Daily news sites| Find Breaking World News
Latest Updates

Giveaway- $50 to spend on TellStyle.com


Today I have for you a new worldwide GIVEAWAY: $50 to spend on TellStyle.com, a online shop where you can find great clothing, jewelry and accessories. All you have to do is to follow the requests:

                1. Follow Bittersweet Colours with Google Friend Connect and/or Facabook Page Here
                                                2. Follow TellStyle on Facebook Here, Twitter Here and Pinterest Here  


                                                  Leave a comment under this post with your email address and your name.
                                                                               Last day to enter is February 1
                                                                                             Good Luck!




BIPARTISANSHIP IS UNAMERICAN ... J. . Longstreet

BIPARTISANSHIP IS UNAMERICAN   ...   J. . Longstreet
BIPARTISANSHIP IS UNAMERICAN
A Commentary  by J. D. Longstreet


********************
I hate to tell you this… but BIPARTISANSHIP is “UNAMERICAN”!

Yep!

This is a partisan country. Partisans founded it. It was founded because there was a HUGE difference of opinion between the people of the colonies and the King of England. Democracy is “partisan”. It is the nature of our country and the nature of our government.

Allow me to tell you a short story that might help clear up the misunderstanding about the partisan and bipartisan nature of our country and government:

There was a truly bitter election back in the year 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. When all the voting was finished Thomas Jefferson had won. But… and here is the big but… as the result of a quirk in the way the Electoral College worked at the time, Jefferson was tied with his own Vice-Presidential candidate, Aaron Burr.

If you are ahead of me here. You know that things just got completely out of hand. See, the election went to the House of Representatives. The Federalists, who had supported John Adams, hated Thomas Jefferson so much they decided to throw all their support to his Vice-Presidential candidate Aaron Burr. Now, at the very moment Burr understood that he just MIGHT become President, well, it was “Katie bar the door!” Burr pulled out all the stops and he began maneuvering for those votes.

Back then the rules required the House of Representatives to vote by state. Well, on the first ballot Jefferson had eight states. That was one state short of what he needed. Six states voted for Burr and two states were tied. Now, over the next few days the House of Representatives had thirty-two more ballots… and guess what? Nothing changed; Jefferson and Burr remained tied as the vote totals remained unchanged!

Things were getting hot in The House... And that’s putting it mildly! Why, Jefferson’s supporters threatened to arm themselves and cause all sorts of bad things, including throwing some hot lead around the Well of the House, if Jefferson was not elected! And… they were not kidding! President John Adams, himself, is on record as having wrote: “a civil war was expected.” Things were so hot and tempers were so inflamed and the fear of violence was so grave that the governor of Virginia, who, by the way, was a Jefferson supporter, placed guards around a supply of 4,000 firearms to prevent them being seized by the Federalist and possibly used in forcing an outcome favoring their candidate.

The sole congressman from Delaware, a fellow by the name of John Bayard, controlled his state’s vote. The Federalists had been, up to this point, supporting Burr. But, after three days of ballot after ballot, Bayard announced that he was going to abstain. That would throw the election to Jefferson. Some really angry Federalist took to the floor of the house and shouted “Traitor, Traitor” at Bayard. But ole John Bayard stood his ground. He later said he did it to save his country.

As a result, the deadlock was broken and Thomas Jefferson became the President. Some four years later Alexander Hamilton was shot and killed in a duel with Aaron Burr. Hamilton had been one of the Federalists who refused to support Burr under any circumstances. Hamilton referred to Burr as “the most unfit man in the U.S. for the office of President.”

I share this wee bit of US history in an attempt to demonstrate that partisanship in the government of the US is in no way new. No. Absolutely not! It is the way the government works, it is the way the government was planned to work. Those loud calls for bipartisanship are deceptive as can be. They are used often as a tool to divert your attention away from the conniving behind the scenes by the very congresspersons calling loudest for bipartisanship. Understand that in a bipartisan House of Representatives, for example, it would insure that every piece of legislation coming before that body would be passed. That includes the rotten pieces of legislation as well as the good. At least with a partisan House the legislation will be debated and examined before it is passed or defeated.

The fact that Obama is polarizing the country is no surprise to those of us who have been around the block a few times. That was a given from the “git go.” The country is split, almost exactly in half, over Obama and his henchman’s plans for the country. I count myself, proudly, amongst that half who wants to see Obama’s presidency fail, utterly, and his plans and machinations all come to naught. If I am right, and I believe that I am, things are going to get a lot worse in the Polarization Department as the months and years go by, and all the trials and tribulations the American people are going to have to bear under an Obama regime unfold.

Many of those Americans who voted for Obama will rue the day!  Had they listened to the warnings from us “Old Bulls” they could have saved themselves, and the country, a lot of grief.


© J. D. Longstreet

your space or mine


As I mentioned on my 2013 goal list, redoing the girls’ room is on the agenda this year. So naturally Pinterest and I have kid rooms on the brain.

Amelia (5) and I have had many talks about not decorating around ‘phases’. That although you may be really into Dora right now, you don’t want to decorate your entire room around Dora because when that phase passes, you’ll have a lot of changing to do. Not only a good lesson and true, but also gets me out of saying “hell no, I’m not doing a whole room around Dora”. Sorry Nick Jr.

source
source
Whenever you hear designers talk about rooms for children they always talk about not getting too ‘themey’. Design a room that will, let’s say it all together now, grow with your child. And while I completely agree with that I worry that sometimes it can give crazy moms like me a free ticket out of including the kids' in the room at all. 

Of course my idea of a wonderful room is light years away from what the girls would pick. I'm loving a big layered bed with lots of pattern and Amelia wants Tinkerbell sheets. I'd love some really colorful abstract art on the wall and Eve wants pictures of Hello Kitty. And a light up Barbie is not my idea of killer lighting.
source
source
But I do want the girls' to feel like it is indeed their room. I want them to want to be in there. I want them to feel comfortable with and proud of their space, just as I would want for any adult that I work with. So I might have to bend in some areas and pick my battles. Which is true in every aspect of parenting, isn't it? And after all, we adults go through phases as well. We just call them trends. 

source
source
source
Do you think it's possible to achieve a room that is well designed but also represents the kid(s) who lives there? Do you go with ‘last until they’re a teenager’ school of thought? Or are you more of a ‘we’ll refresh it in a few years’ person?  

His Royal Majesty ... J. D. Longstreet

His Royal Majesty    ...   J. D. Longstreet
His Royal Majesty
No Explicit Constitutional Provision Or Statute Permitting Presidential Executive Orders 
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
****************

Richard M. Nixon was a shrinking violet compared to His Royal Majesty Barack Hussein Obama.  Talk about an Imperial presidency -- an imperial President?  One need look no farther than the current occupant of the Oval Office.

America is about to see "Obama unleashed."

Everything we conservative commentators warned America would happen in an Obama second term is about to transpire.  Four years from this month, America will be difficult to recognize.  There is even the possibility that America will not exist four years hence.   We hear reports fairly often that a few states are actively investigating leaving the union.

Look up Imperial Presidency in a dictionary and you will probably find Mr. Obama's photo embedded within the definition.

For those of you not familiar with the term imperial presidency, allow me to offer some background:

Imperial Presidency is a term that became popular in the 1960s and that served as the title of a 1973 volume by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. to describe the modern presidency of the United States. The author wrote The Imperial Presidency out of two concerns; first that the US Presidency was out of control and second that the Presidency had exceeded the constitutional limits.[1]   
Source:  Wikipedia

Please note the last line of the paragraph above: "The author wrote The Imperial Presidency out of two concerns; first that the US Presidency was out of control and second that the Presidency had exceeded the constitutional limits."  Does that describe any current President of the US that, you know,  might spring to mind?

"One definition of "imperial" on dictionary.com is "of the nature or rank of an emperor or supreme ruler."

"At his news conference Monday, a petulant, threatening and confrontational President Obama spoke like an emperor or supreme ruler. All that was missing was a scepter, a crown and a robe trimmed in ermine."  Thus wrote Cal Thomas at in a column at The Washington Examiner which you will find here:  http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-imperial-presidency/article/2518775#.UPiWy_J0jTg

Thomas goes on to say:  "President Obama will not negotiate about raising the debt ceiling? Not surprising. Imperial leaders don't negotiate."   SOURCE:   http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-imperial-presidency/article/2518775#.UPiWy_J0jTg 

"In so many situations, Mr. Obama's stated rationale for action has been the same: We tried working with Congress but it didn't pan out—so we did what we had to do. This is not only admission that the president has subverted the legislative branch, but a revealing insight into Mr. Obama's view of his own importance and authority.

... Mr. Obama came to office promising to deliver a new kind of politics. He did—his own, unilateral governance."
-- Kim Strassel -- The Wall Street Journal Online --   http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304141204577506881495497626.html

Matthew Spalding, Vice President for American Studies and Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics at The Heritage Foundation, wrote about the imperial presidency in June:

   " We can now see before us a persistent pattern of disregard for the powers of the legislative branch in favor of administrative decision-making without—and often in spite of—congressional action. This violates the spirit—and potentially the letter—of the Constitution’s separation of the legislative and executive powers of Congress and the President."  SOURCE:  http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/24/morning-bell-obamas-imperial-presidency-part-ii/

"It is critical that Americans understand the Obama Administration’s mode of operation. The law has not stood in its way. Congress has not stood in its way. It seems to recognize no authority but its own."  SOURCE:  http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/24/morning-bell-obamas-imperial-presidency-part-ii/

On a recent Fox News Channel report Mark Levin said the following:   “He was elected president. Congratulations. This guy makes Richard Nixon look like a man who followed the law all the time. I think we have an imperial president. He sounds imperial, he’s arrogant as hell and I’m furious about this.”  SOURCE:  http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mark-levin-goes-off-on-tyranny-under-obamas-imperial-presidency-to-foxs-megyn-kelly/

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, speaking on Laura Ingraham's radio talk show recently said of Obama: "He is feeling right now high on his own power, and he is pushing on every front, on guns ... ."  Cruz continued:  "I think he's going to pay a serious political price, and I think the price that's going to be paid on this is going to manifest in Senate races in 2014 ... ."

America, we have a problem!  A really BIG problem!  If Mr. Obama doesn't slack-off his monumental power grab we are in for a constitutional crisis. 

Look.  The Founders of this nation understood that every time a law is passed by the government, the people lose more freedom.  They deliberately made passing laws very difficult.  We often have gridlock.  Gridlock simply proves the system is working as designed.   It's not sexy. It's not pretty, but it IS the way our government is supposed to work.

When a president, any president, takes matters into his own hands, no matter the motive, and orders laws into existence, it is unconstitutional.  It removes the people's voice.  There is no representation of the people in the making of that law.  THAT'S NOT the way constitutional government in America is supposed to work.

Executive orders were intended to assist officers and agencies of the executive branch manage their operations within the federal government itself.  They were never intended to be laws, or decrees, handed down from the Office of the President.

 Executive orders, as perceived today, have the full force of law.  But do they, really?  And where, exactly does the President get the authority to issue such orders?

You may be surprised to learn that there is no constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders.

There is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Most executive orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties,[2] the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.[3] -- SOURCE:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

Please note,  as I mentioned above:  "there is no constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders."

No need to check the text of the constitution ... it simply is NOT there!

It seems to this ole country boy, that any executive order issued by ANY president that affects any American -- not in the direct employ of the executive branch and supervised directly by the President of the United States -- is, therefore, unconstitutional.
It would also seem to me that executive orders should be limited to supervising the tasks of executive departments and even then, only after the law triggering the EO has been passed by both houses of Congress an signed by the President. 

Even more important, I believe, is the need to settle the dispute over the constitutional status of executive orders once and for all.  If Americans decide that we wish to have Presidential executive orders the I would propose that an amendment to the constitution is called for.   The amendment should spell out-- clearly-- what an executive order is and what, exactly, and who, exactly, it affects.   There should be nothing vague about an amendment to the constitution.

There may, very well, be court challenges to one or more of the 23 executive orders Obama signed recently aimed at gun control. The timing is spot on to determine if the President actually has constitutional power to issue such orders, or not. 

This is far too important an issue to allow a "vague" notion of power -- a "vague" interpretation of the constitution -- to affect the freedom of the people of America.

© J. D. Longstreet

Responsible Government or Intrusive Big Brother Nanny State Mentality on the March...

Responsible Government or Intrusive Big Brother Nanny State Mentality on the March...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty
-vs- Tyranny


If anyone doubts the presence of Nanny State Progressive Mentality in the nation's democrats one need look no further than Rep. Mitch Greenlick, from Portland Oregon and his ridiculously absurd anti smoking legislation that he introduced in Oregon.

Don't get me wrong. As an aspiring personal fitness trainer I advocate a healthy and active lifestyle. Certainly smoking does not lend itself to a healthy lifestyle. Quite the opposite.

However, I do not support the state as being the vehicle to control the individuals choice with respect to fitness and health practices. Certainly not beyond the aspect of education and requiring the accurate representation of the health risks associated to risky behavior.

SALEM, OR (KPTV) - If you're a regular smoker, you may want to keep an eye on a new bill in the Oregon Legislature.

Rep. Mitch Greenlick, from Portland, is sponsoring a bill that makes cigarettes a Schedule III controlled substance, meaning it would be illegal to possess or distribute cigarettes without a doctor's prescription.

Under the proposal, offenders would face maximum punishments of one year in prison, a $6,250 fine or both.

Other drugs and substances that are considered Schedule III controlled substances are ketamine, lysergic acid and anabolic steroids.

Watch KPTV news video HERE.

Be very leery of Big Brother and the Nanny State Mentality. Just sating...

Via: Memeorandum

Governor Bobby Jindal Making Sense...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty
-vs- Tyranny


Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

I have previously posted on Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal as being one of the forward thinking politicians (and bright lights) in the present rEpublican party. A party that frankly IMNHO is essentially void of new ideas and blind to the reality of changing demographics and national concerns. I was pleased to see Governor Jindal getting the press he needs and deserves from the Washington Post.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal will deliver a forceful denunciation of his party’s Washington-centric focus in a speech to the Republican National Committee on Thursday evening, arguing that the GOP is fighting the wrong fight as it seeks to rebuild from losses at the ballot box last November.

“A debate about which party can better manage the federal government is a very small and short-sighted debate,” Jindal will tell the RNC members gathered in Charlotte, N.C. for the organization’s winter meeting, according to a copy of the speech provided to The Fix. “If our vision is not bigger than that, we do not deserve to win.”

Jindal’s speech — and his call to “recalibrate the compass of conservatism” — is the latest shred of a growing amount of evidence that the Louisiana governor is positioning himself to not only run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 but do so in direct (or close to it) opposition to his party in the nation’s capital.

In the speech, Jindal will repeatedly caution that Republicans in Washington have fallen into the “sideshow trap” of debating with Democrats over the proper size of the federal government.

“By obsessing with zeroes on the budget spreadsheet, we send a not-so-subtle signal that the focus of our country is on the phony economy of Washington, instead of the real economy out here in Charlotte, and Shreveport (La.), and Cheyenne (Wyo.),” Jindal is set to say at one point in the speech. At another, he will argue that “Washington has spent a generation trying to bribe our citizens and extort our states,” adding: “As Republicans, it’s time to quit arguing around the edges of that corrupt system.”

Running against Washington — and the Republicans who inhabit it — is smart politics for Jindal. Congress, viewed broadly, is at or close to all-time lows when it comes to approval ratings. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted earlier this month, just 24 percent of those tested approved of the job that Republicans in Congress were doing.

Even more stunning, among self-identified Republicans only 39 percent offered a favorable rating for their own party’s representatives, while 58 percent viewed their own elected officials in an unfavorable light.

Jindal is far from the only 2016 Republican hopeful to use his party’s Washington contingent as a foil to bolster his own political prospects. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) rant against House GOPers for failing to bring up a funding bill on Hurricane Sandy – an instant classic — was another prime example of congressional GOPers being triangulated by their party’s future leaders.{Read More}

If the rEpublican party is to avoid complete irrelevancy it will need to listen to, understand, and act upon the message Jindal and others are sending. In as much as the dEmocrat party does not have all the answers to the nation problems it is unquestionable that the rEpublican party has failed to fill the void of leadership.

Via: Memeorandum


Maurine and Joe - A Texas Tragedy

Maurine and Joe - A Texas Tragedy

The following is a love story between an American soldier and his wife. Somewhere out there may be the relatives of these now departed people. It is hoped that you can help find those who knew and loved Maurine and Joe and share this story with them. Please take the time to leave your comments about this story.

Maurine and Joe - A Texas Tragedy

by  Benedict A. Termini, M.D.

This is the story of how I came into possession of correspondence between an American soldier who died in World War II and his wife, and how I was able to track her down and reunite her with her memories. It happened over ten years ago, but I was hesitant to write about it at that time because I did not wish to cause problems for Maurine, who was then 88 years old and living in a nursing home. She has since passed away, and I now offer this story as a tribute to her and her husband and the sacrifices they made for our country.

While browsing at a stamp shop in Arlington, Texas, I spotted a large brown paper sack full of letters. I asked the dealer what they were. He replied, "I don't know, I just bought them for fifteen bucks." I offered him twenty, and a few minutes later walked out of the store with the bag of letters, but without the foggiest idea of what I had just purchased.

When I got home and started going through the letters, I realized that I had indeed acquired a treasure. There were about fifty letters written during World War II by a soldier named Justus W. Bachman, who died during the war, and about twenty letters written to him from his wife Maurine but returned as undeliverable after he was reported missing in January 1944. There were also other documents, including letters from friends, letters of condolence from government officials and fellow soldiers, as well as copies of official documents pertaining to Lieutenant Justus (Joe) Bachman. These had been saved by his wife, the former Maurine Jons, of Lubbock Texas, and they told the sad tale of two people very much in love but whose chance at the American dream had been ruined forever by an accident of war. I don't know how these letters arrived at a stamp store in Arlington. My best guess was that they had been sold in an estate sale after being carefully preserved by Maurine during her lifetime. If there were any surviving family members, I figured that they had not recognized the historical significance of this time capsule.

I present here some excerpts from these letters, the story of Joe Bachman who died in the South Pacific in the service of his country and his wife Maurine. I am using real names because I believe these two people should be recognized for the sacrifices they made.

Maurine Jons was born in 1912. Little information is available about her family except that she had a younger sister, Darlene. She went to school in Lubbock and attended Texas Tech. Her father owned a sign company in Lubbock, the Jons Sign Company, and she worked in the family business. That may have been how she met Joe.

Born in 1915 in Throckmorton, Texas, Joe was employed as a sign painter in Lubbock until he was drafted in March of 1941. He and Maurine were married two months later. His military records describe him as having blue eyes, brown hair, a ruddy complexion and a height of five feet seven and one-half inches.

Joe went through routine military basic training after induction, but received an honorable discharge after about six months, in order to re-enlist as a cadet in the Army Air Corps.

Joe's letters to Maurine start in January 1942, when he was attending Flying School in San Antonio, but there were undoubtedly earlier letters which have been lost.

Joe seemed rather pessimistic about the pilot training school, commenting that "It is very doubtful that I will get through this course." In a letter dated January 25, he gives a little more description of his situation; "The military drill here is comparable to West Point. Every little thing is executed with precision. When we eat, there is not a sound in the mess hall, except those asking for food. We can eat (about 400) and clear out in 30 minutes." The tone of his letters is rather ordinary, he discusses his problems with ground school math tests, frequently apologizes for not writing enough, and mentions how much he misses her. Interestingly enough, even though they had been married for almost a year, he still addressed his letters to her using her maiden name, Maurine Jons.

In March 1942, he was sent to Bonham, Texas for flight training. He comments that "They are dropping out here like flies. In the class just before us there were 119, and there have been 41 sent home. The ground school is very hard and it is coming at us like a cyclone, so you can see I may be coming back home soon." He misses Maurine, and in the same letter he says, "Every night when the lights go out I think about you. It has been exceptionally cold here, and I need you to keep me warm as I am sure you could."

Soon his premonition came true, he washed out of pilot school, and his letters took a pessimistic turn accompanied by complaints about his posting back in San Antonio. On July 16, 1942, he writes, "The heat up here is sweltering. The evenings get so damn hot you can’t breathe. I haven't even been thinking about what the future holds because I don't give a damn any longer - except for you." He mentions in his letters that he is upset because Maurine had had "an operation" and he had been unable to get leave to be with her.

About this time, the Jons Sign Company closed down and Maurine moved to Fort Worth to work at the Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Plant, working on the B-29 and B-32 bombers. While in Fort Worth she took flying lessons, with a goal of signing up with the Women's Ferry Command, a branch of the military which used female pilots to move planes from one location to another within the United States, thus releasing male pilots for overseas duty.

Although he was unsuccessful in pilot school, Joe could apply for training as a navigator or bombardier. Upon completion of either course, he would be commissioned a second lieutenant in the Army Air Corps. He writes that he had been accepted for navigator training. His social life was considerably improved by a visit from Maurine. His attitude improved as well - on October 9th, he writes, "I am trying hard again and maybe I won’t fail this time - I hope."

Soon he was sent to Greenville Army Air Base in South Carolina for additional training, In May 1943, he writes "We have had navigation, radio, pilotage, dead reckoning, some celestial which is very interesting and very hard to remember. It’s kinda like learning how to keep books and if you don't stay right with it you forget very easily."

He notes that Maurine came to visit about that time, by train, a wartime visit which must have been very difficult to arrange, and tells her that he enjoyed "getting together with her." Throughout most of his letters (and by inference in her letters to him) there is a streak of raw sexuality and they both are quite graphic. Obviously his letters were not intended to be read by anyone other than Maurine.

In the summer of 1943 after completion of his navigator training, he was sent to San Francisco and from there to Australia and New Guinea, with the 823rd Bomb Squadron, 38th Group. He did not think much of Australia: "There are quite a few kangaroo over here. You rarely see one but they are thick out a ways from camp. The Australian people are very peculiar. They don't have much to say and they are definitely not friendly. Cars drive on the left and the steering wheel is on the right."

When I started reading Joe’s letters, I noted occasional references to someone named "Hicks" that I had assumed was a friend or fellow soldier. But it soon became clear that "Hicks" was an anatomical reference, part of a personal code between Joe and Maurine. He writes “I see Hicks almost every night. You know they must have overtrained him in the States because quite often he seems to be standing at attention. I think he misses his girl a lot.” This enabled him to express erotic sentiments without the military censors catching on.

Several times, portions of his letters were cut out by the censors when he came too close to revealing exactly where he was located. Perhaps for this reason his letters are vague about what he is doing, although on November 4, 1943, he says "I have already had some experiences, certainly not happy ones." And in a subsequent letter he says, "Yes I would like very much to tell you some of my experiences so far, but I can't and that's the deal - sorry." Possibly he did not want to upset Maurine with details. He did mention that several of his friends had "gone away" or "taken long trips" which probably meant that they had been killed or wounded in combat.

He compliments Maurine on that fact that she has taken up flying, perhaps as part of her contribution to the war effort. He even gives her advice, "Try to imagine where you want to put the plane and make it go there. Don't let the plane fly you. Lots of these things will come to you after you solo." He also mentions that he has resumed his hobby of sketching and comments on the difficulties he is having getting materials and his doubts about the quality of his artwork.

The mail service to the South Pacific must have been very irregular. In October 1943, Joe says, "I haven't received any mail from you in over a month, but I am due to get it in a day or so I hope." We can imagine the disappointment he must have felt as day after day went by without any letters. On October 11, he wrote, "Letters are golden here. The mail box is always clean." In another letter he mentions that some expected drawing materials that Maurine was sending him had not arrived and he says that a ship which was supposed to have been carrying mail and packages was sunk.

Some of Joe's letters were sent by "V-mail" which involved the use of a special letter sheet which was photographed and transported as part of a roll of film, saving cargo space. The film was developed, printed and placed in the mail stream after it reached its destination, and the recipient received a four by five inch photographic copy of the original letter. V-mail was not only used for mail sent to soldiers in war areas, but also for mail going back to the United States. It saved considerable air space and in addition served to remind the civilian population of the need for wartime conservation.

His loneliness was almost palpable. On December 25, after returning from leave in Sydney, he writes, "Wish you could have been with me. You were always on my mind. There were no girls in the million or so I saw that came up to you. I really wish I could sneak in on you right now, just like I used to." Hicks however was still a frequent visitor. “Hicks just came by. I sure hope we come through this thing together, it would be really tough if we got separated.”

His letters continue on much of the same themes, until January 14, 1944, the last letter from Joe to Maurine in the packet. Here he says, "Yes darling, it would be nice for me to be there and help you keep warm, but sometimes I don't know if it’s good to plan too hard."

Next in the stack of correspondence, I found about twenty letters from Maurine to Joe, all returned to her marked on the envelope "Missing in Flight." None of her letters written after December 17th 1943 reached her husband.

This is our first glimpse of Maurine through her own eyes. She is much more talkative than Joe, her letters are longer, and contain lots more local gossip. She tells about her roommates, her flying, and her work as a draftsman at the plant in Fort Worth. She had recently soloed and was enthusiastic about flying, but discouraged about her ground school classes. She discusses her plans to join the Women's Ferry Command.

Maurine was not hesitant about describing her work. In her letter of Jan 1, 1944 she discusses her work on the B-32 bomber, which was just coming into production and says "Here’s a little secret, the B-32 is bigger - but is lighter and faster than the B-29. I believe we've really got something! If it’s as successful as I think it will be, I will be very proud that I had even a small part in getting it in the air." In other letters she discusses some of the drafting she is doing, designing and redesigning bomber parts. She is quite frank about the details of her work in the bomber plant, often mentioning details which might have been helpful to then enemy. "Loose Lips Sink Ships" did not apply to her correspondence. She usually closed her letters with lipstick kisses, still fresh after half a century.

Since her letters were not censored, there was no reason to limit herself to innuendo, and some of her letters are frankly erotic. On February 7th, she wrote: “No mail from you yet doggone it. I’m sure going to spank your pants – no, I’m going to take off your pants and spank your little ass with my bare hand until it’s plumb red, and then I’m going to kiss it so it won’t hurt.” Perhaps this was in response to his repeated requests to "write me the kind of letters you know I like."

But she can’t disguise her concern over Joe's safety. On December 26, she says, "Darling I pray that you come back to me safely - and God has been awfully good to me all my life so maybe he will hear me." On December 31, she writes, "Well sweet, I wish we could be together tonight - maybe next New Year’s Eve we will be."

Then the Western Union telegram arrived, dated February 9, 1944; 5:43 PM:

THE SECRETARY OF WAR DESIRES ME TO EXPRESS HIS DEEP REGRET THAT YOUR HUSBAND FIRST LIEUTENANT JUSTUS W BACHMAN HAS BEEN REPORTED MISSING SINCE TWENTY EIGHT JANUARY BETWEEN QUEENSLAND AND NEW GUINEA PERIOD IF FURTHER DETAILS OR OTHER INFORMATION ARE RECEIVED YOU WILL BE PROMPTLY NOTIFIED PERIOD.

THE ADJUTANT GENERAL

The remainder of the correspondence consists of official letters from the War Department, letters of condolence from various public figures, and several letters from Joe's friends who were still in New Guinea. One letter from a friend named A.B. Calwell, details the circumstances in which Joe’s plane went missing:

“It had been our practice to send a plane down south as often as possible to bring back fresh meat and food so that we could have something besides the usual dehydrated and canned stuff. On each occasion a different crew was allowed to go. This fateful trip was given to Joe and crew. After getting their supplies they had taken off for five successive days, but each time were forced to turn back due to bad weather. This weather in New Guinea is the most treacherous there is. On their sixth attempt the radioman of their crew reported in thirty minutes after taking off, and after that nothing was heard from them. The squadron contacted every possible emergency landing field, but nothing had been seen or heard of their plane; there were ten men aboard all told.

For three days, we were allowed to take all of our planes and conduct searches. I flew on five of them, but I've never seen such rotten weather, each time we were forced to turn back without completely searching the whole area. To make bad matters worse, another crew which took off on one of these search missions failed to return. Against all orders they had vowed to complete this last search regardless. Our co-pilot was on this plane and he had been almost as close a friend to me as Joe had been. For the following days the morale of the squadron was at its lowest. I almost went completely nuts and the doc grounded me because he said my nerves were shot.

I wish that we could have conducted a few more searches but our planes had to be used for other purposes. I've lost many hours of sleep trying to figure out what might have happened. Maybe they decided to chance it and come through the weather anyhow, or else maybe the engines went out, but unless everything was out of control they should have been able to get into their emergency life-raft.

A few days later we had a report that a crew had been picked up by a tanker, but no one was able to find out where this source of information came from. This is why I waited and did not write. We have had no further news and have given this last hope as probably a false rumor.

I wish it was possible to express in words my feelings and those of the entire squadron. There will never be another man as well liked as Joe. "Bocky" as most everyone called him, was the most happy go lucky, witty and friendliest guy that ever lived; there was never a dull moment when he was around. To me he was as close as a brother, we met at Kelly Field during my first week in the army and from that time on we lived, worked, and ran around together.”

After reading through this archive, I find myself in awe at the magnitude of the sacrifice Maurine and Joe made for their country. These were not heroic people. Joe did not volunteer to serve, he was drafted. And Maurine would undoubtedly have preferred to have had him at her side during the war years, to have had children and to raise them on a little farm in the country, to live the American dream. But when the time came for them both to put their hopes and their future at risk, they did not hesitate, and they both tried to make the best of their situations.

The generation of Americans who fought in World War II has been called "The Greatest Generation," in a book by Tom Brokaw, a sentiment I heartily agree with. Those who returned from the war were showered with benefits and adulation by a grateful country. But it was really the generation which grew up after the war, my generation, which reaped the most benefit from the sacrifices our parents made. We grew up secure in the knowledge that our country was the greatest nation in the world, both in a military and an ethical sense. We faced challenges, but overall we lived in a time of economic and physical security. We had the opportunity to live the American dream, and our ability to do that resulted from the sacrifices made by Joe and Maurine and the thousands of others who contributed to the war effort.

In another sense, reading these letters has brought home to me the horrible nature of war. In an age when we are regularly exposed to horrifying TV footage and movies our minds become numbed to real personal tragedies. Yet I feel like I know Maurine and Joe. I invaded their lives, and in turn their tragedy has changed mine.

I decided to try to find out what happened to Maurine after the war. My assumption was that she had died and her letters had been sold as part of an estate sale. I knew she had returned to Lubbock after the war and had probably not remarried since there were several envelopes addressed to her as Maurine Bachman, using an address in Lubbock. The latest of these was postmarked in 1966.

My search started with the internet. I located a person with the same name in Utah but she was not related. I searched the Social Security Death Index - no listing for Maurine, although I did find out that her sister Darlene Jons had died in 1981. I tried various genealogical sites to see if I could find any mention of Maurine Bachman or Maurine Jons - no luck. I was unable to access the alumni records for Texas Tech in Lubbock. Then I had a friend search the Lubbock public records. Maurine had last registered to vote in Lubbock in 1976. Interestingly enough, the person who lived next door to Maurine had registered to vote on the same day, and still lived next door to Maurine=s old house. I figured that they had gone down to register together and must have been friends, so I wrote a letter to Maurine's former neighbor, asking for information.

Bingo! Three days later I got a phone call - believe it or not - from Maurine herself, now living in Roswell New Mexico in an assisted living facility. The neighbor had kept in touch with Maurine for all of these years and had forwarded my letter. Maurine seemed quite alert for a lady of 88 years, and we had an interesting conversation. I told her how I had acquired her letters and she said that she did not know how she had lost them. I offered to return them, and this made her quite happy - the letters obviously meant a lot to her. Three days later I sent the entire packet of letters and documents back to Maurine. I subsequently received a letter from her saying how thrilled she was to have her memories back.

In with the letters I found a poem Maurine must have written after she visited Joe in South Carolina in the spring of 1943, probably the last time they were able to see and speak to each other:

Do you remember your last days in S.C?

When you spent a wonderful week with me? I do.

Do you remember the house on the hill?

With the pond and the little windmill? I do.

Do you remember the games of ping pong?

It hasn’t been so very long - I do.

Do you remember the day to the park you took me?

And the great big beautiful willow tree? I do.

Do you remember the day you left?

How I wept and wept and wept, I do.

But there will come a day when you return

That's the day for which I yearn

And we'll settle down in a little home

And I swear never to write another poem.

Epilogue:

Maurine died in 2003, survived by a only a nephew whom I have been unable to locate. As far as I know, no more information has come to light concerning the circumstances of Lt. Justus Bachman’s death. He is memorialized in the Manila American Cemetery in the Philippines.

Benedict A. Termini, M.D. (termini@charter.net)

 

Navy & Grey




I put this outfit together in a very rush moment and all I was looking for was a comfortable approach, a mix of casual elements with ladylike finishes. Here is the result!
Thank you for your visit and have a great Thursday!

P.S. Enjoy 20% off your purchase using this coupon code: SWEET20 on LAmade.com 




                                                                                Coat: thanks to Sheinside/ another great option Here  
                                                                Hoodie: thanks to LAmade/ Here 
                                                                Jeans: Hurley/ option Here 
                                                                                Booties: Asos/ great option Here 
                                                                Scarf: Old Navy (old)
                                                                                Bag: Marco Buggiani/a fabulous option Here
                                                                                Sunglasses: Foster Grant/ option Here 
                                                                                Gloves: Echo





Overcoming Southern Culture ... J. D. Longstreet

Overcoming Southern Culture   ...   J. D. Longstreet
Overcoming Southern Culture
More Intolerance From The Left
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
 
I had intended to let this go as the ramblings of an old, tired, man, but, heck, I'M an OLD TIRED MAN myself, and I have more respect for my fellow Americans than to blurt out such offensive remarks on cable television -- or anywhere for that matter.
Want to see what has my Southern dander up?  Then go here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DBE5P-ewkm8

Just so we are clear:  I am flat-out against the gun control agenda of the left.  To be even clearer ... I'd be against it if I were a northerner, a westerner, or where ever.  Geography makes no difference.   The Second Amendment is what it is, says what it says, and means what it says.  There is no doubt in my mind that the gun grabbers are "infringing" upon the rights of gun owners in America and their efforts are unconstitutional ... period.

Then, along comes Congressman Charlie Rangel of New York and twists the knife with his intolerant remark: "Some Southern States Have Cultures That We Have To Overcome."

Just a cotton-picking minute, here, Congressman!  Where the heck do YOU get off telling ME that MY culture is one to be overcome?  Hell, we Southerners have been trying to tell you since 1861 that our culture is different and NOT COMPATIBLE with yours!     

A hundred and fifty years ago you sent your army down here and raped our women and our land and tried to "Reconstruct" us into an acceptable image of YOUR culture. You have held us in bondage -- at the point of a federal bayonet -- for a century and a half and still you find it necessary to offend and insult us by somehow demeaning our Southern culture as one you must overcome.

It is at times such as these that I fervently wish dueling was still legal.

Apparently it is not enough that my ancestors had to endure a cruel, vindictive, Reconstruction. It would seem that period has never ended for the Congressman.

Obviously, Rep. Rangel feels the South remains in a period of some sort of Reconstruction.  I can assure the Congressman from New York that he is mistaken and his demonstration of intolerance of Southern culture was immensely unwelcome, deeply offensive, and acutely insulting to ALL Southerners.

Do what you will Congressman in your home state of New York and your city of New York, but do not --  I repeat, sir -- DO NOT presume to dictate to me and my fellow Southerners a culture YOU and your ilk find acceptable.  I may forget that I am a Southern Gentleman for a moment and let slip that many Southerners find YOUR culture, sir, to be detestable.

There remains a chasm between your culture, sir, and mine. It is a divide we haven't the slightest interest in filling.  In fact, we consider it a protective moat.

Congressman, you have overstepped. Whether by accident or by design makes no difference.  It is a fait accompli and it will not be forgotten. Even the acceptance of an apology from you, sir, is, indeed, in question.

Many seem not to understand the depth of the Congressman's transgression. Simply put it is this:  You do not insult The South with impunity!   When you attack her culture you are attacking her people. 

Culture defines a people.  It tells the world who,  you as a people, are. 

Culture reflects a people's tastes in art and manners and all the knowledge and values shared by those people.

The history, heritage and culture of the Southern people is sacrosanct, Congressman. And you, sir, have violated that sanctity with a callous remark that betrays your lack of respect for millions of Americans residing in the southern portion of the North American continent.  That, sir, is no mean feat!         

Congressman Rangel, you owe the people of the South an apology.  That SHOULD be self evident.  Do not perceive this as a plea, a request, or a boon. It is simply a statement of fact. 

Be mindful, sir. The manner in which you respond to the ire of the Southern people will reflect mightily on your own culture. Sincerity is advised -- and expected.

© J. D. Longstreet

"Left" v. "Right" and the West Point "Far-Right Extremist" Paper

The Combating Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy recently published a paper that would categorize our Founding Fathers as "far-right extremists."  This categorization stems from a lack of understanding of the true ideologies behind "right" and "left," which results from the progressive ("left") control of our schools, government, and the mainstream media, and sets up American patriots to at some point be considered "insurgents" against which America's own Counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine can be applied.

In November 2012, the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at the United States Military Academy published a paper by Arie Perliger (the CTC Director of Terrorism Studies) entitled "Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far-Right," which relies heavily on the generally understood categorizations of "left" and "right" in order to categorize terrorism in "far-right" groups:
"Regarding affinity towards traditional values, a common perception is that liberal/left- wing and conservative worldviews are different in their time orientation. While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo. The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community. In many cases these past-oriented perspectives help to formulate a nostalgic and romantic ideological aura which makes these groups attractive for many who aspire to restore the halcyon days of a clear hierarchy of values and norms." (p. 17)
As you can see, the author (and society) is biased toward defining the "left" as looking toward the future while the "right" looks rearward at an idealized (implied: false, unobtainable) past.  The belief behind making these two categorizations is that there are no eternal truths, so change ("progress") is always desirable in a never ending quest for human perfection.  Therefore members of the "right" who look to the past are only obstacles to this human "advancement."

In reality, progressive (the "left") thought is not anymore forward looking than conservative (the "right") thought looks to the past.  Where their central difference lies is in their concept of "truth" and not necessarily in time orientation.
"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!" Romans 1:24-25*
Progressives reject God's Truth (following in the footsteps of Karl Marx, among others), so are actually returning to the thinking of Adam and Eve in Eden, Nimrod in Babylon, and the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, who all rejected God's Truth which ultimately resulted in despair and suffering.

Conservatives (the "right") acknowledge God's Truth and, just like our Founding Fathers, seek to lay that as the foundation on which all else is built.  Progressives deliberately suppress God's Truth in order to formulate their own and become like gods themselves.

America has consistently exchanged the Truth for lies as shown in the following beliefs that are being bolstered by the government:
  • The Holy Bible is a collection of sayings and myths, not Truth
  • Man was not made in the image of God, but "evolved"
  • The universe created itself (the "Big Bang" theory)
  • Homosexual behavior is normal and not rebellion against our Creator
  • Abortion--what amounts in many cases to a blood sacrifice to cover the sin of fornication--is not murder
  • The family unit as defined in the Bible and practiced over many centuries is an arbitrary creation and should be redefined at will
  • The Constitution was created as a "living" document open to liberal interpretation
  • The Founders intended for Biblical Truths to be completely absent from public discourse 
Prior to making the distinction between "left" and "right" the author paints the conservative ("far right") world view in a negative light:
"In the context of the far-right worldview, nationalism takes an extreme form of full convergence between one polity or territory and one ethnic or national collective. Two elements are required for the fulfillment of this version of the nationalist doctrine. The first is that of internal homogenization, i.e., the aspiration that all residents or citizens of the polity will share the same national origin and ethnic characteristics. The second is the element of external exclusiveness, the aspiration that all individuals belonging to a specific national or ethnic group will reside in the homeland." (p. 15)
"Internal homogenization rejects the incorporation and recognition of those embodying different ethnic and national traits as part of the nation. In addition, nativism adds opposition to external influence, whether on a cultural, religious, or normative basis. Foreign influence is perceived as a threat to the entirety and homogeneity of the nation and, as a result, to its resiliency, its ability to counter external threats and to preserve its essential traits. The concept of nativism explains why in many cases the activities of far-right groups do not only oppose foreigners, but also those citizens who promote what is perceived as non-native norms, practices or values." (p. 16)
Internal homogenization and rejection of foreign influence are both important, but are not based on the shallowness of national origin or ethnicity.  What matters is a person's ideology, world view, and how they define "truth."  This is what must be protected in America because diversity of world views in a society leads to national schizophrenia and requires a strong central government to maintain order.

America's founding was unique among all world governments, before and since, because it was based on the Word of God.  It is not perfect (no human government can be), but it is the most effective form of government to maintain order and security in a religious and moral society while providing its citizens the maximum liberty to direct their own lives. Therefore we should be suspicious of outside "norms" (truths) which seek to encroach on our culture since they will most likely contradict the values of our Founding.  That is why immigrants who come to America should accept our form of government and our values, and not the other way around.

To attempt to rule a nation that contains a multitude of ideologies and world views will require much more power in the central government--just look at places like the former Yugoslavia or Iraq.  But remember--America was not founded for a specific color of people (even though others would like you to believe this narrative), but based on an idea and world view.  It should be expected of all who join us to accept that world view as primary in the nation.

The author also paints "anti-federalism" tendencies in a negative light:
"The anti-federalist rationale is multifaceted, and includes the beliefs that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order” (NWO) in which the United States will be absorbed into the United Nations or another version of global government. They also espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government." (p. 4)
The author fails to acknowledge that many of our forefathers were "anti-federalists" who feared that the Constitution in its original form would give the central government too much power and result in tyranny over the People and States.  That is the very reason why the Bill of Rights was added--to give additional protection to the People and States against the natural tendency of a government to unceasingly increase its power.

More importantly, those who reject ultimate Truth (the progressives) desire to perfect humanity by their own hands.  This will ultimately lead to tyranny as the government, who is expected to perfect life for all, continually fails to do so and therefore must assume more power at the expense of the People's liberties so they have total control over all aspects of life to arrive at their desired Utopia.

Thus we have irreconcilable differences within the United States because of the two competing world views.  One seeks to operate within the framework of the Constitution and the Word of God.  The other rejects both and seeks to rule the nation based on the ability of Man to "evolve" and solve all the world's problems given enough time, technology, and power.  This latter world view requires the commensurate (and necessary) loss of the individual's ability to choose their own ends in exchange for the coercive ends dictated by the government.

This paper,"Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far-Right," coming from one of the nation's military academies tasked with producing our future military leaders who will take an oath to support and defend the Constitution is disturbing to say the very least.

First, the paper demonstrates a lack of understanding of the founding of America and its Constitutional government.

Second, it potentially demonizes those who seek to follow in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers--a group who through study of the past and the Word understand the fallen nature of Man and the necessary limits that must be placed on government by a moral and religious people.

On the opposite side is a group who is vastly different, for they reject the past in the misguided hope that Man in all his Greatness can design a more perfect society this time around.  Those of us who study the Truth know that this will always result in misery.

That group, known as the "left" or "progressives," need to be identified for what they are--collectivists (as described by F.A. Hayek).  At their very core they seek to consolidate all power into the central government to determine the ends of the people as a whole.  They do not lament the loss of individual liberties, and are the anti-thesis of the vision of our Founding Fathers.  They go by many names--communists, Marxists, fascists, socialists, and progressives--and can be found in both parties, Republican and Democrat.  For those of us who love liberty, they must be resisted.  The Constitution and Truth must be defended.

By trusting in the Word of God and the form of government created by our Founding Fathers, this author has painted himself to be a "far-right extremist" according to the Director of West Point's Combating Terrorism Center.  This demonstrates just how far our nation has deviated from our creation, because, by Perliger's definition, our Founding Fathers would be far-right extremists and potential "terrorists" in America today.

If those who defend our Founding today are truly "far-right extremists," then they are in good company alongside our Founding Fathers.
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”
--Against All Enemies

*Bible verse from Crossway Bibles (2011-02-09). The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Kindle Locations 44519-44521). Good News Publishers/Crossway Books. Kindle Edition. 

Cross-posted from Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Happy 40th Anniversary, Baby (Roe v. Wade video)

The man in the following video celebrates the sexiness of 40 years murdering our children...54,000,000 of them.

It's as if he's saying "let's have guilt-free sex where if I get you pregnant, we can just kill the child and move on with our sensual lives..."

Absolutely vile and detestable.

From YouTube:
"...the Center for Reproductive Rights asked Mehcad Brooks of the USA Network's "Necessary Roughness" and HBO's "True Blood" to prepare a special video message just for you. To learn more and to sign the Bill of Reproductive Rights visit DrawTheLine.org."
Link to video


Cross-posted from Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.