have duty at night.”

The unexplained voice

Stories of strange happenings abound at the base chapel at Camp Zama in Japan. Strange presences in rooms and doors that mysteriously open and close are part of chapel lore, employees say.

Some tell stories of strange figures passing by and then disappearing.

“My predecessor said that she used to hear footsteps through the halls late at night,” said Staff Sgt. Desmond West, the Unit Ministry Team noncommissioned officer in charge.

Last year, Spc. Jennifer Villagomez, a funds clerk, said she was working late when a voice emanated from her unplugged computer speakers.

It sounded like a Japanese man, “like a drill sergeant yelling at a private,” she said.

At first, Villagomez said she thought the sounds were a practical joke and called for a sergeant who was the only other person in the building at the time.

“And as I heard him come closer to my office, the voice on the speaker went lower and lower until it went away, just before he walked in the room,” Villagomez said.

She said that since that incident, she tries not to be the last person to in the office at night.

Sgt. Joshua Lee, who works at the chapel with Villagomez, said he didn’t hear the voice that night but has witnessed other strange occurrences.

Chapel lights switch on and doors open seemingly on their own, Lee said.

West, who has worked in the chapel for four years, said he has never seen or heard anything peculiar.

“But the day I start hearing things, I’m running out of here,” he said.

Ghosts crowd Okinawa

Reportedly haunted sites can be found around almost any corner on and off Okinawa bases.

So many ghost stories abound that Marine Corps Community Services and 18th Services Squadron on Kadena Air Base both run special Halloween spooky sites tours that sell out weeks in advance.

Web sites and a book on the subject — Jayne A. Hitchcock’s “The Ghosts of Okinawa” — celebrate the local haunts.

A World War II soldier is said to roam Gate 3 on Camp Hansen in blood-splattered fatigues asking sentries to light his cigarette.

Marines refused to stand guard due to the haunting, and the gate was eventually closed, according to Hitchcock.

Camp Foster is said to be the home of a ghostly samurai warrior who eternally travels from Stillwell Drive uphill toward Futenma Housing.

Kadena Air Base also has its ghost stories.

A small house behind the Kadena United Services Organization, numbered 2283, is now used for storage because, it is said, no one willingly lives in it for long.

Some say the house remains haunted after a man murdered his family there. Others say the house rests on an ancient burial site, and the souls of the dead beneath are restless.

Kadena’s golf course might be the site where in 1945 a group of high-school girls pressed into service in the Japanese Imperial Army committed suicide, according to another yarn.

The spirits of the dead girls are said to still haunt the land.

Off-base, half-finished buildings are abandoned due to reports of ghostly visitors.

Construction of the Royal Hotel off Route 329, near the Nakagusuku Castle ruins, was begun some three decades ago — possibly on a sacred site.

Mysterious accidents and deaths drove workers to abandon construction.

Meanwhile, at Maeda Point, there is rumored to be a prophet-of-death ghost.

The elderly Okinawan apparition is said to appear at a tomb that can be seen only from the water, and within days of a sighting, a body is found on a nearby beach.

Stars and Stripes reporters Travis Tritten, Jimmy Norris, Vince Little and Cindy Fisher contributed to this story.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1918228/posts


Vast Differences Between Males & Females by Alan Stang

October 30, 2007

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan11.htm

Vast Differences Between Males & Females
Recently, I wrote that the worst disaster we have suffered in this country – worse than Nine Eleven, worse than the invasion of our country from Mexico, worse even than el presidente Jorge W. Boosh – is the horror of feminism. The other things we can recover from, however serious they are, but feminism strikes at the heart of what we are. Feminism changes the matrix, our civilization’s DNA……..
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan11.htm
by Alan Stang
~~~~~



Vast Differences Between Males & Females

by Alan Stang
October 30, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan11.htm

Recently, I wrote that the worst disaster we have suffered in this country – worse than Nine Eleven, worse than the invasion of our country from Mexico, worse even than el presidente Jorge W. Boosh – is the horror of feminism. The other things we can recover from, however serious they are, but feminism strikes at the heart of what we are. Feminism changes the matrix, our civilization’s DNA.

Remember that we are talking about the version of feminism that erupted in the last half of the Twentieth Century, at about the same time as the latest extrusion of organized sodomy. The feminism before that was quite different. The basic principle of “modern” feminism appears to be that men and women are the same, that any observable differences are superficial and unimportant – women tend to have more prominent forecastles and afterdecks – and therefore that they should be treated alike. Some experts have even proposed “unisex” bathrooms. Der Arnold, the Governator, has signed legislation to that effect in Kahleeforneeya, where girls and boys will soon shower together. Such fun!

Of course anyone who knows anything at all about the subject knows that this is so preposterous it could be a joke, or maybe that the people who propose it are insane, because it is certainly calculated to produce a disaster. Indeed, so destructive is the idea that the question inevitably arises of whether that disaster is the purpose. But since people of putative normalcy propose it, let’s begin at the beginning and examine the idea.

First I shall make some general observations, then apply them to some examples; finally, I shall mention the science. As I go through all this, you will nod and tell yourself, “Yes, I know all this.” You will be able to supply your own examples, and this will underline my point. What I am talking about is not some recondite body of knowledge, but something everyone knows, something that is obvious, the kind of truth Tom Jefferson called “self-evident” in the Declaration of Independence.

Everyone who has ever been anywhere near children knows that you cannot get girls out of the bathroom. My dear friend, the late, great historian Gary Allen warned me during one of my visits to his home not to try to enter one of the bathrooms. Gary explained that he had not been able to gain access himself for months because one of his daughters, then a teenager, lived there. On the contrary, everyone knows that the normal boy will not bathe until he is physically threatened by an adult female armed with a stick.

Everyone knows that the normal boy will wear the same clothes until they either rot off his legs or walk off by themselves, or he is physically threatened by an adult female armed with a stick. The normal girl will change clothes a few times a day. Why? Because she does. Again, everyone with even a modicum of experience knows this. You don’t need to teach a girl to do it.

For a long time, my daughter would change clothes three or four times a day. No one told her to do that. Indeed, it was somewhat troublesome because she wasn’t old enough yet to dress herself, which typically required unbuttoning, unzipping and then the reverse, so every hour or two she would appear solemnly in my office with a new ensemble, and, equally solemn, I would have to get her out of the old outfit and into the new. The ritual became so routine, neither of us needed to say anything. More about the Princess Royal later.

When girls are hurt, they run to their mothers bawling to have their bruised knees bound up. Boys boast about their injuries. One of our sons entered the living room smiling broadly. “Mom, Dad, look at this! Cool, huh?” Another son, at play, had broken one of his fingers, which now flopped crazily askew, and because we unfortunately are not illegal aliens the incident cost me about $800.

The son who broke the finger later broke another playmate’s arm and still another boy’s nose. Girls don’t do this. Why not? Because they don’t. Because he is extremely dangerous, this son became a mathematician at a monster defense contractor. His job is to figure out where to aim the missiles, so it’s best not to get crossways with him. I can’t tell you any more because that is all I know, which is just as well because, if I did, you would be killed by geheimstadt security or at least imprisoned at Gitmo.

On another occasion, we came home and found the son whose finger he broke sitting on the couch, not on the cushions, needless to say – boys do not actually employ furniture as it is designed – but on the back of the couch. I patted him on the head and came away with a handful of blood, because a couple of hours earlier, at play with still another son while perched up there, he had fallen off backward and hit his head on one of the decorative stones in the entry. Such fun!

How long he would have sat there with his hair full of blood had we left for the weekend we have no way of knowing. To this day, he still has a neat scar on the spot, easy to see because he now shaves his head, another thing girls don’t do. (After World War II, the French shaved the heads of the women who had collaborated with the invading Germans.)

Boys are uncomplicated and very easy to raise. Girls are the opposite. In fact, four boys equal one girl. I know this from personal experience because, coincidentally, I have four boys and one girl. Boys are physically dangerous – they will jump off the balcony into the swimming pool – but girls are an emotional bloodbath, which paradoxically is much more physically wearing.

Along these lines, a naïve beginner thinks that two girls are twice as much trouble as one, and so on, arithmetically. On the contrary, my wife, the Love Priestess, a true expert, explains that if you have two or more girls they will drive each other crazy; but if you have just one girl, she will drive you crazy. So, when, after four boys, I finally got a girl, I mistakenly assumed that because I now finally had the hang of it, we would get at least another, but the Love Priestess announced that I was now officially retired. So I continued parenting as a hobby.

Girl conversation is infinitely convoluted and often impossible to follow, which is just as well, because most of the time you don’t want to follow it. Boys discuss only a few wholesome subjects: killing, maiming, amputations and intestines hanging out of gaping tum-tums on kitchen tables. Because girls live in an emotional bloodbath, always in a state of terror about who likes and dislikes whom, they have no funny bones.

On the contrary, the boy has a well-developed sense of humor. Probably the funniest thing that happens in the life of a boy is the accidental emission by one of them of certain sounds, especially when accompanied by corresponding odors. I shall not amplify because genteel ladies could be reading this, but the sounds trigger the automatic eruption of peals of raucous laughter; they can be halted only by outpatient surgery or an adult female armed with a stick.

If you have a house full of girls, there will be uncontrollable giggling. When you look in upon them approvingly, they will be sedately having tea and psychoanalyzing each other. A houseful of boys will be much louder, inspired by boasting about individual exploits that cannot be corroborated. Often a tremor will shake the house. That is perfectly normal, not a problem.

But sometimes, with boys in the house, experienced parents become aware of an awful silence slowly creeping through the house, a silence so robust, so corporeal, that it is not the absence of something but the presence of something else. Because it is so unnatural, they will rush through the house from room to room, perfectly aware that Something Awful is about to happen, hoping they can head it off.

For instance, dipping into my vast experience, I recall a time when some colleagues and I were sitting at the elegant table in a formal dining room. One of them announced his recent discovery of the ancient Chinese formula for gunpowder, which he was able to prove because the unfortunate parents had made the fatal mistake of not being present. It was deathly silent in the moment before the explosion, which caused an intense ringing in the ears and covered us with fine, black dust.

But the biggest victim was the spotless, cream-colored ceiling, which now was even blacker than we were. Needless to say, we evacuated the crime scene instantly and never went back. Had I been asked, I would have denied ever being there, denied even knowing the colleague whose family ceiling had been violated, which was just as well because I never saw him again and did not make the mistake of asking whether he had been executed. For all I know the perpetrator has been dead all these years since, a martyr to true boyhood.

Remember, I was not at fault in the affair, and had no hint of what would happen when I sat down at the table, but there was the unfortunate contretemps occasioned by the fact that at school I sat behind a girl named Maxine. Maxine had very long, gorgeous pigtails, and, believe it or not, the educators of the time were stupid enough to equip us scholars with desks in which there were live ink wells. This was long before ball point pens, but after the American War for Independence.

There is no need to bore you with what happened when these discrete elements were juxtaposed, except to say that I was henceforth forbidden to associate with Maxine or even to get within a few feet of her, which was a genuine deprivation because she had many other endearing qualities beside those luscious, inky blue pigtails, which I still think were quite attractive.

The male of the species is a live and let live individual. Do you want to sit around all day in a dirty undershirt and not shave? No problem! Of course, such preferences are adult manifestations of the aforementioned boyhood affinity for certain odors and sounds. Do you want to wear certain garments that do not coordinate? The male of the species could not care less. Live and let live.

Not so the female. The female is awash with contradiction. The experts tell us she loves stability. But she also loves change. She will not rest until she has remolded you to suit her preference, which raises the question of why she did not choose someone with the qualities she wanted from the beginning. Here are some examples all husbands will easily recognize.

A son calls to report that three pairs of good slacks have disappeared. Needless to say, at first his wife claimed to know nothing. Later, he discovered the slacks on the rack at Goodwill. Because he is a new husband, he made the mistake of trying to insert logic into the affair. “But she bought the slacks herself!”

Some of my favorite garments disappeared. Women develop hostility toward certain favorite ensembles. The Love Priestess claimed to know nothing about them and that the animus she had often expressed for them was irrelevant. Apparently they had walked off by themselves. Other garments appeared in their place. Needless to say she knew nothing.

So profound are some of these animi that from time to time Mrs. Stang interposes her body to prevent egress from our bedroom, in protest of some disfavored garment or ensemble she has not yet thrown out. “Over my dead body!” she announces. Of course I do not accept the challenge. I could not afford the considerable time and expense of recruiting and training a new wife. Now, when I prepare to do something important, she lays out my clothes.

We were leaving the house on the way to the car, headed for church, when suddenly my daughter, the Princess Royal, now an all-knowing teenaged seer perfectly capable of dressing herself, screamed and pointed. “Dad!”

Needless to say, I looked around wildly, prepared to do battle, perhaps with a ‘gator that had crawled from the nearby bayou and was advancing toward us, jaws wide, violating the peaceful Sabbath. I saw nothing. I looked at her, confused.

“Dad!” she screamed again. “Your shoes!” I looked at my shoes, preparing to laugh, assuming that I had stupidly chosen one from one pair and the other from another. What else could elicit so alarming an outcry? No, they belonged together, a favorite pair. They were even well shined. What was wrong? Had my daughter detected a virus from deep space crawling up the instep?

Argumentation erupted between the Princess Royal and the Queen Mother about the shoes. They did not match the rest of my “ensemble.” They were utterly uncoordinated. Whose fault was it that I had managed to leave the house wearing them? Obviously someone had seriously erred. My “ensemble” was fine, it had been approved, but the miscreant, whoever she was, had not checked the shoes.

Needless to say, they did not include me in the conversation. It is a waste of time to ask anything important of a man who is too stupid to dress himself. Need I say that I did not intervene, which could have been dangerous? You will be happy to know that during the confrontation your obedient servant leaned on the fender, calm, urbane, philosophical, patiently waiting until the recriminations ran down.

When they did, I returned to the house to change shoes. The Princess Royal accompanied me, of course. A man who is too stupid to don the right pair of shoes in the first place is too stupid to change them without female supervision. Often, while delivering a lecture, watching the audience elbow each other in celebration of the brilliance of my arguments, I wonder what they would say could they know that they are listening openmouthed to a man who is too dumb to dress himself.

It is important to note that the female, however brilliant, does not “grow out” of all this. Every experienced husband knows that, once in a while, a wife will stand in the living room, clench her fists and start screaming. The inexperienced husband, like my son, will stroke his chin and foolishly try to apply logic. What did I do? What did somebody else do? The experienced practitioner knows that such reflections are an utterly useless waste of precious time – no one did anything; once in a while, a girl needs to scream – and that he needs to get her out of the house and into her favorite restaurant before the cops show up.

The experts do not understand all this themselves, but they say it involves hormones and the moon, and that the ancestors of today’s females may even have been a different species that originated on a heavenly body in our solar system but not of this earth. Among those experts is certainly Louann Brizendine, M.D., a female. Beguiled by feminism, she tried to raise her son to be “gender neutral,” if I may call it that, but, because she is so smart, she took official, clinical note when, despite her best efforts, her gender neutral son emerged as a little boy. To nail all this down, next time we’ll look at her book, The Female Brain (New York, Morgan Road Books, 2006). That’s right. The doctor says there is one.

Again, you could come up with your own examples, which amply proves the point. We are talking about something everyone knows. In view of all this, it becomes obvious that to believe the sexes are the same is more than just stupid; it is suspicious. Because it so blatantly defies simple observation, no one who is not a moron could believe it. It would be tantamount to a refusal to believe that things fall down, not up. But the people who push this belief on us obviously are not at all stupid; on the contrary, in their own way they are maniacally brilliant. So, there must be something they are trying to conceal. What is it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2007 – Alan Stang – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale


Alan Stang was one of Mike Wallace’s original writers at Channel 13 in New York, where he wrote some of the scripts that sent Mike to CBS. Stang has been a radio talk show host himself. In Los Angeles, he went head to head nightly with Larry King, and, according to Arbitron, had almost twice as many listeners. He has been a foreign correspondent. He has written hundreds of feature magazine articles in national magazines and some fifteen books, for which he has won many awards, including a citation from the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for journalistic excellence. One of Stang’s exposés stopped a criminal attempt to seize control of New Mexico, where a gang seized a court house, held a judge hostage and killed a deputy. The scheme was close to success before Stang intervened. Another Stang exposé inspired major reforms in federal labor legislation.

His first book, It’s Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights, was an instant best-seller. His first novel, The Highest Virtue, set in the Russian Revolution, won smashing reviews and five stars, top rating, from the West Coast Review of Books, which gave five stars in only one per cent of its reviews.

Stang has lectured in every American state and around the world and has guested on many top shows, including CNN’s Cross Fire. Because he and his wife had the most kids in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic, where they lived at the time, the entire family was chosen to be actors in “Havana,” directed by Sydney Pollack and starring Robert Redford, the most expensive movie ever made (at the time). Alan Stang is the man in the ridiculous Harry Truman shirt with the pasted-down hair. He says they made him do it.

Website: AlanStang.com

E-Mail: stangfeedback@gmail.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan11.htm

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original/The Only” Gunny G
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
http://gunnygcops.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********


Are Senate Offices Lying To You? – — Some are claiming there is no Veterans Disarmament Act!

October 29, 2007


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917998/posts

Are Senate Offices Lying To You? – — Some are claiming there is no Veterans Disarmament Act!
Gun Owners of America ^ | October 26, 2007 | NA

Posted on 10/29/2007 2:48:25 PM EDT by neverdem

–snip–

The Veterans Disarmament Act Does Change Federal Law

The fact is, this legislation rubber-stamps regulations that have been issued by the BATFE over the years. The net result is that Section 203(2) of S. 2084 ends up outlawing guns for millions of people (including veterans) who are not “currently prohibited” from owning guns.

You can see in greater detail how these regulations will drive the implementation of the Veterans Disarmament Act.

The bottom line is that this bill will ban a person from owning guns because he or she was merely diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, Alzheimer’s, ADHD or bipolar disorder by a government psychologist or psychiatrist in the VA, Medicare, or the IDEA program. This is because the Veterans Disarmament Act will CODIFY regulations that BATFE has issued. (Again, see the URL above for more details.)

False Attempts At Defending The Veterans Gun Ban

Nevertheless, those who merely do word searches for “veteran” — and thus conclude a bill has nothing to say about veterans — try to defend what the Clinton administration did. Take Senator Hatch. He says, the Veterans Disarmament Act specifically excludes “any finding of mental illness that consists only of a medical diagnoses [sic] from being included in the NICS.”

What Hatch is doing is quoting (or referencing) half a sentence in the bill to make the supposed argument that veterans who are only suffering from PTSD will not fall prey to the gun ban, since they are only subject to a “medical finding of disability.”

This is a partial quote from Section 211(c)(1)(C) of S. 2084, which is duplicated in the House bill. But to say this — that people can’t lose their gun rights based solely on a “medical finding of disability” — is to engage in an outright fraud… because the rest of the sentence in the bill says that they can be added into the NICS system if they represent a miniscule danger to themselves or others or are unable to handle their own affairs.

The legislation states that a person can’t lose their gun rights “based solely on a medical finding of disability, WITHOUT A FINDING THAT THE PERSON IS A DANGER TO HIMSELF OR TO OTHERS.” (Emphasis added.) You see that? What little freedom is protected with the one hand, is destroyed with the other. What government shrink isn’t going to say that a person suffering from PTSD is a potential danger — even a teensy, weensy danger — to himself or others?

A BATFE letter from May 9 of this year indicates that this danger does not have to be a substantial threat; it can be just a MINISCULE danger.

Yes, this gets slightly technical. But it helps to actually read entire sentences in the bill, rather than to selectively quote a passage here or there; and it especially helps to read the underlying federal code and regulations.

That’s why Gun Owners of America has posted the entire bill — and a scholarly point-by-point analysis of the Veterans Disarmament Act — here. By reading this information for yourself, you can stay informed on the very real threat posed by this legislation.
When you read through that section, you will understand why the American Legion and the Military Order Of The Purple Heart have both opposed this bill. You will also see the PDF copies of their two letters of opposition, and see Sen. Tom Coburn’s letter which GOA reported on last week. Sen. Coburn sent his letter to Veterans Affairs and asked them to explain how they plan to prevent even more veterans from being disarmed without due process.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917998/posts

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original and Only” Gunny G!
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html

HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********


Blackwater and me: A love story it ain’t

October 29, 2007

Blackwater and me: A love story it ain’t

By Robert Bateman

Global Research, October 24, 2007
chicagotribune.com – 2007-10-12

Commentary

I know something about Blackwater USA. This opinion is both intellectually driven as well as moderately emotional. You see, during my own yearlong tour in Iraq, the bad boys of Blackwater twice came closer to killing me than did any of the insurgents or Al Qaeda types. That sort of thing sticks with you. One story will suffice to make my point.

The first time it happened was in the spring of 2005. For various reasons, none of which bear repeating, I was moving through downtown Baghdad in an unmarked civilian sedan. I was with two other men, but they had the native look, while I was in my uniform, hunched in the back seat and partially covered by a blanket, hoping that the curtains on the window were enough to conceal my incongruous presence, not to mention my weapons. It was not the normal manner in which an Army infantry major moved around the city, but it was what the situation called for, so there I was. We were in normal Baghdad traffic, with the flow such as it was, in the hubbub of confusion that is generated when you suddenly introduce more than 1 million extra vehicles in the course of two years into a city that previously had only a few hundred thousand vehicles, and no real licensing authority.

As we approached one semi-infamous intersection along the main route used by Blackwater between the International Zone (a.k.a. the Green Zone) and the Ministry of Interior, one of Blackwater’s convoys roared through. Apparently, Blackwater’s agents did not like the look of us, the main body of cars in front of them. Their response was, to say the least, contrary to the best interests of the United States effort in Iraq. Barreling through in their huge, black armored Suburbans and Expeditions, they drove other cars onto the sidewalk even as they popped off rounds from at least one weapon, though I cannot say if the shots were aimed at us or fired into the sky as a warning. I do know one thing: It enraged me … and Blackwater is, at least nominally, on our side.

But imagining that incident from an Iraqi perspective made it clear to me that though Blackwater USA draws its paycheck from Uncle Sam, it’s not working in Uncle Sam’s best interests. If I was this angry, I can only imagine the reactions of the tens of thousands of Iraqis who encounter Blackwater personnel on a regular basis.

Iraq operates on the basis of an honor culture. Honor is, arguably, more important than Islam. Being dishonored, in word or deed, or even by implication, is enough to set the average Iraqi man to plotting his revenge. This is a culture in which political assassinations (usually based on honor issues) are not an abstraction but an everyday occurrence. Every time one of those Blackwater convoys drives an Iraqi civilian off the road because the most important thing in the world is the protection of their “principal,” they make a new enemy for the United States. Every time they ram another car to clear the way (and, yes, I’ve seen them do that), so that they could maintain their own speed and thereby minimize their exposure to “improvised explosive devices,” they make another enemy. Every time they kill innocent civilians, or wound them, they make whole families of new enemies.

This understanding of the backlash effect from dishonoring an Iraqi is included in a past military counterinsurgency manual, “Instructions for American Servicemen in Iraq during World War II,” recently re-published by the University of Chicago Press. But the reality is that Blackwater USA, from top to bottom, just does not care.

What employees of the private security firm care about, and I have heard this from the Blackwaters with whom I interacted in Iraq, is their paycheck. They care about their huge compensation packages, and about getting home alive to spend them. Blackwater USA has already taken in more than $1 billion from the public coffers.

All in all, that’s not a bad take for Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater and a Naval Academy dropout who served less time under the colors of the nation, in uniform, than my most recent pair of boots.

Robert Bateman is a historian and U.S. Army infantry officer. He served in Iraq in 2005 and 2006. His most recent book is “No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident.”

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Robert Bateman, chicagotribune.com, 2007

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=7169

© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original and Only” Gunny G!
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html

HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********


Nukes Over America: Just a Stupid Mistake. Sure It Is

October 29, 2007

Nukes Over America: Just a Stupid Mistake. Sure It Is

By Dave Lindorff

Global Research, October 21, 2007
AfterDowningStreet.org

The Air Force’s Friday report on the August 29-30 nuclear weapons incident which saw six armed cruise missiles flown across the continental US in launch position on a B-52H bomber leaves all the big questions unanswered, attempting to shuck the whole thing off as an “unacceptable mistake.”

To be sure, Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne and Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations Maj. Gen. Richard Newton, said that after a six-week investigation, five officers, including Col. Bruce Emig, commander of the Fifth Bomb Group at Minot AFB in North Dakota, where the flight originated, have been relieved of duty, and 65 other Air Force personnel were also removed from their duties, and both Barksdale and Minot were decertified for their strategic nuclear responsibilities. But that’s still pretty small beer for an incident so serious it’s never happened before in half a century of nuclear weapons handling.

There are, at this point, no court martials being contemplated, and nobody’s been discharged from the military.

Put simply, six 150-kiloton warheads were improperly attached to six Advanced Cruise Missiles, all loaded onto a wing launch pod, and then mounted on the wing of a B-52 H Stratofortress at Minot, along with six similar missiles with dummy warheads, which were loaded onto a launch pod on the plane’s other wing, an all 12 were improperly and illegally flown across the country to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana.

The Air Force, following its “investigation,” is saying the same thing it said before the investigation: it was all a big “mistake”—the result of “widespread disregard for the rules” regarding handling of nuclear weapons.

A few guys at Minot “inexplicably” screwed up and loaded the nukes and then there were a chain of mistakes because no one else treated the nuclear-tipped missiles as if they were armed with nuclear weapons.

The trouble with this theory, or story line if you will, is that while nobody at Minot, supposedly, noticed what was happening—even though ground crew workers spent eight hours laboring to get the pod with the six nuke-tipped missiles mounted on the plane’s wing. This despite the warheads are clearly visible and identifiable by the silver coating they exhibit when viewed through a little window in each nosecone cover, and because there are red coverings on the nuke nosecones—once the plane got to Barksdale, the ground crew there, which had no reason on earth to suspect it was looking at nuclear warheads, spotted them immediately upon going to the plane.
They had no reason to expect nukes because for 40 years it has been illegal for the military to carry nuclear weapons on bombers over US territory, and indeed since 1991, it has been illegal to even load nuclear weapons on a plane, period, even for training purposes on the ground.

How can it be that Air Force ground crew people at Barksdale could spot the nukes in a flash while nobody at Minot—not the workers who mounted the warheads on the missiles in the heavily guarded bunker, not the guards who are supposed to guard those weapons with their lives and prevent any unauthorized removal from the bunkers, not the ground crew that loaded them onto the plan, and not the pilot and crew of the bomber, who are supposed to check every missile before they take off—noticed they were nuclear warheads? (The weapons went unnoticed for 10 hours in Barksdale, but that’s only because no groundcrew visited the plane for that long, but when they did go to it, they reportedly spotted the nukes right off the bat.)

The Air Force, at a press conference announcing the results of its investigation, didn’t answer this question. It appears they reporters at the session didn’t ask it either.

Certainly the AP reporter didn’t ask it, because if she had, she would surely have included the Air Force’s answer, or it’s non-answer, in her story.

Nobody, apparently, asked the Air Force either about six mysterious violent deaths of Air Force personnel from Minot and Barksdale, and from a mysterious Air Force Special Commando Group, all of which occurred in the days and weeks immediately before, during and after the incident. Two of those deaths—of the Special Commando Group officer and of a Minot weapons guard—were reportedly “suicides.”

In an article in the current issue of American Conservative magazine, currently on newsstands, I report that incredibly, no federal investigators from the Pentagon or the federal government even bothered to contact the police investigators or medical examiners who investigated those six deaths—an remarkable failure of due diligence, given the seriousness of this incident.

One retired Navy officer who contacted me during my investigation, who worked in electronic warfare, told me it would be simply impossible for those weapons to have been moved out of the storage bunker. He claims to know for a certainty that all nuclear weapons in the US arsenal are equipped with high-tech tags (“like they have at WalMart and Kmart only better”) that would instantly trigger alarms when the weapons are moved, unless they were deliberately disarmed.

So what we have is pretty clearly a cover-up here.

A cover-up of what though?

Here we’re into speculation.

One thing we need to keep in mind is that Barksdale AFB, on its website, advertises itself proudly as the base that prepares B-52s for duty in the Middle East Theater.

Another thing we need to keep in mind is that Vice President Dick Cheney is trying hard to gin up a war against Iran, against the better judgment of top military leaders and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

And a third thing to remember is that these particular six warheads, called M80-1 warheads, are able to be adjusted to have a power of anywhere from 150 kilotons down to just 5 kilotons—a so-called “tactical” size.

Perfect for a tactical strike on an Iranian nuclear processing or research site, or for a “false flag” type attack that could be blamed on a fledgling nuclear power…like Iran.

Of course this is all speculation.

What we do know is that for 36 hours, six nuclear warheads went missing. Nobody at the Pentagon in authority knew they were gone or where they were. And when they were discovered, the initial Pentagon response was to cover it all up. The only reason we know about this incident is that three Air Force officers became whistle-blowers and contacted a reporter at Military Times, a private newspaper trusted by and popular with the rank-and-file military.

And what we know is that this couldn’t have been what the Air Force, six weeks and one “investigation” late, is calling a “mistake.”

Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-based investigative journalist and columnist. His latest book, co-authored by Barbara Olshansky, is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now out in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Dave Lindorff, AfterDowningStreet.org, 2007

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=7147

© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original and Only” Gunny G!
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html

HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********


$100,000 REWARD–Offered To Anyone Who Can Solve The USAF Major Jill Metzger Case!

October 29, 2007

$100,000 REWARD–Offered To Anyone Who Can Solve The USAF Major Jill Metzger Case!
Military Corruption Dot Com ^ | October 29th, 2007 | Glenn MacDonald

Note:

New/updated URL provided below…

http://www.militarycorruption.com/metzger15.htm 

Posted on 10/29/2007 7:36:08 PM EDT by Wills Powers

Readers of this mass circulation military web site – 1.6 million hits per month – know we have offered Air Force “poster girl,” Maj. Jill Metzger, $100,000 to come clean and tell the true story of what really happened to her in Kyrgyzstan in September of 2006.

Hundreds of our readers have contacted us since we started our relentless investigation into this “cover-up” to express their disgust at Air Force Chief of Staff. Gen. T. Michael Moseley and other top brass hats who have oddly fallen all over themselves to genuflect in Jill’s direction.

Now we have made our $100,000 offer “reward” money, payable to anyone – military or civilian – who can provide us with information leading to the arrest and conviction of those who may be responsible for deceiving our men and women in uniform and defrauding the disability pension system.

Few things are lower and more disgusting than someone “scamming” or being allowed to rip off a “disability” pension, which genuinely injured and wounded veterans returning to the USA from Iraq and Afghanistan deserve, but often don’t get. Even soldiers and Marines who have lost an arm or a leg in combat aren’t as lucky as Jill, who strangely enough started out with the maximum amount after being declared 100% “disabled” prior to the Air Force quietly easing her out the back door.

(Excerpt) Read more at militarycorruption.com …

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1918118/posts

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
**********
The “Original and Only” Gunny G!
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html

HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!

**********


Hey, Soldiers: Quit Whining! Troops Suck Up to Bush, Ask for Support

October 29, 2007

Hey, Soldiers: Quit Whining!

Troops Suck Up to Bush, Ask for Support

By Ted Rall

10/26/07 “ICH” — –

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18626.htm

COLUMBUS, OHIO–Over a year ago, in March 2006, the military newspaper Stars and Stripes published the results of a Zogby poll of troops serving in Iraq. 72 percent said U.S. forces should withdraw within a year. Twenty-five percent thought we should pull out right away. But 85 percent said a major reason they were there was “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the September 11 attacks.” These people are confused, to say the least.

Even more confusing is the persistent flow of complaints by Iraq War veterans that Americans on the home front are partying like it’s 2009 while their comrades back in Vichy Mesopotamia are getting blown up.

Army infantry officer Will Bardenwerper gave voice to this oft-stated sentiment in an October 20th New York Times op/ed. “As I began my 13-month deployment (in Tal Afar, Iraq),” wrote a dispirited Bardenwerper, “I imagined an American public following our progress with the same concern as my family and friends. But since returning home, I have seen that America has changed the channel.” He was struck by “the disparity between the lives of the few who are fighting and being killed, and the many who have been asked for nothing more than to continue shopping.”

Typical suggestions for fairer distribution of sacrifice and a military draft–the latter to obtain additional manpower and inspire antiwar marchers to fill the streets like they did during Vietnam–follow. At least he left out the usual calls for victory gardens and gas rationing.

The war sucks. On that point, the millions of Americans who were against it from the start (and the many millions more who’ve come around to agreeing with us) agree with the soldiers serving in it. Forced reenlistment through the “stop-loss” loophole is placing thousands of lives in suspended animation, destroying marriages and small businesses. Troops aren’t getting enough protective gear.

It’s also true that Americans have stopped paying attention. I’m a news junkie. And even I flip the page past the same old “2 Dead, 7 Wounded in IED Blast” headline.

But hey, soldier, you volunteered. If not for you, there wouldn’t be a war in the first place.

“Supporting the troops means supporting their mission.” That’s been the mantra of the pro-war right. It’s been hard for those of us who oppose the war to argue with them because so many of the troops have repeatedly allowed themselves to be used as propaganda shills for Bush Administration officials and the Republican Party in general.

It’s bad enough that a majority of soldiers voted for Bush in 2004. Over and over since the war began, American troops have been seen on television applauding Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and others whose cynical recklessness have sent their buddies to their graves. Sailors cheered wildly when Bush staged his notorious “Mission Accomplished” photo op on an aircraft carrier. They swooned when he joined them for Thanksgiving dinner in Baghdad.

“The shocked and elated soldiers jumped to their feet, pumped their fists in the air, roared with delight, and grabbed their cameras to snap photographs,” reported CNN about Bush’s visit. A “standing ovation” followed. “It gave us a little extra oomph,” said a member of the 1st Armored Division. “It really boosted my morale,” said another. No one heckled or booed the imposter president. No one threw tomatoes. No one told him where he could stick his plastic turkey.

Even after soldiers get killed, their parents promote the war so their dead kids won’t be lonely in heaven. At Fort Benning, Georgia met Deb Tainsh, whose son was killed by a roadside bomb near the Baghdad Airport. She presented Bush with more than 100 e-mails from parents of soldiers who have died or are presently serving in Iraq. “Every one of these letters says, ‘Mr. President, we support you,’” she said. “The consensus is that they…want him to do everything he can to win this war and that our prayers are with him.”

“Bush, 61, has so far met with more than 1,500 relatives of the 4,255 American troops who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the Bloomberg News wire service reported last week. “In most of the meetings, [Bush's] aides say, he hears support for his policies, hardening his resolve to stay the course in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Few Gold Star mothers tell him off. Those who do are polite to the man who murdered their children as surely and as viciously as if he’d shot them himself. Why don’t they spit at him?

Four years after the WMDs and liberation flora failed to turn up, people still enlist. After soldiers die, their parents insist that theirs was a noble sacrifice. Tell me again: Why should I care about the war? Why shouldn’t I go shopping?

Soldiers who want antiwar Americans to march to demand that they be brought home should take a cue from Vietnam veterans. They marched with peace protesters and threw their medals at the Capitol. Soldiers