By Pershing Soldier 17 January 2021
― P.G. Wodehouse
― Oscar Wilde
― Jonathan Swift
― Kurt Vonnegut
By Pershing Soldier 17 January 2021
Missouri Territory 19 November 2020
By @PershingSoldier on Twitter/Parler
Army General Anthony McAuliff – the acting division commander of the 101st Airborne Division troops defending Bastogne, Belgium, during World War II’s Battle of the Bulge, famous for his single-word reply of “Nuts!” in response to a German surrender ultimatum.
I suppose it was destined to come to a moment like this. The ultimate battle of our outsider President against the Swamp, the establishment and the growing octopus that the Stalinist Left has become. He’s in a similar place the good General quoted above was in, encircled by a desperate evil force.
One man stands, almost alone, leveraging all of the tools and strength he has, against the nauseating malevolence of multiple corrupt institutions.
He is all we have, while we wait for the Senate to be settled. A weakened Pelosi house is still dangerous enough.
The leftist cabal is well funded, aligned, highly organized and completely anti-liberty. ‘Progressive-ism’ has replaced any type of normal religious faith for most of its adherents.
Our President has sent his General McAuliff message post-election: “I WON BY ALLOT!!!” He’s not conceding. There will be no surrender. He is re-grouping and assembling his most effective battle force. Its taken some time. MAGA world is loyal but frustrated. The emerging facts are well covered by Sidney Powell, Giuliani and most recently Lin Wood.
American liberty stands at an historical precipice. Lincoln’s short pre-civil war period as president comes to mind. The insidious presidency of Woodrow Wilson looms as a warning, with its embrace of eugenics, covert racism and embrace of globalist ideals. As Mark Levin has pointed out, leftist media is nothing new. The ‘Party Press’ existed through much of the 19th century. Their flirtation with professionalism was brief, mid 20th century. In fact it’s debatable whether it ever happened.
Fellow patriots we are in a sobering place.
“You, me or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. It’s not about how hard you hit. It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That’s how winning is done!”
Rocky Balboa, from Rocky 6
We have a president who personifies this sentiment put forth by one of this author’s favorite fictional characters. Donald Trump lives this sentiment vividly. If there is ever evidence of someone showing up at exactly the right time in history, it may in fact, be him. See ‘Is the Devine Hand Present’ on this website.
Can he pull it off?
“Do your damnedest in an ostentatious manner all the time.”
General George S Patton
Style matters little despite the MSM obsession with tweets and press conference ass chewings from President Trump. (BTW – NY Gov Cuomo is 100 times more harsh and disrespectful with reporters and it goes unreported). Many have observed similarities between General George Patton and Donald Trump. Patton, a man of salty and colorful language, was sidelined for slapping a soldier that reported battle fatigue with no injuries. The press brutalized him. Eisenhower quietly redeployed him to command of an army him when it was time to win the war in Europe. He delivered. Trump like Patton is now down. It will not be for long.
The President’s two most valuable lieutenants are Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell. Their ability to collect testimony of patriots and protect them in the process is critical. We must hold on.
The Republican Party is still adrift with the disloyal, the self-interested, the unreliable and the stench of John McCain. Slowly it seems to be coalescing in support of the President. GOP Chairwoman Rona McDaniel gets credit for holding the line. Unity is about to become critical in importance.
The Press has eagerly been resurrecting Fake Swamp Rules of late. They include:
For all of us right now:
Beware Leftist/Stalinist Tools:
Embrace Patriotic Conservative Tools:
What must come next:
That’s where we are RIGHT NOW, fellow patriots. You know what to do.
December 23, 1776
THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.
From The Crisis, by Thomas Paine
by Guardian 6 8 November 2020
While the leftist news media that is America’s Mainstream Media (MSM) has declared the presidential race for Joe Biden, a majority of Americans are both perplexed and shocked at this outcome. How can a failed 47 year politician that literally campaigned from his basement and failed to garner voter enthusiasm win? All things are possible when good men and women choose tyranny over freedom as they put this special constitutional republic that is America at risk. Dark forces are in play.
Tech Giants. To the Technology Giants that censored President Trump, news outlets and hid stories not favorable to Biden, you will suffer significant loss of market share and you will be met in court with several class action lawsuits. A majority of Americans are sickened by statist tactics.
MSM. You openly favored Biden over Trump. You shaped the news for four years to attack President Trump, his family and his cabinet. Your tyranny weakened America and weakened our institutions. You created one fake news story after another as hit jobs on the president. America witnessed your elitist attitudes daily and now there is no doubt that you are true frauds. Foxnews, Drudge Report and the other conservative sell outs you will burn in hell. CNN, MSNBC and the Washington Post you are not worthy of comment.
Beltway Generals & Admirals. To the military career political types like James Clapper, Mike Hayden and Stan McCrystal your public contempt for the Commander and Chief sets a poor example to members of the Armed Forces, to their parents and their loved one’s and you have violated a basic tenet of Civil Military Relations failing to remain apolitical. Your egos and thirst to be loved by the swamp power class demonstrates your ultimate lack of character and candor. You are brazen failures.
Democratic Members of Congress. You put your party over our country. You set the country ablaze with the Russian Hoax, the Ukranian Hoax and your classless behavior toward the president. You are led by a tyrant in Nancy Pelosi who is an elitist out of touch with the American people. You are filled with hate and despise our individual liberties. You have bankrupted our country and the next generation with massive debt. You stuff your pockets with American wealth and live by a different set of rules. You are openly anti-American and the Squad actively undermines America. You personify empty barrels that make the most noise while failing to positively impact the lives of Americans. Adam Schiff is perhaps the greatest congressional tyrant in US history. He has lied unabashedly about President Trump and putting the country through hell fully enabled by Speaker Pelosi. Pelosi and Schiff are sick, demented humans. Schumer, Nadler and the lot of them offer no answer, no solutions. Just hate and discontent. Power first and foremost, rules and good governance be damned.
Robert Mueller, James Comey & John Brennan. In a different time not too long ago, you would be prosecuted for treason. You sold out our country, corrupted our institutions and promulgated false lies about our president. You personify the word tyrant. You are statists. You are not Americans. You are not patriots. You disgust a majority of Americans. You are tools of the swamp and masters of deception. Hell awaits you three self righteous assholes.
Hammer & Scorecard Tyrants. If you deployed these tools of war in this election, or previous one’s, you will be caught. I know having gotten away with all you have against President Trump you feel invincible. You are not. Eventually, good people will come forward before you Clintoncide them. You are destroying our republic and show such little regard for your fellow citizens. You will be caught. We know who you are and we know this software has likely been deployed to manipulate the vote. Justice is coming.
Stooges. I do not know what you are getting paid to manipulate the vote count in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee, etc. but you have sold your soul and sold out your country. Is it worth it? The Democratic Machine is soulless and full of tyrants.
Project Lincoln & RINOs. Nobody likes disloyal assholes like you. Nobody likes you. Nobody!
China. You now have your Manchurian candidate Joe Biden. You took Hong Kong and many of us suspect you have a plan to attempt to take Taiwan within the next couple years. Is this the blackmail price for Joe Biden’s silence? You unleashed a virus on the western world to destroy our economies, weaken President Trump and to overtake the US economy. You are counting on Joe Biden to tolerate China’s rise to economic, space and military dominance. Xi JinPing you overplayed your hand. Badly. I leave it there for now. There are many more Americans than Stooges and Sellouts. JinPing, just remember the word, “Badly,” asshole.
To my fellow American patriots, I am like you still processing the bold, criminal undermining of our election system. I trust President Trump and many of the good people that surround him. We know this election was sytematically stolen from us. Day by day the President lost votes each night in the cover of darkness with poll watchers blocked from observering. Now is a time to stand with President Trump and push back against the Mob. I for one will do that. America First!
by Guardian 6 27 September 2020
The choice is very clear. On the left you have Joe Biden, a 50 year politician with a vacant legislative record that served as Obama’s VP. On the right you have Donald Trump, a brash successful business man that has a record of accomplishment as President of the United States. It is a time for Choosing.
On the left they want to fundamentally transform America into a socialist country. On the right they want to uphold America’s promise and the U.S. Constitution. President Trump has declared, “America will never be a socialist country.”
On the left they push an agenda of defunding the police and chant “no justice, no peace.” On the right the rule of law and law enforcement are supported and recognized as needed in a civil society for law and order.
On the left the Marxist Black Lives Matter movement marches in the street intermixed with destructive ANTIFA elements destroying businesses and attacking people. On the right police organizations are trying to secure the peace along with National Guard and federal security elements to create space for lawful civil protests respecting individual rights.
On the left COVID19 has been weaponized to keep businesses and schools closed, to restrict public activities and to put Americans in masks. On the right mayors and governors are pushing to re-open businesses, schools and sports to get Americans back to work.
On the left the mask is a symbol of following the science and being responsible in stopping the coronavirus spread. On the right the mask is a symbol of repression and extremism in closing down America for political gain.
In Democratic run cities such as Portland, Seattle and New York City mobs have taken control of the streets while their mayors defund police departments and order police to not engage rioters. Destruction of personal property, businesses and crime are souring. In Republican run cities calm, law and order are prevailing.
Democratic run states like California, Michigan and New York continue to mandate repressive laws restricting businesses from opening and denying individual rights. Republican run states like Florida, Ohio, and South Dakota are open for business and getting on with the business of America managing to mitigate the ChinaVirus.
On the left the Mainstream Media and Hollywood backs Biden. On the right the Forgotten Man and Deplorables back Trump. While the left screams for one false investigation after another, the right just drives on with the business of America.
While Biden campaigns from his basement with highly orchestrated scripted events and conducts interviews with a teleprompter, Trump campaigns at an aggressive clip holding MAGA Rallies and interviews throughout the country.
America has reached a crossroad. Socialism vs. Constitutional Republic. Tyranny vs. Liberty. Biden vs. Trump.
America, It Is A Time For Choosing.
Gerald R. Ford, 38th President (1974-1977)
Ladies and gentlemen:
Richard M. Nixon
The Great Silent Majority
3 November 1969
Good evening, my fellow Americans.
Tonight I want to talk to you on a subject of deep concern to all Americans and to many people in all parts of the world, the war in Vietnam.
I believe that one of the reasons for the deep division about Vietnam is that many Americans have lost confidence in what their Government has told them about our policy. The American people cannot and should not be asked to support a policy which involves the overriding issues of war and peace unless they know the truth about that policy.
Tonight, therefore, I would like to answer some of the questions that I know are on the minds of many of you listening to me.
How and why did America get involved in Vietnam in the first place?
How has this administration changed the policy of the previous Administration?
What has really happened in the negotiations in Paris and on the battlefront in Vietnam?
What choices do we have if we are to end the war?
What are the prospects for peace?
Now let me begin by describing the situation I found when I was inaugurated on January 20: The war had been going on for four years. Thirty-one thousand Americans had been killed in action. The training program for the South Vietnamese was beyond [behind] schedule. Five hundred and forty-thousand Americans were in Vietnam with no plans to reduce the number. No progress had been made at the negotiations in Paris and the United States had not put forth a comprehensive peace proposal.
The war was causing deep division at home and criticism from many of our friends, as well as our enemies, abroad.
In view of these circumstances, there were some who urged that I end the war at once by ordering the immediate withdrawal of all American forces. From a political standpoint, this would have been a popular and easy course to follow. After all, we became involved in the war while my predecessor was in office. I could blame the defeat, which would be the result of my action, on him — and come out as the peacemaker. Some put it to me quite bluntly: This was the only way to avoid allowing Johnson’s war to become Nixon’s war.
But I had a greater obligation than to think only of the years of my Administration, and of the next election. I had to think of the effect of my decision on the next generation, and on the future of peace and freedom in America, and in the world.
Let us all understand that the question before us is not whether some Americans are for peace and some Americans are against peace. The question at issue is not whether Johnson’s war becomes Nixon’s war. The great question is: How can we win America’s peace?
Well, let us turn now to the fundamental issue: Why and how did the United States become involved in Vietnam in the first place? Fifteen years ago North Vietnam, with the logistical support of Communist China and the Soviet Union, launched a campaign to impose a Communist government on South Vietnam by instigating and supporting a revolution.
In response to the request of the Government of South Vietnam, President Eisenhower sent economic aid and military equipment to assist the people of South Vietnam in their efforts to prevent a Communist takeover. Seven years ago, President Kennedy sent 16,000 military personnel to Vietnam as combat advisers. Four years ago, President Johnson sent American combat forces to South Vietnam.
Now many believe that President Johnson’s decision to send American combat forces to South Vietnam was wrong. And many others, I among them, have been strongly critical of the way the war has been conducted.
But the question facing us today is: Now that we are in the war, what is the best way to end it?
In January I could only conclude that the precipitate withdrawal of all American forces from Vietnam would be a disaster not only for South Vietnam but for the United States and for the cause of peace.
For the South Vietnamese, our precipitate withdrawal would inevitably allow the Communists to repeat the massacres which followed their takeover in the North 15 years before. They then murdered more than 50,000 people and hundreds of thousands more died in slave labor camps.
We saw a prelude of what would happen in South Vietnam when the Communists entered the city of Hue last year. During their brief rule there, there was a bloody reign of terror in which 3,000 civilians were clubbed, shot to death, and buried in mass graves.
With the sudden collapse of our support, these atrocities at Hue would become the nightmare of the entire nation and particularly for the million-and-a half Catholic refugees who fled to South Vietnam when the Communists took over in the North.
For the United States this first defeat in our nation’s history would result in a collapse of confidence in American leadership not only in Asia but throughout the world.
Three American Presidents have recognized the great stakes involved in Vietnam and understood what had to be done.
In 1963 President Kennedy with his characteristic eloquence and clarity said,
“We want to see a stable Government there,” carrying on the [a] struggle to maintain its national independence.” We believe strongly in that. We are not going to withdraw from that effort. In my opinion, for us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam but Southeast Asia. So we’re going to stay there.”¹
President Eisenhower and President Johnson expressed the same conclusion during their terms of office.
For the future of peace, precipitate withdrawal would be a disaster of immense magnitude. A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends. Our defeat and humiliation in South Vietnam without question would promote recklessness in the councils of those great powers who have not yet abandoned their goals of worlds conquest. This would spark violence wherever our commitments help maintain the peace — in the Middle East, in Berlin, eventually even in the Western Hemisphere. Ultimately, this would cost more lives. It would not bring peace. It would bring more war.
For these reasons I rejected the recommendation that I should end the war by immediately withdrawing all of our forces. I chose instead to change American policy on both the negotiating front and the battle front in order to end the war fought on many fronts. I initiated a pursuit for peace on many fronts. In a television speech on May 14, in a speech before the United Nations, on a number of other occasions, I set forth our peace proposals in great detail.
We have offered the complete withdrawal of all outside forces within one year. We have proposed a cease fire under international supervision. We have offered free elections under international supervision with the Communists participating in the organization and conduct of the elections as an organized political force. And the Saigon government has pledged to accept the result of the election.
We have not put forth our proposals on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. We have indicated that we’re willing to discuss the proposals that have been put forth by the other side. We have declared that anything is negotiable, except the right of the people of South Vietnam to determine their own future.
At the Paris peace conference Ambassador Lodge has demonstrated our flexibility and good faith in 40 public meetings. Hanoi has refused even to discuss our proposals. They demand our unconditional acceptance of their terms which are that we withdraw all American forces immediately and unconditionally and that we overthrow the government of South Vietnam as we leave.
We have not limited our peace initiatives to public forums and public statements. I recognized in January that a long and bitter war like this usually cannot be settled in a public forum. That is why in addition to the public statements and negotiations, I have explored every possible private avenue that might lead to a settlement.
Tonight, I am taking the unprecedented step of disclosing to you some of our other initiatives for peace, initiatives we undertook privately and secretly because we thought we thereby might open a door which publicly would be closed.
I did not wait for my inauguration to begin my quest for peace. Soon after my election, through an individual who was directly in contact on a personal basis with the leaders of North Vietnam, I made two private offers for a rapid, comprehensive settlement. Hanoi’s replies called in effect for our surrender before negotiations. Since the Soviet Union furnishes most of the military equipment for North Vietnam, Secretary of State Rogers, my assistant for national security affairs, Dr. Kissinger, Ambassador Lodge and I personally have met on a number of occasions with representatives of the Soviet Government to enlist their assistance in getting meaningful negotiations started. In addition, we have had extended discussions directed toward that same end with representatives of other governments which have diplomatic relations with North Vietnam.
None of these initiatives have to date produced results. In mid-July I became convinced that it was necessary to make a major move to break the deadlock in the Paris talks. I spoke directly in this office, where I’m now sitting, with an individual who had known Ho Chi Minh on a personal basis for 25 years. Through him I sent a letter to Ho Chi Minh. I did this outside of the usual diplomatic channels with the hope that with the necessity of making statements for propaganda removed, there might be constructive progress toward bringing the war to an end.
Let me read from that letter to you now:
Dear Mr. President:
I realize that it is difficult to communicate meaningfully across the gulf of four years of war. But precisely because of this gulf I wanted to take this opportunity to reaffirm in all solemnity my desire to work for a just peace. I deeply believe that the war in Vietnam has gone on too long and delay in bringing it to an end can benefit no one, least of all the people of Vietnam. The time has come to move forward at the conference table toward an early resolution of this tragic war. You will find us forthcoming and open-minded in a common effort to bring the blessings of peace to the brave people of Vietnam. Let history record that at this critical juncture both sides turned their face toward peace rather than toward conflict and war.
I received Ho Chi Minh’s reply on August 30, three days before his death. It simply reiterated the public position North Vietnam had taken at Paris and flatly rejected my initiative. The full text of both letters is being released to the press.
In addition to the public meetings that I have referred to, Ambassador Lodge has met with Vietnam’s chief negotiator in Paris in 11 private sessions. And we have taken other significant initiatives which must remain secret to keep open some channels of communications which may still prove to be productive.
But the effect of all the public, private, and secret negotiations which have been undertaken since the bombing halt a year ago, and since this Administration came into office on January 20th, can be summed up in one sentence: No progress whatever has been made except agreement on the shape of the bargaining table.
Well, now, who’s at fault? It’s become clear that the obstacle in negotiating an end to the war is not the President of the United States. It is not the South Vietnamese Government. The obstacle is the other side’s absolute refusal to show the least willingness to join us in seeking a just peace. And it will not do so while it is convinced that all it has to do is to wait for our next concession, and our next concession after that one, until it gets everything it wants.
There can now be no longer any question that progress in negotiation depends only on Hanoi ’s deciding to negotiate — to negotiate seriously. I realize that this report on our efforts on the diplomatic front is discouraging to the American people, but the American people are entitled to know the truth — the bad news as well as the good news — where the lives of our young men are involved.
Now let me turn, however, to a more encouraging report on another front. At the time we launched our search for peace, I recognized we might not succeed in bringing an end to the war through negotiations. I therefore put into effect another plan to bring peace — a plan which will bring the war to an end regardless of what happens on the negotiating front. It is in line with the major shift in U. S. foreign policy which I described in my press conference at Guam on July 25. Let me briefly explain what has been described as the “Nixon Doctrine” — a policy which not only will help end the war in Vietnam but which is an essential element of our program to prevent future Vietnams.
We Americans are a do-it-yourself people — we’re an impatient people. Instead of teaching someone else to do a job, we like to do it ourselves. And this trait has been carried over into our foreign policy. In Korea, and again in Vietnam, the United States furnished most of the money, most of the arms, and most of the men to help the people of those countries defend their freedom against Communist aggression.
Before any American troops were committed to Vietnam, a leader of another Asian country expressed this opinion to me when I was traveling in Asia as a private citizen. He said: “When you are trying to assist another nation defend its freedom, U.S. policy should be to help them fight the war, but not to fight the war for them.”
Well in accordance with this wise counsel, I laid down in Guam three principles as guidelines for future American policy toward Asia. First, the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments. Second, we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us, or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security. Third, in cases involving other types of aggression we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.
After I announced this policy, I found that the leaders of the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, South Korea, other nations which might be threatened by Communist aggression, welcomed this new direction in American foreign policy.
The defense of freedom is everybody’s business — not just America’s business. And it is particularly the responsibility of the people whose freedom is threatened. In the previous Administration, we Americanized the war in Vietnam. In this Administration, we are Vietnamizing the search for peace.
The policy of the previous Administration not only resulted in our assuming the primary responsibility for fighting the war, but even more significant did not adequately stress the goal of strengthening the South Vietnamese so that they could defend themselves when we left.
The Vietnamization plan was launched following Secretary Laird’s visit to Vietnam in March. Under the plan, I ordered first a substantial increase in the training and equipment of South Vietnamese forces. In July, on my visit to Vietnam, I changed General Abrams’s orders, so that they were consistent with the objectives of our new policies. Under the new orders, the primary mission of our troops is to enable the South Vietnamese forces to assume the full responsibility for the security of South Vietnam. Our air operations have been reduced by over 20 per cent.
And now we have begun to see the results of this long-overdue change in American policy in Vietnam. After five years of Americans going into Vietnam we are finally bringing American men home. By December 15 over 60,000 men will have been withdrawn from South Vietnam, including 20 percent of all of our combat forces. The South Vietnamese have continued to gain in strength. As a result, they’ve been able to take over combat responsibilities from our American troops.
Two other significant developments have occurred since this Administration took office. Enemy infiltration, infiltration which is essential if they are to launch a major attack over the last three months, is less than 20 percent of what it was over the same period last year. And most important, United States casualties have declined during the last two months to the lowest point in three years.
Let me now turn to our program for the future. We have adopted a plan which we have worked out in cooperation with the South Vietnamese for the complete withdrawal of all U.S. combat ground forces and their replacement by South Vietnamese forces on an orderly scheduled timetable. This withdrawal will be made from strength and not from weakness. As South Vietnamese forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can become greater.
I have not, and do not, intend to announce the timetable for our program, and there are obvious reasons for this decision which I’m sure you will understand. As I’ve indicated on several occasions, the rate of withdrawal will depend on developments on three fronts. One of these is the progress which can be, or might be, made in the Paris talks. An announcement of a fixed timetable for our withdrawal would completely remove any incentive for the enemy to negotiate an agreement. They would simply wait until our forces had withdrawn and then move in.
The other two factors on which we will base our withdrawal decisions are the level of enemy activity and the progress of the training programs of the South Vietnamese forces. And I am glad to be able to report tonight progress on both of these fronts has been greater than we anticipated when we started the program in June for withdrawal. As a result, our timetable for withdrawal is more optimistic now than when we made our first estimates in June.
Now this clearly demonstrates why it is not wise to be frozen in on a fixed timetable. We must retain the flexibility to base each withdrawal decision on the situation as it is at that time, rather than on estimates that are no longer valid. Along with this optimistic estimate, I must in all candor leave one note of caution. If the level of enemy activity significantly increases, we might have to adjust our timetable accordingly.
However, I want the record to be completely clear on one point. At the time of the bombing halt just a year ago there was some confusion as to whether there was an understanding on the part of the enemy that if we stopped the bombing of North Vietnam, they would stop the shelling of cities in South Vietnam.
I want to be sure that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the enemy with regard to our withdrawal program. We have noted the reduced level of infiltration, the reduction of our casualties and are basing our withdrawal decisions partially on those factors. If the level of infiltration or our casualties increase while we are trying to scale down the fighting, it will be the result of a conscious decision by the enemy. Hanoi could make no greater mistake than to assume that an increase in violence will be to its advantage.
If I conclude that increased enemy action jeopardizes our remaining forces in Vietnam, I shall not hesitate to take strong and effective measures to deal with that situation. This is not a threat. This is a statement of policy which as Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces I am making and meeting my responsibility for the protection of American fighting men wherever they may be.
My fellow Americans, I am sure you can recognize from what I have said that we really only have two choices open to us if we want to end this war. I can order an immediate precipitate withdrawal of all Americans from Vietnam without regard to the effects of that action. Or we can persist in our search for a just peace through a negotiated settlement, if possible, or through continued implementation of our plan for Vietnamization, if necessary — a plan in which we will withdraw all of our forces from Vietnam on a schedule in accordance with our program as the South Vietnamese become strong enough to defend their own freedom.
I have chosen this second course. It is not the easy way. It is the right way. It is a plan which will end the war and serve the cause of peace, not just in Vietnam but in the Pacific and in the world.
In speaking of the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, I mentioned that our allies would lose confidence in America. Far more dangerous, we would lose confidence in ourselves. Oh, the immediate reaction would be a sense of relief that our men were coming home. But as we saw the consequences of what we had done, inevitable remorse and divisive recrimination would scar our spirit as a people.
We have faced other crises in our history and we have become stronger by rejecting the easy way out and taking the right way in meeting our challenges. Our greatness as a nation has been our capacity to do what has to be done when we knew our course was right. I recognize that some of my fellow citizens disagree with the plan for peace I have chosen. Honest and patriotic Americans have reached different conclusions as to how peace should be achieved. In San Francisco a few weeks ago, I saw demonstrators carrying signs reading, “Lose in Vietnam, bring the boys home.” Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view.
But as President of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the nation by mounting demonstrations in the street. For almost 200 years, the policy of this nation has been made under our Constitution by those leaders in the Congress and the White House elected by all the people. If a vocal minority, however fervent its cause, prevails over reason and the will of the majority, this nation has no future as a free society.
And now, I would like to address a word, if I may, to the young people of this nation who are particularly concerned, and I understand why they are concerned, about this war. I respect your idealism. I share your concern for peace. I want peace as much as you do. There are powerful personal reasons I want to end this war. This week I will have to sign 83 letters to mothers, fathers, wives, and loved ones of men who have given their lives for America in Vietnam. It’s very little satisfaction to me that this is only one-third as many letters as I signed the first week in office. There is nothing I want more than to see the day come when I do not have to write any of those letters.
I want to end the war to save the lives of those brave young men in Vietnam. But I want to end it in a way which will increase the chance that their younger brothers and their sons will not have to fight in some future Vietnam some place in the world.
And I want to end the war for another reason. I want to end it so that the energy and dedication of you, our young people, now too often directed into bitter hatred against those responsible for the war, can be turned to the great challenges of peace, a better life for all Americans, a better life for all people on this earth.
I have chosen a plan for peace. I believe it will succeed. If it does not succeed, what the critics say now won’t matter. Or if it does succeed, what the critics say now won’t matter. If it does not succeed, anything I say then won’t matter.
I know it may not be fashionable to speak of patriotism or national destiny these days, but I feel it is appropriate to do so on this occasion. Two hundred years ago this nation was weak and poor. But even then, America was the hope of millions in the world. Today we have become the strongest and richest nation in the world, and the wheel of destiny has turned so that any hope the world has for the survival of peace and freedom will be determined by whether the American people have the moral stamina and the courage to meet the challenge of free-world leadership.
Let historians not record that, when America was the most powerful nation in the world, we passed on the other side of the road and allowed the last hopes for peace and freedom of millions of people to be suffocated by the forces of totalitarianism.
So tonight, to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans, I ask for your support. I pledged in my campaign for the Presidency to end the war in a way that we could win the peace. I have initiated a plan of action which will enable me to keep that pledge. The more support I can have from the American people, the sooner that pledge can be redeemed. For the more divided we are at home, the less likely the enemy is to negotiate at Paris.
Let us be united for peace. Let us also be united against defeat. Because let us understand — North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that.
Fifty years ago, in this room, and at this very desk, President Woodrow Wilson spoke words which caught the imagination of a war-weary world. He said: “This is the war to end wars.” His dream for peace after World War I was shattered on the hard reality of great power politics. And Woodrow Wilson died a broken man.
Tonight, I do not tell you that the war in Vietnam is the war to end wars, but I do say this: I have initiated a plan which will end this war in a way that will bring us closer to that great goal to which — to which Woodrow Wilson and every American President in our history has been dedicated — the goal of a just and lasting peace.
As President I hold the responsibility for choosing the best path for that goal and then leading the nation along it.
I pledge to you tonight that I shall meet this responsibility with all of the strength and wisdom I can command, in accordance with your hopes, mindful of your concerns, sustained by your prayers.
Thank you and good night.
My fellow Americans:
Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.
This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.
Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.
Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.
My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.
We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
Throughout America’s adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology — global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle — with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research — these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs — balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage — balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war — as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years — I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
So — in this my last good night to you as your President — I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I — my fellow citizens — need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation’s great goals.
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America’s prayerful and continuing aspiration.
Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040
Footnote: Published on the occasion of President Trump’s historic Middle East Peace Accord between Bahrain, UAE and Israel at the White House September 15th, 2020
by Black Jack Pershing (find on Twitter or Parler @PershingSoldier )
Dateline 161620 August 2020 Missouri Territory
“Relish the opportunity to be an outsider. Embrace that label — being an outsider is fine — because it’s the outsiders who change the world and who make a real and lasting difference.”
is a low class slob who came to my office looking for consulting work and I had zero interest. Now he picks anti-Trump panels!
While it is well established that his humor is not for everyone, it has been pointed out by the 53rd Regiment’s Lead Writer before, for many of us, President Trump’s tweets are like presents we awaken to on Christmas morning – but they happen every day! We will not see another President this entertaining in our lifetimes, if ever. The President is bigger than life, a billionaire from Queens NY – steeped in everything that was ever great and amazing about NYC – and he brings that to work with him every day. The tweets, the press conference ass chewing of nitwit reporters, the many classic lines at his rallies. And the nicknames. The nicknames. For some of us, who have watched the likes of Dan Rather and Sam Donaldson in our youth, poking at President Reagan and those before him, this president has been amazingly satisfying. For those that love liberty but hate the rude, brash NYC vibe of POTUS, I say ‘hold your nose and vote for freedom’. For those Stalinist left, I say plainly, ‘Go home to Mommy and the Wall just got 10 feet taller!’
by Guardian 6 Dateline 1 August 2020
This flag crossed the Delaware River Christmas night 1776 with Washington conducting a surprise attack against British forces in Trenton defeating them.
This flag was carried by Union Army forces in the Civil War during numerous battles to preserve America, defeat Confederate forces and end slavery.
This flag has been carried into space by numerous US Astronauts and planted on the Moon by Neil Armstrong “as one step for man and one huge step for mankind.”
This flag was raised after the attacks of September 11th 2001 that included attacks at the World Trade Center NY, the Pentagon and Stonycreek Township, Pennsylvania where a group of American patriots engaged terrorists with one simple command. “Let’s roll,” knowing they would likely die in the attack but preventing the aircraft from hitting the halls of Congress.
This flag has served as a symbol of hope as it does today in Hong Kong; freed countless people around the world persecuted by tyrannical governments; and helped millions of people be free.
This flag has been carried to feed the hungry, free the oppressed and help people when natural disasters have struck.
This flag leads with humility, does not conquer. This flag loves does not hate. This flag is proudly displayed in houses of worship and respects and loves one true God.
This flag does not run. This flag does not seek a fight. But this flag will not waver. This flag will hold its ground and when necessary, this flag will fight and it will win.
This flag stands for liberty, justice and the American way of life.
The fact that this flag is under assault today by ignorant masses kneeling during the national anthem that includes leftists & democrats; , professional athletes; professional leagues such as MLB, NFL & NBA; ANTIFA; and some US government congressional members does not weaken our flag. It highlights to all Americans that our greatest threat to the American way of life is ignorance and a lack of appreciation for the blessing of America and the majestic course of liberty our Founding Fathers put this country on. This flag reminds us America is worth fighting for. I stand. I will always stand.