Monthly Archives: November 2012

Friday Follies for November 30, 2012

Posted on by

Obama’s minions have been in “secret” talks with the GOP congressional leadership on how to divert our approach to the fiscal cliff. What the White House wanted and what they offered in return made McConnell laugh out loud.

Obama wanted more taxes, no commitment to any spending cuts (unless it was to the military), and authority to raise the debt limit at will—no Congressional approval required! Quoting Dave Ramsey, that would be giving a drunk a drink.

White House ‘Cliff’ Offer to Boehner a ‘Break from Reality’

By Billy House, Updated: November 30, 2012 | 8:00 a.m

Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, on Thursday rejected a White House plan to avert the so-called fiscal cliff at year’s end that would generate nearly $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue over the next decade and require Republicans to allow Congress to relinquish its control over the nation’s statutory borrowing limits. 

“A complete break from reality,” is how the plan, delivered to Boehner and other congressional leaders by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at their Capitol offices, was described by a congressional Republican aide familiar with what was proposed. President Obama’s liaison to Congress, Rob Nabors, also was at the meetings.

Yes, your read that first paragraph correctly. Obama wants congress to give him complete authority to spend and borrow without regard to the debt limit—in short, there would be no debt limit other than what our creditors were willing to give us. It would be a fiscal disaster.

We need to keep the pressure on McConnell and Boehner to reject Obama’s offers. Obama will never cut spending regardless of any agreements. He has done that many times before. Obama lies. Democrats lie. They will never honor any agreement except when it is what they want.

The real danger is that McConnell and Boehner will revert to their normal spinelessness and roll over again. We must make the establishment GOP more afraid of us than they are of the dems.

***

Speaking of the fiscal cliff, more and more analysts and pundits are saying, “Do nothing.” According to them, the fiscal cliff is a myth created by the 2011 Budget Control Act. Boehner and McConnell sold the GOP a bill of mythical goods and allowed Obama and the dems to defraud the country. That act was limited to only discretionary spending—35% of the national budget while doing nothing to the big entitlement ticket items.

The GOP establishment is really afraid of being accused of shutting down the government if they don’t cave once again. Get real! The media and the dems will make those accusations anyway! Expect the demagoguery.

The government has been shutdown before and the world didn’t end. A year or so ago a blizzard hit the east coast including Washington. Most of the rank and file government employees were told to stay home. Only the “essential” workers had to report to work. That makes it easy where to cut. Cut those who didn’t have to go in to work, keep those who did have to report for work.

Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel discussed the GOP’s media fears in their column today.

Everyone in Washington fears the fiscal cliff. The White House has no interest in going over. Democrats understand they’ll never have more power than they do now. Delaying a budget deal until after January means getting less of what they want.

Republican leaders, meanwhile, live in fear of another 1995 government shutdown. When two sides fail to reach a deal, the media blame Republicans. That’s the lesson Republicans learned 17 years ago. They shudder imagining the headlines if negotiations were to break down next month: “Norquist-controlled GOP forces America off cliff.” Nothing terrifies them more than that. They’ll do anything to avoid it, as Obama knows well. (Hence his advantage.) — The Daily Caller.

Krauthammer urged the ‘Pubs to stand their ground as well.

Krauthammer urged Republicans to take the short-term hit on the fiscal cliff, and said eventually Obama would be held accountable for the consequences. — The Daily Caller.

Krauthammer declared that Obama’s demands were worse than those given to Lee at Appomattox and Lee had just lost a war.

“It’s not just a bad deal — this is really an insulting deal,” Krauthammer said. “What Geithner offered, what you showed on the screen, Robert E. Lee was offered easier terms at Appomattox, and he lost the Civil War. The Democrats won by three percent of the vote, and they did not hold the House. Republicans won the House. So this is not exactly unconditional surrender, but that is what the administration is asking of the Republicans.”

“This idea — there are not only no cuts in this, there’s an increase in spending with a new stimulus,” Krauthammer continued. “I mean, this is almost unheard of. I mean, what do they expect? They obviously expect the Republicans will cave on everything. I think the Republicans ought to simply walk away. The president is the president. He’s the leader. They are demanding that the Republicans explain all the cuts that they want to make.” — The Daily Caller.

Yes, some business sectors would take a hit. Some government contractors would take a hit. The GOP would be blamed, again, for shutting down the government. But if that is what it takes to get ALL government spending on the cutting table, so be it. It is time to get our governmental house in order and we know the dems won’t do it.

***

Continuing on today’s theme, I’ll leave you with this parting thought from Michael Ramirez.The Fiscal Cliff

Facebook

Campaign Reform: Lies and Misdirections

Posted on by

Missouri democrats have opened their offensive for the next election cycle now that the 2012 elections are over. What they are attempting to do is to impose their version of McCain-Feingold at the state level. Significant portions of McCain-Feingold were later to be found unconstitutional.

A local democrat legislator is proposing similar restrictions for Missouri. The restrictions include a $5000 donation limit and exposing the contribution lists for non-profit organizations.

Michael Mahoney, a reporter for a Kansas City TV station, wrote the article below on his blog.

Reform, Including Crackdown on Hidden Money

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri House Democrats on Tuesday called for new campaign finance rules and stiffer ethics laws that cap political contributions, limit gifts from lobbyists, require departing legislators to sit out before becoming lobbyists and impose new reporting requirements for some not-for-profit groups.
Democrats said they believe the proposal is a priority for Missourians and that, if necessary, they could attempt to take the issue directly to voters through an initiative petition. Lawmakers return to the state Capitol in January for their 2013 session.

…

The wide-ranging legislation would cap campaign contributions for legislators and statewide elected officials at $5,000 per donor for each election and would limit gifts lawmakers and immediate family members can accept from lobbyists to $1,000 annually. Legislators also would be barred from working as paid political consultants while in office and would need to wait at least two years after leaving the Legislature before returning to lobby former colleagues.
In addition, the Missouri Ethics Commission would gain the authority to launch its own investigations instead of waiting for a compliant to be filed, and the ability to move campaign contributions among political action committees would be restricted.

The pertinent portion of the proposed reform is this.

The House Democrats’ most recent proposal also adds some new issues. For example, it would require not-for-profit organizations contributing money for political purposes to disclose their donors. During this year’s elections, there were instances in which a political action committee that is required to report on its finances received contributions from a not-for-profit group that is not required to report its donors. That made it difficult to determine the original source of the money.

That last sentence is the true motivation. The democrats want those donor lists. Those conservative contributors would soon find themselves targets. The entire reform plan has one goal—to get those donor lists. If you read Mahoney’s entire column, you’ll discover that dems attempted to “reform” campaign finances in 2010. Their scheme failed when the proposed legislation was modified once it was out of committee. When that failed, they had one of their judges (why is it always the same Cole County judges?) declare it unconstitutional on some technical grounds.

I’m sure there is one or two RINOs around the state who will sign onto this proposal and allow the dems to claim it’s bipartisan. The reality of it is that it is never bipartisan, just another skirmish in the continuing battle between us and them in Jeff City.

Facebook

A Rose by any other name…

Posted on by

There have been strange items appearing in the news today. Cuba has announced that “everyone” will pay taxes in the future. In general, the Cuban people have not paid taxes since the 1959 revolution—the country was subsidized by the former USSR. That ended in the 1990s.

With the reshuffle of their government two years ago, small, low-level capitalism was allowed in Cuba. Some were small business, a few were small private farms. The Cuban government wanted their share of those small successes.

It wasn’t enough. Now the Cuban government says everyone will pay taxes, not just those few “greedy” capitalists.  Sounds familiar, doesn’t it.  The parasite class in the US was sold a bill of goods by Obama and the dems declaring a plethora of free goodies. They, too, will discover like Cubans, that the list of freebies will end and someday the bill will come due. For the parasite class, that will begin next year with the first portions of Obamacare is implemented.

***

Here in Missouri, and I expect in many other states across the nation, conservative groups are gathering to form a unified platform they hope to implement in the Republican Party. Included in these groups are conservative ‘Pubs, Libertarians, Constitutionalists and Ron Paul supporters.

The hoped for fusion of these groups is to create an opposing force against the tactics of the ‘Pub establishment and the rule changes the establishment forced through in last Summer’s convention. They have a long list of grievances against the ‘Pub establishment—most of them well justified.

The discussions have, for the most part, been limited to private Facebook groups and other private lists. The initial goal of these groups is to work within the party to force a bottom-up change to core the party. Most of the members but not all, recognize that unification means power. They don’t want to create a new third party. A third party doesn’t have sufficient power to enact change—witness the futility of the Libertarians and the Constitution party. No, their goals are to change the nature of the Republican party, to stop the slide towards being just another democrat party, to reform the ‘Pubs to the original conservative, small government party of Reagan and Goldwater.

I haven’t seen much unification so far. All the motivations that created the conservative splintering still exists. The Libertarians cling to their party manifesto with its legalization of drugs and emasculation of themilitary. The Ron Paul faction still has their personality cult. It is now shifting to Rand Paul with the expectation that he, Rand Paul, is a clone of his father. That’s not yet proven. And, the Constitutionalists still hate the ‘Pubs for all their supposed offenses against conservatism.

So the name calling, the backbiting and backstabbing continues. Maybe, just maybe, these divergent groups will settle their differences and merge into a single force for change in the Republican Party. I’m not confident of their success. It will be interesting to see what happens. After all, as the old story goes, “Perhaps the horse will learn to sing.”

***

authoritarian
Definition:
au·thor·i·tar·i·an
1. strict and demanding obedience: favoring strict rules and established authority
2. demanding political obedience: belonging to or believing in a political system in which obedience to the ruling person or group is strongly enforced
au·thor·i·tar·i·an NOUN
au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism NOUN

Synonyms: strict, tyrannical, demanding, totalitarian, despotic, absolute, dictatorial, autocratic

Antonyms: liberal

Why bring this up? Well, Harry Reid is attempting to create a dictatorship in  the Senate with himself as the dictator. How? By eliminating the fulibuster…the sole remaining weapon of the ‘Pubs against a rubber stamp for Obama’s political appointments and foreign treaties. The dems were all against this when the ‘Pubs controlled the Senate prior to 2006 and they were the “obstructionists.”

Reid threatens filibuster change

McConnell hits back, says move threatens collegiality

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times, Monday, November 26, 2012

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed Monday he will push to change Senate rules and curtail some Republican filibusters next year, setting up a major test of collegiality and power politics in the usually chummy chamber that bills itself as “the world’s most exclusive club.”

Republicans said that if Mr. Reid goes ahead, he’ll not only ruin the unique nature of the Senate, but he’ll poison chances for bipartisan cooperation just as members of the next Congress are taking their seats in January.

The back-and-forth spilled over onto the Senate floor Monday, with Mr. Reid facing off against Sen. Mitch McConnell, the chamber’s top Republican, in a rare and acrid head-to-head debate.

“This is no exaggeration. What these Democrats have in mind is a fundamental change to the way the Senate operates, for the purposes of consolidating their own power,” the Kentucky Republican said. “In the name of efficiency, they would prevent the very possibility of compromise and threaten to make the disputes of the past few years look like mere pillow fights.”

The fight is not only about the filibuster, but the way the Senate writes all of its rules — of which the filibuster is just one example.

Mr. Reid plans to use his newly expanded majority to make the changes on the first day of the new Congress next year, which is the only time rules can be adopted on a simple majority vote. Any other time, a rules change requires a two-third vote, and most major changes are done through the two-thirds method.

Mr. Reid, though, said Republican blockades of bill after bill have left him no choice but to use the majority route — dubbed the “nuclear option” in some quarters — and said voters in this month’s elections showed they want faster action in the chamber.

“We’re going to follow the rules to make a couple of minor changes to make this place more efficient, and that’s what the Senate has always been about, is revising itself to become more efficient,” Mr. Reid said, dismissing GOP “threats” as bluster and wondering, “What more could they do to us?”

If Harry Reid is successful, the minority party—the ‘Pubs, will be powerless. A simple majority—which the dems already have, will be sufficient to pass anything not already requiring 2/3rds of the Senate. And, with this rule change, those 2/3rd requirements could be changed to require simple majorities as well. That is the real danger of Reid’s proposal.

Our government is funded by a series of “continuing resolutions” not a budget. The Senate has become a democrat rubber-stamp. Obama continues to act like a dictator ignoring the Constitution whenever it prohibits his acts. And 51% of the voters lap at the public trough.

It’s going to be a rough four years.

Facebook

Sold down the river

Posted on by

There is a historical reference to today’s post title. It once meant that recalcitrant slaves would be sold for heavy or dangerous work. The practice broke up families, divided parents from children, husband from wife, and frequently led to injury and death. Once you get past the connotations, it sounds much like today’s welfare state.

The ‘Pub establishment is about to sell us down the river. How? By a number of methods. First, there is a growing number who are disavowing Grover Norquist‘s Anti-Tax Pledge. Next, they are willing to “accept” some tax increases (that means bye-bye to extending the Bush tax rate) and closing tax “loopholes”. That last means removing some tax deductions like charitable giving and interest paid on mortgages. Nowhere in all this discussion, whether from John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Saxby Chambliss and other RINOs, is any demand for spending reductions—unless it’s cutting the military.

The ‘Pubs have retained their control of the U.S. House. That’s the good news. The bad news is that it’s controlled by RINOs like John Boehner who never saw a political battle he couldn’t evade.

So what can we expect from our Congressmen? Not a whole lot. Spending legislation is supposed to originate in the House. However, we’ve not had a budget passed in six years. The House has lost its major political function—controlling the government’s purse-strings. Real power is currently in the Senate. And what’s happening there? Harry Reid is attempting to remove the filibuster—the sole weapon remaining to the ‘Pubs, giving him rubber-stamp authority over all functions of the Senate—like approving appointments to the Judiciary, approval of treaties and the like. When that happens, our republican form of government is gone and the Constitution, already damaged, is powerless.

Our only hope remaining is to replace Boehner and McConnell with people who have the guts to fight to the last remaining limit. No, that’s not right. There can be no limits opposing the authoritarian rule of Obama and the democrats. The gloves must come off. It may be too late already. I hope not.

Facebook

A whiff of secession

Posted on by

The subject of secession has been popular since the election. I think there is a secession petition filed on the White House website from every state. Several states, like Texas, have reached that magic 25,000 signatures.

Does that mean Texas will secede? No. The petitions are meaningless gestures. There are others, however, who are serious about secession. Catalonia, for example…a segment of Spain.

Separatists winning in Catalonia, Spain: early results

BARCELONA, Spain | Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:43pm EST

(Reuters) – Four separatist parties in Spain’s Catalonia looked set to win a majority in regional elections on Sunday, partial results showed, but the main one was on course to lose some seats, possibly undermining its bid to call an independence referendum.

With half of votes counted, the ruling Convergence and Union alliance, or CiU, was winning 48 seats in the 135-seat local parliament, well down from its current 62 seats.

The separatist Republican Left, or ERC, was winning 20 seats, with two other smaller separatist parties taking a total of 16 seats, giving the four parties 60 percent between them.

Regional President Artur Mas, of CiU, had campaigned on a pledge to hold a referendum on independence, in response to a resurgent separatist movement among Catalans who are frustrated with Spain in a deep economic crisis.

Opinion polls had forecast that CiU would retain 62 or more seats in the local Parliament and that all four separatist parties would have more than two-thirds of the seats. Neither of those projections was met as the results began to come in.

Without the psychological backing of a two-thirds majority, analysts have said, it may be hard for Mas to defy the constitution and the central government in Madrid and try to hold a referendum.

Our experiment with secession failed 150 years ago. Other attempts around the world such as the Ukraine and Belarus has succeeded, albeit not without some blood being shed.

The talk in the US about secession has been just that—talk. The state of the nation, the economy, federal interference, the overall feeling of governmental tyranny, hasn’t yet reached the level where secession is being seriously discussed.

Yet.

There are some opinions that it could be done…by Texas, for instance. Texas has always had an independent streak. It, and California, were Republics before merging with the United States. The Republic of California was a joke. A side show, really, by a few Americans at the beginning of the War with Mexico in 1846. The Republic of Texas, however, existed for a number of years before succumbing to debt and internal divisions.

There are some today who think Texas could bring it off this time.

Secession, y’all: Why Texas can pull it off

Bob Smiley, Author, “Don’t Mess with Travis”

When Thomas Dunne published Don’t Mess with Travis in May — my comedic political novel about a freewheeling Texas governor who becomes fed up with a Constitution-stomping president and decides to secede — I knew I had landed on something relevant. I didn’t know it was this relevant.

As of writing, the Texas petition to peacefully “withdraw” from the United States via the White House’s open petition webpage is up to 62,481 signatures, on its way to tripling the required names needed to trigger a response from the Obama administration. No doubt Texas’s desire to break free is a source of amusement inside a White House that has mastered the art of belittling the opinions of its challengers, but there is one not-so-small problem here: Texas could pull it off.

Here’s why:

–Resources. Texas currently sits on one-quarter of the nation’s oil reserves and one-third of the nation’s natural gas reserves. Even more, fully 95% of the country receives its oil and gas courtesy of pipelines that originate within Texas. This is what one might call leverage.

–The Texas Economy. This is well documented but worth repeating. In the last decade, even with the Great Recession, Texas has expanded by one million jobs. One million. That’s more than every other state … combined. Because of its friendly business climate, Texas is home to more Fortune 500 companies than anywhere else. If Texas were its own country, it would have the thirteenth-highest GDP in the world, just behind Canada and Russia. Or think about it this way: For every dollar Texas taxpayers send to Washington, they currently get only about 80 cents back. Theoretically, they could transfer those funds to the state’s coffers and still give every Texan a 20 percent tax cut.

–Utilities. Texas is the only state with its own power grid. Developed over the course of the last 100 years, the Texas grid covers the majority of the state and is fully state controlled. Translation: Texans could rest assured that the federal government doesn’t have the power — literally — to turn off their lights.

–Defense. While no match for Uncle Sam’s firepower, Texas does have a significant defense presence, namely in the Texas State Guard (which answers only to the governor), the Texas National Guard, the Air Guard and the legendary Texas Rangers. Texas is also home to two of the nation’s largest military bases — Fort Hood and Fort Bliss — and being able to control those two installations is nothing to sniff at. But let’s not forget the firepower of the citizenry itself. There’s a reason burglars don’t waste their time in Texas.

–History. Texas has done this before. Twice, actually. First in 1836, when it seceded from Mexico and became an independent country. Second in 1861, when it joined the Confederacy. And while the South did lose the Civil War, it didn’t lose it in Texas. In fact, by the end of 1864, the North didn’t have one square foot of Texas soil under its control despite many attempts. Even a full month after Robert E. Lee surrendered at the Appomattox Court House Texas was still fighting. Texans love their state and they love a fight. That is a lethal combination.

Yes, Texas could make a go of it as an independent nation…if the U.S. would let it go peacefully. But let’s be realistic. That won’t happen. Obama and the libs need Texas. They need the taxes from Texas and they cannot allow the precedent of secession to be successful. Alone, Texas cannot withstand the power of the federal government.

Yes, there has been a number of pieces of fiction where secession succeeded. A more likely outcome would be something like that in Tom Kratman’s A State of Disobedience. The scenario at the beginning of Kratman’s book is eerily like that we find ourselves today.

If secession is to succeed, it must be by a coalition of states. Single states would not have sufficient power and defensive forces to win against the FedGov.

Like I said above, we’re not at that state yet and I pray we never find ourselves with that choice as our only option. The United States will not dissolve peacefully.

Why, then, are we discussing it? Because the credible threat of secession may force changes within the FedGov to resolve some of the differences between us, who revere the constitution and personal liberty and the statists who lust for power of government over people. Secession, then, is a tool—a last resort tool to be used to coerce the government to mend its ways and to restore some of our freedom.

It is a dangerous tactic. If secession is threatened, our options limited to two choices if we don’t get the concessions we demand: knuckle under to the FedGov or secede. Know then that with secession comes civil war because the FedGov needs us more than we need them.

When you hear talk of secession or participate in it, be aware of what you truly mean. There are consequences of such actions.

Facebook

Does the Rule of Law still exist?

Posted on by

I was listening to the news this morning and heard that a group of illegal “immigrants” were protesting outside the office of the Kansas Secretary of State, Kris Kobach.  Their complaint? Kobach insists on upholding the law and helps other states, like Arizona, formulate legislation to curb illegal entry into this country.

This particular group, some from within Kansas and others imported from out of state, want Kobach to resign because he enforces existing law. While they were protesting, ICE did not appear.

“We the People…”

This post, however, is not about illegal immigration, per se. It is about the failure of government to uphold and enforce existing law. The example above and the refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, are just two of many failures by the federal government. If such actions, the refusal to enforce selected law and legislation, becomes institutionalized by the FedGov and the states, what are the consequences?

Let’s take an example from the international stage. Last February, Obama was in a lather accusing Communist China of not following international trade law. Obama called, “the soon to be president of the a country that is the world’s second most powerful and that highly values “face” (pride,dignity) a cheater.” In light of Obama’s actions these last four years, that statement was the height of hypocrisy.

Clyde Prestositz, the author of the sentence quoted above defines the failure to enforce the rule of law as playing with the rules.

The phrase “all must play by the same rules” implies that all are playing the same game, but in actuality they are not. In many instances there are no rules or the rules are vague, untested, and unclear. Even where there are rules, many countries have been ignoring them for a long time and there is thus strong precedent for not playing by the rules or even for interpreting the rules such that they are actually said to bless the apparent violations.

The rule of law operates under the assumption that all parties have the same understanding of the law. If that is not so, how can any commonality of thought exist?

A long time ago, there was a science fiction short story about a murder case…the willful killing of a peaceful extraterrestrial alien. The killer proudly admitted killing the alien because it wasn’t human and was therefore a “varmint”. Killing a “varmint” was not illegal (in that story.)  The story ends with the Sheriff approaching the killer, pistol in hand, and tells the killer, “We’ve just redefined the description of ‘varmint’.”

Several of the protesters outside Kris Kobach’s state offices admitted to being in the United States illegally. They protested publicly confident the FedGov, in the form of ICE, would not intervene. They were correct. The federal government is actively redefining immigration law. When there is no commonality of thought—definition of law in this case, there is no law and the rule of law cannot exist.

When the federal government creates new law, whether through the normal passage through both Houses of Congress, or by edict in the form of federal regulations, how can the government reasonably expect the public to adhere to those laws when the federal government itself does not? It cannot.

Anarchy is the result.

I, personally, do not wish to live in a state of anarchy. If this trend of government, the failure to adhere to the rule of law, continues, we will have anarchy and that leads to civil war.

As an engineer, it was part of my job to perform risk assessments. To look, not at the best case, but at all cases including the worse case. Truly, civil war, is the worse case but I see it approaching if we continue on our current path. Along with risk assessments, I also looked at means for mitigation of those risks.

One mitigation is to establish, or perhaps re-establish the rule of law. If we cannot coerce the federal government to do so, then we must do so within ourselves, within our communities and states. Next, would be to extend the commonality of thought, the same rule of law to other communities and states and establish alliances to enforce commonality of law within our communities and states. Call it the Red States Alliance.

Numbers count. When we have sufficient numbers, individuals, communities, states, with the same commonality of thought, the same rules of law, we can then pressure the federal government to conform to our definitions, our rules, our commonality of thought, our rule of law.

Failure to ally ourselves with others of common thought and purpose means we must conform to the rules, the redefinition of the FedGov’s rules of law. That path leads to an authoritarian United States and the Constitution ceases to exist as our standard. It has already been grievously damaged but it is not yet irreparable.

To answer the question in my post title, does the rule of law still exist? Unfortunately, as much as I wish it weren’t so, it does not. When the federal government fails to enforce law, redefines law to make that law conform to an agenda contrary to its intent, the rule of law no longer exists. It’s not too late to reinstate the rule of law but the time is approaching when that option, too, ceases to be possible. Then our choice can only be to create new rules and impose them on the federal government.

Facebook

Thanksgiving Remembrance

Posted on by

I hope you all are having a great Thanksgiving. As I am known to do, I repeat some selected posts on Holidays. Some Holidays trigger particular memories. Thanksgiving always triggers one for me about an older cousin of mine. My Grandmother’s nephew actually.

Here for your enjoyment is a tale of Heinie Mueller. I hope the story may trigger some memories of yours of those who have gone before us and left a memorial mark on our lives.

***

Heinie (Henry) Mueller was Grandma’s nephew. He served in the US Army during WW1 though most of the battles on the front lines. He was gassed twice, received two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star plus some French medals.

Heinie was a character. He walked with a slight limp and cussed every third word. He didn’t care who he was with nor who heard him. If somebody didn’t like his language, it was just too bad. Usually, Heinie would send them on their way with a few choice words and phrases.

After the war, he married a lady named Irene and moved to Woodriver, IL. They would drive down to visit us every few months—more often after we moved to the farm. Heinie liked to hunt squirrels, rabbits, and geese and he would frequently appear during hunting season. He, Dad and I would go hunting while the women-folk visited.

I don’t remember Heinie ever shooting much. He seemed to just like getting outdoors and walking in the woods. When we flushed some game, he would more than likely let Dad or me have the shot.

One year, Heinie and Irene came down for Thanksgiving. They arrived on Wednesday and Irene brought makings for oyster dressing. She and Grandma would fix Thanksgiving dinner the next day while Mom went to pick up my sister who was attending college. Heine, Dad and I planned to get up early Thanksgiving morning and go goose hunting.

We left the house early Thanksgiving morning, about an hour before sunup, and drove down to the Muddy River bottoms where Dad share-cropped corn on a ten-acre field. Dad built some hunting blinds along the edge of the field when Heinie announced he was coming.

The blinds were set up along a tree line with an open view across the corn field. The field had been picked late in the season and there was a lot of corn spillage to attract geese and an occasional deer.

It was cold. Ice had formed on the surface of the field and crunched as we walked across it towards the blind. It had been built out of salvaged two-by-fours and scrap sheet-metal for the roof with a covering of corn stalks for camouflage. Across the front was a tarp that would be dropped to allow us to step forward to shoot.

For whatever reason, the wind, or low hanging gray clouds or just general cussedness, the geese didn’t appear that day. Heinie had brought a hip-flask and would take a nip every so often. Dad was a Baptist and didn’t drink, but Heinie didn’t care.

By 11 o’clock, we decided that we’d give up hunting for the day. Dad started a fire to make some coffee and to fix a quick lunch hoping to sober Heinie up a bit before we went back to the house.

Heinie had been nipping steadily since we arrived and was feeling good. While the coffee was perking in an old coffepot, Heinie started talking about when he was in the Army. He had joined the US Cavalry in 1912 at the age of 17 and had gone down into Mexico with Black Jack Pershing after Pancho Villa.

After a bit, he talked about going to France to fight the Germans. Heinie was a Corporal by that time and had transferred from the Cavalry to the Infantry. After Mexico, he said, he didn’t want to ride or see another horse for the rest of his life.

Heinie was promoted to Sargent on arriving in France and took over a rifle platoon. He fought in a few battles and managed to survive with only some minor wounds. He was lightly gassed with chlorine a couple of times when his British-made gas mask leaked.

After we had finished our coffee and the fried egg and bacon sandwiches Dad had warmed over the fire, Heinie was silent for awhile. Then he began to talk about the Second Battle of the Marne and tears started flowing.

Heinie had been in charge of a rifle squad when they had left the US, first as a Corporal and then as a Sargent. Not long after arriving in France, he was made a Platoon Sargent and Company interpreter. Heinie had known many of the men in the platoon for several years, some from the excursion into Mexico.

Heinie’s grandparents had immigrated from Hesse, German in the early 1880s. They spoke both German and French. Heinie, born in Illinois, didn’t speak English until he entered school and retained a slight German accent the rest of his life.

Heinie’s company was in the front line trenches and preparing for battle. The Battle of the Marne had been going on for some time and the allies were preparing counter-attacks. An hour before the company was scheduled to attack, Heinie was sent back to the battalion headquarters. It had been decided that all interpreters would be held back and would not attack with their troops because they would be needed to help translate for all the prisoners that would be captured—so they assumed.

Heinie paused several times to blow his nose and wipe his eyes before continuing. The whistles blew and the troops attacked. After several hours, survivors began filtering back through the battalion headquarters area. It was later determined that out of Heinie’s company, he and seven others were the only survivors. None were from Heinie’s platoon.

Later, Dad told me that every year Heinie would get a bit liquored up and start talking and remembering. One of my uncles, Dad’s older brother, joined the Army just before WW1 but had spent the war in the Cavalry patrolling the Mexican border out of El Paso. Usually Dad wasn’t too tolerant of drunkenness but Heinie was different. Dad said it was a small thing to give Heinie an audience. It quieted his ghosts.

Heinie is long gone now. But every Thanksgiving, I remember him.

Facebook