Post Scripts

Posted by Tina

The book by Fred Siegel is called “The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class”. Siegel posits a theory that the middle class is shrinking because the most radical elements of the left have “a fundamental contempt for for the middle class, for commerce, and thus for most of the American culture”. The quote is from an article in The Washington Examiner by Noemie Emery. Questioning Obama’s dramatic loss support of late, Emery asserts the books premise explains it perfectly:

From this angle, the road to perdition (and/or Obama) was paved around 1920, when the best and the brightest, depressed by the Great War and the funk that came after, decided all was not well in the world and the nation, and the great middle class was to blame. In rant after rant, book after book, play after play, H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Sinclair Lewis, and the editors of The Nation and The New Republic heaped scorn on the bourgeoisie and on business as peasants unworthy of those who would lead them and who always knew better than they.

“In the 1920s … what looked like freedom and progress to most white Americans was an affront to liberals and intellectuals,” as Siegel tells us. He quotes Malcolm Cowley as saying much later, “It wasn’t the depression that got me. It was the boom.”

The role of the leader was not to lead and/or shape public opinion but to govern against it, fighting the crassness that governs the herd. They loved Roosevelt and Kennedy for their glamor and privilege, but those with the middle-class taint — such as the failed merchant from Independence, Mo., named Harry Truman — came in for a roasting. Their prototype candidate was Adlai Stevenson, who explained his two losses to Dwight Eisenhower by saying the voters were too dim to get him. Until Obama came by.

Mr. Siegel may be on to something. Barack Obama has nearly decimated the middle class and has done great harm to middle class business in America. The values that have long been held by the middle class are being sneered at, maligned, and undermined through extreme liberal influence in our schools. This book might be worth reading; he certainly has wrapped his arms around the extremists of the Democrat Party.

Posted by Tina

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. -George Washington

Does it seem like the left has come unhinged of late? It’s either that or we are witnessing the truly low quality of the Democrat campaign plans for the year….targeting groups and possible candidates to destroy, changing or ignoring laws and procedures…undermining state efforts to tighten voting standards…consider:

The media has gone absolutely Bug Louis over “Bridgegate” giving that story much more (rabid) coverage than any of Obama’s many scandals.

In less than 24 hours, the big three networks have devoted 17 times more coverage to a traffic scandal involving Chris Christie than they’ve allowed in the last six months to Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service controversy. Since the story broke on Wednesday that aides to the New Jersey governor punished a local mayor’s lack of endorsement with a massive traffic jam, ABC, CBS and NBC have responded with 34 minutes and 28 seconds of coverage. Since July 1, these same networks managed a scant two minutes and eight seconds for the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups.

In contrast, journalists such as Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos pounced on the developing Christie story. The GMA host opened the program on Thursday by announcing, “Chris Christie in crisis. Calls at this hour for the feds to step in, investigate the explosive e-mails.”

Then yesterday came news that the actress Maria Conchita Alonso was fired from the production she was working on for making a political ad with a California Tea Party candidate for governor. Alonso said she had received criticism for supporting a Republican candidate: “They were saying they were going to burn down the theater, they were going to boycott the show.”

Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. -John F. Kennedy

The Democrat governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, also lost it last Friday. He said conservatives should “leave New York!”:

Cuomo said Friday that members of the GOP with “extreme” views are creating an identity crisis for their party and represent a bigger worry than Democrats such as himself.

“Their problem isn’t me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves,” the governor said on Albany’s The Capitol Pressroom radio show.

“Who are they? Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

Really? Where’s the love, Gov…what happened to that big progressive idea…DIVERSITY? It is the rallying cry of the Democrat Party…the party of tolerance and inclusion, right? Not! And the next example proves it.

One of the lowest of the lows was a drive by slamming of Republican Tim Scott.

Scott issued a very dignified response following disgusting remarks made by the NAACP President, Rev. William Barber II, who called Scott, “A ventriloquist’s dummy for the tea party.”

Scott’s response:

“To reflect seriously on the comments a person, a pastor, that is filled with baseless and meaningless rhetoric would be to do a disservice to the very people who have sacrificed so much and paved a way,” Scott told The Daily Caller in an emailed statement. “Instead, I will honor the memory of Dr. King by being proactive in holding the door for others and serving my fellow man. And Rev. Barber will remind me and others of what not to do.”

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -Louis D. Brandeis

In the dirty tricks department we learned at the end of December that the IRS has change the rules for nonprofit’s under certain conditions to eliminate Tea Party group participation in the next election. National Review has details in a fairly long article. In a nutshell it sound like the rules are written to be applied as the IRS sees fit:

Despite the variety of descriptions of exempt organizations listed in section 501, none provides a direct fit for political activists. Logically, as a matter of textual analysis, the statute’s term “social welfare” — described in IRS regulations as “promoting the common good and general welfare of the community” — should include political activism, given that democratic politics is supposed to be about the common good and general welfare.

The key conclusion is that, under the statute, there is no basis for the IRS to exclude political activity from “social welfare,” and there is no need for it to do so to protect the public revenues.

However, the IRS took a different direction: It arrogated to itself the duty of deciding which groups deserve the benefit of tax-exempt status, and uses the Internal Revenue Code to micromanage the nonprofit sector.

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. -Martin Luther King Jr

Media Matters or Moveon.org will be at the top of their list, I’m sure.

I could easily find other examples of devious political game playing to share with you; the left is gearing up for the coming elections. But at this point why bother…by now we all know how Democrats play the game and we will be barraged with their games in coming months.

Instead let me leave you with words of wisdom to consider from Doug Bandow at The American Spectator:

America is a class-based society. But based on politics, not economics. An elite political class runs the state to their benefit. The rest of us pay the bill.

The differences between the assumptions and values of people within and without Washington’s 68 square miles of fantasy long have been on ostentatious public display. For example, for years Congress routinely exempted itself from rules imposed on everyone else. The Republican-controlled Congress in 1994 theoretically stopped that.

However, legislative privilege never really ended. The Democrats’ health care “reform” became the latest example of elite privilege. Never mind the endless rules exemptions and multiple deadline postponements. Most dramatic was the tender treatment of those in the capital who approved the measure despite being opposed by those outside the capital.

I would only add that besides paying the bill we are also periodically used, like old worn work boots, and then discarded to the back of the closet when the election is done.

The politics of personal destruction is detestable and makes Americans look like a bunch of dopey adolescents. Personal problem special rights politics divide us and cause unnecessary stress and animosity, wearing us down to a frazzle. The Games played by the elites in DC are costing us a small fortune and that makes the targeting and smearing sited above all the more disturbing.

Have you ever wondered how well we citizens would get along if the entire machinery in DC just abruptly came to an end? If the federal government suddenly shriveled to bear bones…wouldn’t it be lovely? Gone would be the nasty games, the corruption, the intrusion into our lives, the endless redistribution of our hard earned money, and the constantly growing oppressive federal debt. Maybe we could get back to being Americans again. Maybe America could be a place Oce again where our close friends and family might know our personal business and opinions but basically the rest of the community wouldn’t have a clue…we could all just mind our own business…enjoy the music…and live free

We haven’t been able to live like that since the sixties generation came to town…the radical leftist activists who are not content to live in freedom with all of the opportunity they would ever need or could ever want to make a good life for themselves, to participate, to make a difference, to pay it forward, to fix problems in their communities. Nope…they gotta get into everyone’s kitchen and control and manage and make us pay and pay and pay and for what? Through the big machine of their activism they have created monster government…a huge money sink that does a lousy job of managing and running things. The left won’t stop unless freedom stirs in the hearts of all of us. In the light of life as our founders imagine we can overwhelm and overcome their activism with the power of a shared love of freedom. Learn to love it and please, please …pass it on!

Freedom has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed – else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die. -Dwight D. Eisenhower

Posted by Tina

A couple of stories in the news today just about bowled me over:

Breitbart – Big Journalism announced a big change at the Washington Post since Jeff Bezos took over the paper. Apparently the big leftist, Ezra Klein, has been shown the door and the conservative legal blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, has been welcomed with full editorial control!

CNS News informs that Bill Gates appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe today and when asked about the Presidents call for a rise in the minimum wage had this to say according to CNS News (emphasis mine):

“Well, jobs are a great thing,” Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Tuesday. “So you have to be a bit careful: If you raise the minimum wage, you’re encouraging labor substitution, and you’re going to go buy machines and automate things — or cause jobs to appear outside of that jurisdiction.

And so within certain limits, you know, it does cause job destruction. If you really start pushing it, then you’re just making a huge tradeoff.”

Gates said there also the question of which households end up benefiting from a higher minimum wage: “Is it much more the teenager in a wealthy household, or is it that household in poverty? A lot of the problem there is that those people don’t have many hours.”

“These are complex issues,” he continued. “It’s not as simple as just saying, okay, raise the wage.”

Wow…’spose folks are beginning to wake up?

Posted by Tina

Video showing two men dressed in street clothes in front of a black jihadist flag was posted on a Chechen extremist website tonight. The video will be being studied but is said to pose a credible threat to the Olympic Games which will officially open Monday near Sochi in Russia, ABC News reports:

“We’ll have a surprise package for you,” one of the men said in the militants’ video. “And those tourists that will come to you, for them, too, we have a surprise. If it happens [the Olympics], we’ll have a surprise for you. This is for all the Muslim blood that is shed every day around the world, be it in Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, all around the world. This will be our revenge.”

The video includes news and security camera footage from double suicide blast on a commuter trolly in the city of Volgogra, a busy Russian transit hub. House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Representative Mike McCaul relayed this message to ABC News:

“I think the threats are real. [Islamist Chechen leader Doku] Umarov basically called for attacks on the Olympics. I think you’re going to see attempts to do that. I think it’s more likely that the attacks will happen outside the perimeter, more soft targets, transportation nodes.”

The Russian government has allowed a small contingency of American security but has made it very clear that they will be in charge of security.

It hasn’t been that long since we experienced a devastating terrorist bombing here in America. The individuals involved in the Boston Marathon bombing were young, could easily blend in on American streets, and managed to show the world that two people can create a lot of misery, damage and death with very little effort. The American government treats such events as criminal rather than as acts of aggression and war. I wonder if Putin will be as laid back and understanding if these thugs manage to succeed in murdering scores of people at his Olympics? Somehow I think not.

If you’ve a mind to, you might want to throw up a few prayers for the participating athletes and the many visitors and spectators that will gather for the Winter Olympic Games in Russia starting this week.

by Chris S

With the recent release of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Report on Benghazi, conservative commentators have pounced on portions of the report that confirm that there were no protests before the attack on the console, that the attackers were not motivated by the infamous anti-Muslim video that caused protests around the Muslim world, and that the attack could have been prevented with heightened security.

Critics have used these facts to add fuel to their theory that the Obama administration falsely and deliberately misled the American public by stating that the attackers were motivated by the video, and that he did so in order to help his chances in the 2012 presidential election. Thinking that a terrorist attack would make him look bad, the Obama administration decided to lie to the public for political gain.

To these critics, the Senate Intelligence Report has been used as confirmation of this deception, proof that the left was wrong to dismiss them as conspiracy theorists. They have used it to call for the impeachment of President Obama over an offense that’s worse than Watergate.

Only one problem: the rest of the report completely demolishes their theory.

It should first be noted that almost none of what’s in the report is new information. We’ve known for months that the attack had little to no connection with the other protests around the world that day, and that the compound should have been better protected.

But the report found no evidence of a political cover-up, and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the video narrative came not from the White House, but from the intelligence community. Page 45 of the report shows the first draft of the CIA’s talking points, which reads:

1) Fri., Sept. 14th 2012,_11:15 a.m.-· ·written by Director, CIA Office of Terrorism Analysis~ 

• We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.

Following the first draft you can see the many edits that the CIA talking points went through. There was less and less confidence about the existence of protests in Benghazi as more information came to light.

The report goes on to conclude:

We now know that the CIA’s September 15, 2012, talking points were inaccurate in that they wrongly attributed the genesis of the Benghazi attacks to protests that became violent. However, as stated in the report, this characterization reflected the assessment by the IC of the information available at that time, which lacked sufficient intelligence and eyewitness statements to conclude that there were no protests. Further, it is important to remember that this early assessment was made in the context of approximately 40 protests around the globe against U.S. embassies and consulates in response to an inflammatory film. There were also other violent attacks against U.S. embassies and consulates in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and other cities around the world on or after September 11. According to CIA emails dated September 16, 2012, the then-Deputy Director of the CIA requested further information from CIA staff at Embassy Tripoli about whether there was countervailing evidence of protests that occurred prior to the attacks in Benghazi. It was not until September 24, 20 12-eight days later-that the IC revised its assessment that there were no protests leading up to the attacks (see discussion in the main report under Finding #9 for bipartisan Committee views on the development of the intelligence picture after the attacks).

5. The Talking Points Went Through the_Normal Interagency Coordination Process.

The Majority concludes that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and t hat there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to “cover-up” facts or make alterations for political purposes. Indeed, former CIA Director David Petraeus testified to the Committee on November 16, 2012, “They went through the normal process that talking points-unclassified public talking points-go through.”146 In fact, the purpose of the National Security Council (NSC) is to coordinate the many national security agencies of the government, especially when information about a terrorist attack is flowing in and being analyzed quickly-and the NSC used this role appropriately in the case of the talking points coordination.

…The Majority agrees that the process to create the talking points was not  without problems, so we join our Republican colleagues in recommending-as we do in the report-that in responding to future requests for unclassified talking points from Congress, the IC should simply tell Congress which facts are unclassified and let Members of Congress provide additional context for the public. However, we sincerely hope that the public release of the emails on May 15, 2013, that describe the creation of the talking points, and the evidence ·presented in this report, will end the misinformed and unhelpful talking points controversy once and for all.

Sadly, the report did NOT “end the misinformed and unhelpful talking points controversy once and for all.” Conspiracy theorists rarely acknowledge evidence that contradicts their theories, no matter how strong that evidence is.

The Benghazi conspiracy theory never made sense in the first place. Obama called the attack an “act of terror” the day after the attack. Later that week and the next, he told both Jay Leno and Univision that “extremists” had used the video as an “excuse” for their attacks. If Obama was desperate to convince Americans that this was not a planned terrorist attack, why would he make these comments?

Furthermore, it’s never been clear why Republicans believe that the outcome of the election would have been any different if the Obama administration had never mentioned the video. How would that have helped Romney? This election was about who could convince Americans that they were looking out for their economic interests, not about foreign policy. Obama, for all his faults, is a shrewd politician; he had no motive to lie about the motives for the attack.

Finally, the fact that the CIA attributed the attack to a spontaneous protest triggered by the video has been a well-known fact for several months, and easily accessible news reports and interviews with people involved in the attack also made mention of the video. The notion that this story was “invented” by the White House was never true, and that’s been pointed out to Republicans dozens of times in the past year.

These facts have been available for quite a while, and clearly show that the White House’s comments about the video were based on the best information available at the time, provided for them by the intelligence community. The Senate report merely confirms this.

Republicans who care about the truth, and who are genuinely opposed to using the deaths of four Americans as a political football-as they’ve falsely accused Obama of doing-now have two options: they can present evidence challenging the Senate report and showing that there was an Obama-led cover-up. Or, provided such evidence doesn’t exist, they can admit that they were wrong to accuse the Obama administration of a conspiracy based on zero evidence, drop their focus on Benghazi as if it is the worst event in American history, and we can all move on to the real scandals of the Obama administration: his war on whistleblowers such as Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, signing indefinite detention into law, and the NSA wiretapping scandal are all atrocities that should be bringing the left and right together in opposition to the president’s violations of constitutional rights under the pretense of national security.

Unfortunately, too many Republicans already seem to have chosen a third option: selectively quote portions of the report, ignore all evidence that doesn’t fit the conspiracy narrative, and accuse Obama of treason and call for impeachment based on a report that flatly rebukes them for doing that very thing.

Which will you choose?

Posted by Tina

Over at The American Thinker Aleksey recounts his childhood and delivers a powerful lesson to the American people:

“They told us in Odessa, that in San Francisco it’s hard to find milk.”

This is the typical Soviet mentality, and they were used to it, and they bought into it, and then they entered that American supermarket and saw the rows upon rows of milk of different brands and kinds and fat percentages.

This is where some have been known to cry. It is the realization that their lives were stolen from them by the regime. A realization of what could’ve been, if they had been lucky enough to be born in this place which, from everything they knew, could not possibly exist.

I now live in Northern California, in the heart of the Bay Area, thousands of miles away from my homeland.

And yet the poison of Soviet propaganda seeps through college dorms just as it did in Soviet classrooms.

Please follow the link and read the entire piece. It carries a particularly powerful message for young people in this country who represent America’s future and who are being lured into believing that the socialist policies favored by Democrats, and often taught in our schools, will lead to more prosperity and fairness for everyone. As this essay reveals in startling clarity, the socialist model will not lead to anything but shared misery.

Aleksey’s parting advice, “Dear beautiful America, please, stop moving Forward.”

Posted by Tina

Young people are struggling to see light at the end of the tunnel in a stagnant economy with few jobs. The future doesn’t seem to hold anything but more lost opportunity and growing federal debt. The hope and change they cheered about in 2008 has faded like a bad dream. During the five years that President Obama has led the nation and set economic policy more Americans than ever are without work and falling into poverty. Income inequality that unfortunately remained static during the eight years of Bush has grown significantly since the recovery of 2009. In five years of Keynesian economic policy the rich continue to prosper, as they always will, while the middle class continues to shrink and the poor grow ever more hopeless. Young people, young unmarried women, minorities, and the poor are suffering greatly in the transformation years of Barack Obama:

For better or worse, a truism of American politics is that voters vote their pocketbooks. Yet according to a new report on median household incomes by Sentier Research, in 2012 millions of American voters apparently cast ballots contrary to their economic self-interest.

Each month the consultants at Sentier analyze the numbers from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey and estimate the trend in median annual household income adjusted for inflation. On Aug. 21, Sentier released “Household Income on the Fourth Anniversary of the Economic Recovery: June 2009 to June 2013.” The finding that grabbed headlines was that real median household income “has fallen by 4.4 percent since the ‘economic recovery’ began in June 2009.” In dollar terms, median household income fell to $52,098 from $54,478, a loss of $2,380.

What was largely overlooked, however, is that those who were most likely to vote for Barack Obama in 2012 were members of demographic groups most likely to have suffered the steepest income declines. Mr. Obama was re-elected with 51% of the vote. Five demographic groups were crucial to his victory: young voters, single women, those with only a high-school diploma or less, blacks and Hispanics. He cleaned up with 60% of the youth vote, 67% of single women, 93% of blacks, 71% of Hispanics, and 64% of those without a high-school diploma, according to exit polls.

Clearly many of these people do not understand the basics about how jobs are created, what makes an economy grow, or government policies that will offer them the best chance to improve their own economic situation.

The President has promised to make income inequality a top priority in the coming year. One of the changes he intends to institute is a rise in the minimum wage. Unfortunately this policy will only exacerbate what is already a devastating situation for the middle and lower class young. It will place more downward pressure on job creation and it will cause prices to rise making dollars worth less. This isn’t just partisan opinion. It has been demonstrated recently in the city of San Jose. Chris Roberts, San Francisco Examiner reports:

Think $4 toast is bad? Try $6 toast, with no one to serve it to you.

A survey on one major Bay Area city’s minimum-wage hike and its negative impact on businesses could be a warning sign for San Francisco leaders who are seeking to boost the nation’s already-highest minimum wage.

In San Jose, a 25 percent minimum-wage hike last year led to higher prices for consumers and fewer hours for workers at restaurants, according to a survey conducted by the Employment Policy Institute, a conservative Washington, D.C.-based think tank. …

…Out of the 163 South Bay restaurants surveyed, 108 — or two-thirds — raised prices after the $10 minimum wage took effect. Another 73 reduced workers’ hours, and 69 restaurants cut staff entirely.

These real life statistics should act as a wake up call for struggling young men and women. Young Americans need jobs and most of the time en entry level, minimum wage position will be the best hope for a start. The unemployment rate for this group is between 13% and 26% depending on how the disabled are factored in, according to the Department of Labor. The percentage is even higher for minorities. Low wage jobs were never intended to support a family with children. these jobs offer the new worker experience and an opportunity to learn good work habits and are very important not only for the person seeking employment, but for a society that suffers from youth idleness when opportunity is denied them. Unfortunately, the record of poor job opportunity for the young has created a crisis that will not be ameliorated with policies that result in fewer jobs.

President Obama has a choice. He can choose at this juncture to acknowledge the failure of his economic policies and make a shift. He need only to look to the past for ideas. A look back to a speech delivered in 1962 by John F. Kennedy reveal his mistakes and offer a change in policy that would work (emphasis mine):

…the most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand — to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past, this could be done in part by the increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the government and our economy. If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency. And I shall say more on this in a moment.

The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system — and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.

Obama would be wise to also heed the words of former President Ronald Reagan to realize that it is not more and bigger government that sparks vibrancy and leads to expansion, growth, jobs, and increased wealth for everyone but the American people set free from government restraint and interference and able to pursue their wildest dreams:

“Government growing beyond our consent had become a lumbering giant, slamming shut the gates of opportunity, threatening to crush the very roots of our freedom,” Reagan said in his 1986 State of the Union speech. “What brought America back? The American people brought us back-with quiet courage and common sense, with undying faith that in this nation under God the future will be ours, for the future belongs to the free.”

Following the Carter years of malaise Ronald Reagan ushered in a period of unprecedented growth and opportunity by instating the same policies touted by John F. Kennedy…policies that emphasized lower taxes and restraint of government.

Unfortunately, President Obama has already signaled that politics is more important than the suffering of the young people of our country. He has already signaled that he will continue to micromanage the economy by picking winners and losers and through redistribution policy. That old saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result just doesn’t have the power to penetrate the politics of the hard core left.

President Obama is a radical progressive with a plan to fundamentally transform America. That has been his commitment from day one and it will continue to be his commitment. We have lived the result of these radical leftist policies and it has been very hard, especially on young people. Charming speeches about income inequality may distract and tug at the heart strings. It may lead to renewed feelings of hope and change. But it will not lead to good policies for economic growth or an abundance of job and wealth building opportunity for the young. The policies of Kennedy and Reagan would…young people should take to the streets and demand it!

Posted by Tina

I saw the movie “Lone Survivor” yesterday after my nineteen year old granddaughter told me that although some of it was difficult for her to watch, it gave her a better sense of what we’ve been doing in Afghanistan, the things our troops go through and endure, the good people that risk their lives to help us, and the terrible ruthlessness of the terrorists we fight. She was absolutely right on all counts.

Peter Berg’s movie is the true story of how U.S. Navy Seal, Marcus Luttrell, became the only survivor of a mission gone bad in Afghanistan. “Operation Red Wings” was a kill mission to take out a ruthless Taliban leader who had been spotted in a village in the mountains. The four man team is first dropped from a helicopter and after a long hike reach their destination where they take up positions on the mountainside. They spot the target in the village below but their mission is soon compromised and quickly falls apart when a group of goat herders come upon them. The team is able to quickly subdue them but now a decision must be made to either kill them or let them go. The men are not in agreement and begin to weigh the choices. Since the radio is not working they can’t count on direction from commanders back at the base. Finally they agree the right thing to do is to release the locals even though they realize the risk they are taking would be deadly. As the locals fly down the mountain toward the enemy the team begins their new mission, a fierce battle for their own survival.

“Lone Survivor” passionately recreates true life events and men of strength, endurance, dedication, compassion and heart. In the telling we are introduced to the terrible and vicious killers we know as terrorist enemies and to men who will risk their lives and the lives of others to offer shelter and help. It is a sobering reminder of the danger and death of war but ultimately it’s a survivors experience of shared humanity and shared valor expressed at the leading edge in the fight for freedom and peace in the world.

I won’t offer more details. I do want to say that this movie gave me even greater respect for those who proudly and vigorously rush toward the hard fight in defense of our nation. It gave me deeper awareness about their devotion to each other and their work. I also have renewed appreciation for the good people in the Middle East who must live side by side with the ruthlessness of terrorists zealots and who so bravely do what they can to help the United States and our allies to rid the world of the darkest of enemies.

It does not surprise me that this film has attracted the usual snide cadre of critics saying that the film “glorifies war”. I suspect my granddaughters reaction may be what bothers them most. They are wrong and I’d enjoy taking them on. But there isn’t a better response to their ignorance than the one given by Marcus Luttrell:

“Bottom line is that there’s bad people everywhere. And every now and again we are going to have to step to them to make sure that we preserve our way of life,” Luttrell added. “It’s people like my teammates and I that have to do that, and the men and women in the military. But there’s nothing glorious about it, there’s nothing pro-war — nobody wants war, it’s the most horrible thing in the world.”

Thank you sir.

Correction: This article has been updated to reflect two corrections, 1. The operation was called “Operation Red Wings” not “Operation Red Wing” and, 2. The team was comprised of four men not six.

How do you score, introvert, leader, wall flower, analytical? Click here to find out.