GETTING RID OF THE IRS IN THE SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION |
For those of you who are not familiar with the Fair Tax Act of 2007 (HR25), the Fair Tax Act is a 133 page tax reform bill currently before the House Ways and Means Committee that will replace more than sixty thousand pages of the IRS rules -- and the IRS itself.
The Fair Tax is not the Flat Tax because the Fair Tax is based on consumption and the Flat Tax is still based on income. The Fair Tax gets rid of the IRS forever and repeals:
- The individual income tax
- All individual and employer payroll taxes including social security taxes, medicare taxes, and federal unemployment taxes
- Corporate income tax
- Self employment tax
- Estate and Gift taxes
- The Alternative Mininum Tax
It replaces these taxes with a national retail sales tax on all goods and services sold at retail. The tax rate, set at 23%, is revenue neutral, so it will replace all revenues generated by the repealed taxes. In fact, it will surpass current revenues. Estimating the Fair Tax base for 2007 to be $11.24 trillion, "implementing the Fair Tax rate of 23% on this base would generate federal tax revenues equal to $2.58 trillion -- $358 billion more than the $2.22 trillion in tax revenues generated by the taxes it repeals," according to Beacon Hill Institute and Dr. Laurence Kotlikoff, Professor of Economics at Boston University.
According to FairTax.org, "Exports and the intermediate purchases by businesses are not taxed, nor are used goods, savings, investment or education tuition expenses. There are no exemptions under the Fair Tax, meaning that no lobbyist, corporation, or individual can obtain tax advantages that are not available to the general public." This is why lobbyists for major industries are against it. It would be good for their industries, but they'd be out of jobs since their main function is to interpret tax law on Capital hill.
The Fair Tax provides every American family with a prebate of the sales tax on spending up to the federal poverty level. But to get the prebate, family members must have a valid Social Security number and be a lawful resident of the United States.
According to the Fair Tax Book, "Under the Fair Tax plan, the number of people paying into the system will grow from about 158 million workers to 300 million Americans and about 50 million visitors" (including illegal aliens.) "Even visitors from abroad will be in effect paying into the Social Security system through their retail purchases."
Speaking of Social Security, funding for Social Security and Medicare benefits remain the same. Plus that prebate would be paid monthly to you, mailed to your home. The average Social Security benefits for a retired couple living solely on Social Security are $18,776. The Fair Tax prebate for this couple would be $4,697 annually given to them in monthly installments of $391.
The source of funding for Social Security and Medicare is a dedicated portion of the sales tax revenue collected instead of payroll taxes. Investment income, pensions, annuities, and social security payouts will not be taxed, nor will IRA and 401K plans even an income tax deduction was taken for the contributions to these plans.
"Consumption taxes are the oldest form of taxation for many good reasons. They are self limiting - you buy what you can afford; throughout history they have enhanced civil liberties; direct taxes such as income taxes, poll taxes, head taxes throughout history have been the tools of tyranny; and finally uniformity of taxation wards off special interest manipulation." says FairTax.org.
When the income tax was instituted, Congress went beyond merely enacting an income tax law. It repealed Article IV of the Bill of Rights by empowering the tax collector to do the very things from which that article says we were to be secure. In case you didn't know, under the 16th amendment Congress can take 100 per cent of our income anytime it wants to.
According to T. Coleman Andrews, the commissioner of Internal Revenue from l953-l955, the income tax "employs the vicious communist principle of taking from each according to his accumulation of the fruits of his labor and giving to others according to their needs, regardless of whether those needs are the result of indolence or lack of pride, self respect personal dignity or other attributes of men. The income tax is fulfilling the Marxist prophecy that the surest way to destroy a capitalist society is by steeply graduated taxes on income and heavy levies on the estates of people when they die."
In "The Fair Tax Book", Neal Boortz tells it like it is. "As soon as they instituted the income tax, politicians managed to mold our tax code into an instrument designed not so much for raising revenue to fund the legitimate operations of government, as to control the behavior of individual Americans and corporations, and to give politicians levers to pull and buttons to push to buy votes when reelection time comes around.
They use it to bludgeon their political enemies and reward their allies. It's become the principal tool of class warfare in America. The income tax punishes incentive and achievement and rewards those who know the ropes inside the Beltway. The Fair Tax will have none of these flaws."
In answer to the naysayers who insist that Congress will never pass it, we should inform them that a band of ragged militants freed America from the tyranny of British rule. They revolted because of the Stamp Act - unfair taxes. This is the second American Revolution over taxes. Our ancestors did it then, and we can do it now.
The Fair Tax will pass when our grassroots membership grows large enough to demand it. We need at least 10,000 voters in each of the 41 districts represented by a member on the House Waynes and Means Committee to contact those congressmen. We need at least 3,500 voters in every other district across the nation to contact their congressmen. 2 million advocates out of over 130 million registered voters is less than 2%.
Many politicans are withholding their support until they see what their constitutents want. We need to write them and ask them for their support. Our own John Campbell, Dana Rohrabacher, and Ed Royce are among those we need to convince. Darryl Issa and Duncan Hunter already support it.
We have to fight for a simpler, clearer way to fund our federal government - a way that protects freedom, promotes individuality, and spawns economic growth. This is our chance to do just that. You can find Fair Tax information and a sample letter to send to your congressmen at www.fairtax.org. under the Grassroots section. Neal Boortz's and Congressman John Linder's book, "The Fair Tax Book" , is a witty and enjoyable way to fully understand both taxing history in the U.S. and the current situation . It can be found on Amazon.com.
|
A DECEPTIVE "REFORM" |
by Jay Peterson
Changing the rules in mid-game. That is what the voters of California will be asked to do in the upcoming February primary election. On that ballot will be Proposition 93, a so-called "term-limits reform initiative" placed there by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, whose true purpose is to allow Nunez and his fellow Assembly members, as well as their State Senate counterparts, to remain in office longer.
The "reform" is being marketed under the deceptive claim that it will "cut" legislators' time in office from the current maximum of fourteen years to a new maximum of twelve years while allowing each legislator the option of serving those entire twelve years in just one of the Legislature's two houses. In truth, Prop. 93, if passed, would ensure that many legislators will remain in office much longer than they would otherwise.
Here is how it works: with legislative districts gerrymandered so as to ensure that virtually every one of them is a "safe" seat for one party or the other, anyone elected to an Assembly or Senate seat is virtually guaranteed reelection for the maximum number of times allowed under the term limits law. Under the current term-limits law, a legislator can serve a maximum of six years (three terms) in the Assembly and eight years (two terms) in the Senate, for a total maximum of fourteen years. The most common method of obtaining that full fourteen years is to be elected to the Assembly for three terms, then get elected to the Senate for two terms. But as there are 80 Assembly seats and only 40 Senate seats, this means that at least half of those elected to the Assembly will NOT be able to move on to the Senate and so their time in office in Sacramento will consist of only six years total; for them, the fourteen-year maximum will be nothing more than an unfulfilled dream.
The proposed law, while reducing the total POTENTIAL time that any legislator could possibly serve, would increase the virtually GUARANTEED time that all 120 legislators would be able to serve. Thus, an Assembly member elected in a "safe" gerrymandered district would see his/her guaranteed time in the Legislature change from six to twelve years, a 100% increase; a Senator's guaranteed time would go from eight to twelve years, a 50% increase. It should come as no surprise that the politicians behind this "reform" are willing to trade a 14-year "maybe" (that many of them would not obtain) for a 12-year "sure thing."
As stated earlier, this so-called "reform" would also change the rules for the campaign of 2008 in mid-game. Under the current law, anyone who is currently completing a third Assembly term or a second Senate term is ineligible to seek reelection to that office. Many would-be Assemblymen/women and Senators have spent the past year building campaign organizations and accumulating warchests in preparation to seek the seats being vacated by termed-out legislators. But if this term-limits "reform" measure passes in the February primary, those efforts will have been for naught, as most if not all of the otherwise termed-out politicians will file for re-election in the June primary and, with the advantage of incumbency, will surely defeat any challenger; those who have been preparing to succeed them will have little choice but to give up their campaigns. This is clearly a case of "changing the rules in mid-game" for the benefit of the incumbents, particularly Fabian Nunez; a fair reform measure would have the new rules take effect in the next election cycle.
On top of everything else, this initiative qualified for the ballot under extremely suspicious circumstances. The percentage of invalid signatures submitted was unusually high and it appeared that the measure would not qualify for the February ballot. Then, at the last minute, three county Registrars submitted "revised" totals that enabled the measure to qualify by the barest of margins; it is widely suspected that political influence and pressure is responsible for this last-minute development.
The campaign to pass Prop. 93 will certainly be well-funded: the big-money supporters of powerful incumbents have a vested interest in keeping their bought-and-paid-for lawmakers in office for as long as possible. It will also cost them less in the future to get a politician elected once for a guaranteed twelve-year stay in office, rather than, after six or eight years, having to pay for a second expensive campaign to get that lawmaker elected to the other house of the Legislature. But California has seen the defeat of other propositions that received massive financial support from special interests once the public realized the true motives behind those measures; Prop. 93 can be similarly defeated if the grass roots can deliver the truth to the electorate.
Everything about this measure to alter the term-limits law has an odor of unfairness, dishonesty and self-serving politics. Even those who have pronounced the current term-limits law to be a counterproductive failure should reject this upcoming "reform" measure as unacceptably tainted.
|
| May 7, 2002 |
Woman gets 'McBeating' at Florida McDonalds over ketchup |
| Woman Sues After Alleged 'McBeating'
Several Surgeries Needed To Replace Hair, Woman Says
Posted: 5:56 p.m. EDT May 7, 2002
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- A West Palm Beach woman Tuesday filed a
lawsuit against McDonald's after she allegedly was beaten by two of the
restaurant's employees. Carmen Beauchamp told police that the incident began when a
disagreement at the drive-through prompted an altercation in the
parking lot in January. "So she comes back with a handful of ketchup and she just
threw it at us -- threw it at the car," Beauchamp said, describing a
female teenage employee. According to the report, Beauchamp entered the store to
complain about the behavior and was attacked by the employee and
another girl. "Instead, she got a McBeating, a McBashing," Beauchamp's attorney, Elliot Shaw, said.
Said Beauchamp, "The next thing I knew, she grabbed me by the
hair and just dragged me into the kitchen. She was all over me and she
wouldn't let go of me at all. I was kicked all over. I had bruises all
over my arms, my chest, my legs." Police were notified of the incident and the restaurant's manager immediately fired the two employees.
But Beauchamp did not file a report on the incident with police,
according to Shaw. A report wasn't filed with police until an hour
after the incident, according to the Palm Beach County Sheriff's
Office, and police did not say who eventually filed the report. Beauchamp said she spent weeks healing from the altercation
and has had several surgeries to replace patches of hair ripped from
her head. "I never stop thinking about it," she said. "I'm nervous all the time. I get anxiety attacks."
Beauchamp said she is still angry because she never received an apology from the restaurant.
"There is no excuse," she said. "This is incredible. If it
wasn't for the seriousness of the damage, it would be humorous -- that
you could drive up to a McDonald's where they say you're safe and
secure and then they beat you up?" Mark Watson of Melton Management, which owns the restaurant, did not comment on the allegations.
"We have not seen the lawsuit and therefore cannot comment,"
Watson said in a written statement. "It is an ongoing matter and we
caution anyone from jumping to conclusions before all the facts are
in." |
May 12, 2002
Nanny Government vs. Free Speech
|
| Constitutional
lawyers are no doubt correct that the courts will strike down the
provision of recently enacted Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996,
which bans the transmission of "indecent" material on the Internet. |
|
Constitutional
lawyers are no doubt correct that the courts will strike down the
provision of recently enacted Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996,
which bans the transmission of "indecent" material on the Internet. In fact, enforcement of the provision has already been stopped
by a court order, pending ajudication of the First Amendment issues
involved. It's painfully clear, however, that such a welcome ruling will
not stop some politicians, in both parties, from continuing to pander
to the anti-democratic crusade clamoring for broad restrictions on the
rights of Internet users and access providers. Aside from the fact that a very small segment of the public is
engaged in or even aware of this struggle, despite its widespread
economic as well as "free speech" consequences, it is equally clear
that "we" are not winning the argument. If this mounting assault on free speech is to be ultimately
defeated, it must be examined and explained more thoroughly so that its
inherent weaknesses and danger to the freedom of each and every
individual are fully understood and exploited. While that is a given, few observers thusfar have correctly
discerned, much less exposed the philosophical basis of this struggle
to the general public. Yet, fortuitously, the philosophical basis of
this new edict is precisely where its greatest weakness resides. The notion that government "should" restrict access to
information on the Internet, or control information distributed on it,
is derived from a more basic belief; that it is the government's duty
to "protect" its citizens from harm, even intellectual and moral harm.
That's why the crusaders should be identified with the gatekeepers of
"Preventive Government". They are the latest to pursue the "Nanny
State". The allure of preventive government is tied to the deep and
natural yearning of all human beings to feel secure. But the Nannies
among us believe that individuals ("somebody else") can't or shouldn't
be allowed or "left to" fend for themselves, or even to make decisions
for themselves, when a potential harm may result. In recent years, a wide variety of laws have been enacted,
particularly at the state and national level, which regulate individual
behavior so as to avoid a potential tragedy or a potential harm, or to
promote some actual or imagined future good. Usually, these laws are designed to "protect" people from
themselves. In other cases, they are allegedly designed to protect
people from harming others, or to avoid some potential cost to the
taxpayer. For example, laws requiring the wearing of seatbelts, or
prohibiting motorcyclists from riding without a helmet, affect only the
safety of the wearer, not the public at large. The risk of injury for
not obeying these laws is born solely by the individual who is
regulated. So, why should the government be involved or even care? Nanny Goverment insists on being involved because its
advocates believe that when a motorcyclist is severely injured, the
taxpaying public "must" pick up the medical bill because the rider is
often uninsured or underinsured. And since Nanny Government accepts the
idea that the injured rider has a "right" to medical care from the
government, it is only prudent that government restrict his risky
behavior. However, when you consider the possible harm from drinking,
sex, skiing or eating cholesterol-laden foods, you get some idea of how
pervasive government's restrictions would be, if the same standard it
applied to the cyclist were applied to the rest of us. A slight variant of that "justification" is employed by those
who advocate government control of the Internet. The argument appears
to be that parents can't be relied upon to protect their own children
from harm which may be done to them by using the Internet unsupervised.
The harm they envision is that the children will mature into
anti-social adults with low morale, who will behave in a fashion that
is detrimental and costly to society. Their "solution" is to have the government step in and use its
power to "ensure" that children are protected from harmful words and
pictures on the Internet. What's wrong with this government action? First of all, no one
knows whether the harms predicted will ever occur, outside someone's
imagination. Thus no one can really be certain that pornography over
the Internet will do harm to anyone. And, if it is harmful, who can
even say how many children deliberately seek it out, let alone
"stumble" onto Internet sex talk and graphics; how "big" is the
problem? Let us assume nevertheless, for the sake of argument, that
children's exposure to pornography over the Internet is a problem. In
that event, we certainly would acknowledge it. But if we are a free
people and wish to remain free, we will not restrict adults or place
impossible rules and regulations on access providers. Instead, we
should agree that the problem is strictly under the purview of parents.
It is a matter of parental rights and parental responsibility. It is true, of course, that some parents or legal guardians
don't care or won't take action with regard to Internet use in their
own home. But it's also true that some will fail to carry out their
responsibilities over many other activities of the minors under their
care; smoking, drinking, drugs, gangs, etc. In a free society, however, children are raised by their parents, not by the government.
We, as a society, have already determined that freedom carries
certain risks and costs, which we must be prepared to accept if we are
to remain free. Thus, Americans don't want government violating or
interfering with the privacy of family life—unless there is real abuse
or serious neglect, or unless parents are contributing to the
delinquency of a minor. If we, as a society, decide that failure to monitor and
control a child's use of the Internet rises to the level of "abuse",
then we must deal with the parents accordingly. We cannot, however, move instead against the purveyor, artist,
writer or access provider, without fundamentally jeopardizing the
freedom of all Americans. |
May 3, 2002
'Britney's Dance Beat' is the hottest new video game. |
| Want
to be a dancer for Britney Spears? Well, now you can. A new videogame
has just hit retailers in which you can audition to be a backup dancer
on a virtual concert tour. |
|
VIDEOGAME
MAKER THQ Inc. announced Thursday that "Britney's Dance Beat" for
PlayStation 2 has been shipped to retailers nationwide. The game lets
players audition to be a backup dancer on Spears' virtual concert tour
by maneuvering one of six characters through a series of practices and
auditions to perfect their dance moves.
"Rhythmic pressing of the right buttons to the beat of
Britney's hit songs will unlock exclusive behind-the-scenes video
footage and concert clips," THQ said in a statement. The game also
features her music, including new releases "Overprotected" and "I'm a
Slave 4 U," as well as "... Baby One More Time," "Oops! ... I Did it
Again," and "Stronger."
Additional DVD content includes 360-degree immersive video in
which the player controls the camera at a concert with the controller,
deciding whether to watch Spears and her dancers on stage, or cheering
fans in the crowd.
Game Time
- Xbox creators start video game development company
- Sega, ESPN enter video game pact
- Namco making games for GameCube
- Gaming: The view from the top
- GameCube makes European debut
THQ said Spears underwent a cyber-scan to create the most
realistic 3D model possible. The game is compatible with most dance or
beat pads so that players can watch a digital Spears dance on-screen
and attempt to match the dance moves on the dance pad. "It is so cool that I have my very own videogame," Spears said
in a statement. "THQ totally captured my dance moves perfectly. I was
blown away by how realistic everything looks!" THQ vice chairman and COO said "Britney's Dance Beat … is a
new form of entertainment that blends gaming with music, videos and
behind-the-scenes access for fans."
The game is the first to release for a next generation game
system under THQ's exclusive agreement with Britney Brands Inc. to
publish games featuring Britney Spears. Britney's Dance Beat for Game
Boy Advance is also available and a PC version will ship in June. |
May 5, 2002
Report: Bootlegged 'Star Wars' Hits The Internet |
| The
next movie in the "Star Wars'' saga is not scheduled to reach theaters
until next week. However, illegal copies already are surfacing on the
Internet. |
|
LOS
ANGELES -- The next movie in the "Star Wars'' saga is not scheduled to
reach theaters until next week. However, illegal copies already are
surfacing on the Internet. The Los Angeles Times reports one copy of
the movie appears to have been recorded at a private screening using a
digital camcorder. Another copy apparently used a more sophisticated version of the same technique.
Both copies were distributed via Internet Relay Chat, which allows users to copy files at high speed from other computers.
"Star Wars: Episode Two -- Attack of the Clones'' is due in theaters May 16th.
|
May 11, 2002
Star Wars fan camps out in wrong line |
| Seventeen
days into Clark Jines' camp out for Star Wars II tickets, Jines noticed
a second line forming four feet away. "I was curious at first but did
not think much of it." "The first week in line was easy." said Jines,
"I had stored up on food and soda and was ready for the long haul."
Into his second week he experienced hallucinations and stints of
unconsciousness. |
|
Pasadena
Happy Face Mental Ward - Seventeen days into Clark Jines' camp out for
Star Wars II tickets, Jines noticed a second line forming four feet
away. "I was curious at first but did not think much of it." "The first
week in line was easy." said Jines, "I had stored up on food and soda
and was ready for the long haul." Into his second week he experienced
hallucinations and stints of unconsciousness. During this period he was
unconcerned that his "Camp Star Wars" had only been joined by one other
person. Unable to talk due to severe dehydration, he did not
communicate with his fellow camper nor the parallel line steadily
growing beside him.
Day 35, while being urinated on by a homeless man, Jines heard
a mutter about Hugh Grant from his line mate. "You must love him as
much as I do" she said. Jines managed to prop himself up upon a pile of
his own excrement to glance at the box office window where it read in
very small letters "About a Boy". Jines, who no longer had enough body
fluids to cry, attempted to roll over to the newly discovered Star Wars
II line. Jines was discovered 3 days later in a dumpster behind a Taco
Bell severely beaten.
Jines now communicates through the help of computer devices
installed to his iron lung. "They tell me that this machine should be
mobile just in time for Episode III." Jines tells us, "That Yoda really
kicks some ass!" |
June 8, 2002
I'm Glad They Saved Pvt. Ryan |
| The real meaning of the motion picture, "Saving Private Ryan." |
|
I'm glad they saved Private Ryan. The movie was a powerful message for
all Americans. Especially with Veterans Day fast approaching. As a
veteran of three combat landings in WWII, one of which, Tarawa, was the
first amphibious assault in military history against a heavily
fortified and defended beach, I can say that Spielberg's depiction of
the living hell of an assault landing was excruciatingly accurate. I'm
pleased he made the movie, whatever his intention.
I must admit that sitting through the first 20 minutes of that movie
depicting the assault on the beach was a real challenge for me. It was
virtual reality and then some. Once you have been there, the experience
remains down deep in your mind. However it is brought to the surface,
by something or other, nearly every day of your life afterward. At
first I had trouble concentrating on the horror unfolding on the
screen. My senses saw and heard Omaha Beach but my mind saw another
place. Each time a landing boat ramp fell and machine guns and
anti-boat guns killed and maimed those young innocents who were
attempting to get ashore, my mind saw Tarawa and hundreds of Marines
dying in a hail of machine gun fire as they tried to wade ashore. The
blood in the water at Omaha was the same color it was on Tarawa and in
every other assault landing in that war.
The movie allowed the audience to imagine the courage it took
to untangle ones self from the dead and wounded, leave the boat and try
to get ashore. Once there, and having found some bit of shelter, men
had to choose to go forward and join others beginning to form at the
beach wall. The greatest test of courage came at the wall where men
were relatively safe. All faced the same choice, with few if any
officers to lead them. Should they lead or follow others over the wall
and meet the enemy face to face or stay there. Some stayed. Getting out
of the boat and struggling to get ashore is one thing, leaving a
relatively safe position at the wall and purposely determining to
engage the enemy face to face is quite another. America has the great
pride of knowing that our Soldiers and Marines, most of whom were not
old enough to vote, went over the wall by the hundreds in every assault
landing of WWII and the wars that have followed.
On the philosophical question of what the movie was about,
other than showing the horror of war, the public and veterans alike,
all have different opinions. Spielberg made the movie with little
mention of the reason America was at war or the universal agreement
among the free world that Japan, Germany and Italy were a scourge on
the face of the earth that had to be stopped. Without explaining Hitler
and Pearl Harbor, the killing and horror of Ryan lost any purpose,
other than men in one colored uniform killing men in a different
colored uniform and vice versa.
An audience ignorant of the history of WWII, could come away saying
"war is stupid, all those young men dying, and for what? Its stupid".
Did Spielberg leave out the moral justification because he wanted an
anti-war movie as some conservatives believe or did he think that after
making "Schindler's List" he wouldn't need to explain? If he thought
that, he was wrong. A recent Roper poll showed that only 57% of the
public knew that WWII occurred in the first half of this century.
The importance of Ryan was that it provided a reminder to Americans
that we owe our country, our lives and freedom to the sacrifice and
heroism of our military. It also reminded us that combat is a very,
very nasty and brutish business. Unfortunately, war reaches back home
as the poignant scene with the mother crumbling to the porch at the
sight of an army vehicle approaching her home so sadly demonstrated.
She sensed the awful message they were bringing. It was a family home,
not unlike my own in WWII, with four stars hanging in the window,
signifying that the family who lived here had four boys in the service.
Both veterans and the public alike appear to view the carnage
that took the lives of so many of America's best with a wide range of
emotion. Some veterans and many families who lost loved ones in the war
couldn't possibly not wonder, looking at America today, were their
deaths worth it?
Most Americans saw the picture the way Private Ryan did. Ryan, like
every other combat veteran who lived through WWII, saw and participated
in the horror of the battle field. When the war was over he appreciated
that he owed his life to luck and to other men in his unit, many of
whom lost theirs. After returning home, he tried as best he could to
live a life that would be worthy of their sacrifices. In a way, I feel that Spielberg was telling Americans that
those soldiers and hundreds of thousands of others throughout our
history have sacrificed for all of us. We, who survived are all Private
Ryan. We should try to repay those who fought for us by living the best
life that we can. I know that's how I and most veterans feel. We, who
have been lucky enough to come back alive, owe a debt to those who
didn't. We must try each day to make their sacrifices meaningful in our
own lives.
I'M GLAD THEY SAVED PRIVATE RYAN
|
Jun 15, 2002
Do You Know The Truth About America? | |
| America
does not have the largest land mass, the most people, the greatest
resources,the highest mountains or the biggest rivers, yet it is the
greatest freest and strongest nation in the history of mankind. Why is
that? What has made it so? |
|
During the Communist leaders visit to America, he was constantly
hammered about human rights violations in China. President Clinton and
Congressman hit him at every stop he made. During a brief sparring
session with the President he was reminded of the murderous treatment
of demonstrators at Tianemin Square. He responded that the
demonstrators jeopardized the publics security and therefore strong
measures were needed. Clinton then made the point that criticism of the
government and public figures should not be denied. He went on to say
that criticism of he and his family has not hurt America but indeed
makes the country stronger. While I 'm not so sure about that, it was a
good point. However, that comment and a few others caused the Premier
to respond with a comment of such gravity that it should have been in 6
inch headlines on the next days newspaper. His blockbuster remark
should have been thrown in the face of every multi-culturist professor
and politician and journalist in the country. It wasn't and wont be; it
didn't make headlines. Not because of any media conspiracy but because
they did not understand or recognize the truth about America.
After explaining to the President that the rights of people
are based on the shared beliefs and values of their particular society,
he then dropped his bomb shell, saying,..."the concepts of freedom,
democracy and human rights are relative, there are no absolute truths".
He completed his thoughts by saying, in effect, China is not America.
His associate put it even more succinctly by saying "you must
understand, our two nations have different gods". One would think these
thunderous comments would have sparked an American revival of interest
in our country and its founding. If these communists recognized that
America, its culture and system of government are based on values and
truths that are peculiar to us, then why do we hesitate to teach them
in our schools. Why do liberals in education, the media and politics
continue to say there is no common culture in America. Why do they
continue to promote the idea that we are a multi-cultural society, that
there is no "America" other than our peculiar, "capitalist" enterprise
system?.
What exactly was meant by Premier Zemin when he recognized that the
essence and foundation of America was based on truths that we Americans
alone, hold to be true? Quite simply, he has read and studied our
history and knows it better than many present day Americans.
America was founded on a belief, expressed by Martin Luther and
broadened and expounded upon by the "Reformists" in the 1530's. Luther,
in his disappointment with the church, had criticized their selling of
indulgences, sinful behavior by priests, extravagances by the church
and a full laundry list of complaints. Of much greater importance,
however, he added near the end of his complaints, that man didn't need
other men or the church in order to commune with God. He said that man
was created in the image of God and created individually and should he
free to stand alone before God. This was a new perception of the
relationship between God and man. Each separate group of Reformists or
Protestants, if you will, including those who came here first and who
lived here for almost two hundred years before our revolution, came
away from Luther's declaration of protest, with different ideas on how
to structure their new churches.
Each; Lutherens, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Precisents ( who later became
known as Puritans) had their own idea on how their particular church
should be structured. While all recognized the revealed new truth in
the relationship between God and man, none made that the cornerstone of
their new denomination. Each of them however, carried the new truth
that all men are equal in the sight of God, within them, as a person
might, unknowingly, carry a virus. As Puritans, they carried it with
them to the new world as did the other denominations of reformers that
followed them. And while they each adopted different forms or
doctrines, they all carried within their persons the new truth, that
they were individuals, made in the likeness of God and that their
purpose here on earth was to maximize their lives to the satisfaction
of God and themselves; not for king, country, church or others, but for
themselves and God.
The right of property grew directly from the truth that we as
individuals owned ourselves and therefore the fruits of our labors. For
over 200 years prior to our revolution and founding, these new
Americans had to individually persevere in this often cruel and hostile
new world. Their recognition of the truth of their being and individual
freedom and responsibility was fortified each day and in each
succeeding generation through their life experiences. Those early
Americans became, as America are today, the zenith of Western
Civilization. Yes we are the product of old, dead, white Europeans. The
essence of America was spawned by Abraham and Izack and Moses in their
belief in one God. That essence was further expanded by Jesus Christ
and His message of love, redemption and man's special relation to God.
After being nurtured for fifteen hundred years by the Catholic Church,
that message and its truth was reinvigorated by Martin Luther, Calvin
and Knox via the Reformation. Their belief that all men are
individuals, created by God and have equal access to and before God was
expanded on by Locke, Burke and a host of philosophers of the western
world. The truth of the reformation was the bases of the religion of
the Puritans and Pilgrims who escaped a world that refused to allow
them to live their lives according to the truths they held sacred.
Those Puritans and those who followed them ,believed in a
simple set of values that helped them survive and prosper in this new
world. Values that grew from their religious beliefs. Chief among these
were charity, goodness, respect for authority and elders, individual
responsibility, duty, honor, delayed gratification and hard work. Those
cultural qualities are absolutely necessary in order for men to live
free. But the truth necessary for the creation of a government for free
men, was the truth within all reformed Christians and later, in all
Americans, regardless of their race or religion was; we are
individually free, with rights given us by God.
It was only natural, that after the Revolution, our God fearing
forefathers, who fought for their freedom and who then set about to
establish these United States of America, should begin with the
recognition of the "truths" they held to be absolute and universal.
They believed, as did the Pilgrims and all the religious and
governmental institutions they had established in this new world, that
man was created in the image of God and each had been endowed with
their own mind, reason and self will. And therefore, each must be free
to live their lives as they choose. Each must be free to maximize their
human potential as they alone choose.
In recognition of those truths, the founding fathers determined to
create a government that would facilitate and protect mans
individuality and freedom. They made that perfectly clear in the
preamble. At least it is clear to the Communist Leader of China. We
must understand, the founding fathers didn't say we have a great idea
for our new country. Nor did they ask their political consultants to
give them some popular ideas of the day that people might applaud. No,
they said, THIS IS THE TRUTH. We do not believe anyone is born to rule
us as king nor is anyone born to serve another. We are born equal in
the eyes of God and we are each responsible for our lives to God, not
to the church, not to government and not to each other.
We are individually responsible to God for the lives we live, and
therefore we must each be free and protected by the government we
establish, to determine and choose the direction of our lives. Of
course, they all also understood from their religion and common
Judeo-Christian values, that charity and compassion for the poor and
those in need is a singular virtue in the eyes of God. And, they also
recognized that freedom had its limits and responsibilities. While each
should be free to live their lives as they choose, that choice can't
include illegal acts or illegal interference with others who are also
pursuing their happiness.
The government they founded was the first in the history of mankind
that was based upon an idea the founders considered to be revealed
truth. While the constitution set up a great framework for a
democratically elected representative republic, the constitution is not
what made or makes America great. It has been copied by over two dozen
emerging nations, some verbatim, and they failed. It is the idea behind
the document and the first ten amendments protecting the rights of
individuals that reveal the purpose of our government. The essence of
America is individual freedom and the right of each individual to
chose. The primary purpose of the government is to protect citizens and
their property from others internally and externally and insure justice
under the laws.
America has no greater natural resources than most other
nations, specifically Mexico, South America, Africa, Russia or China.
Yet, with only 6% of the worlds land mass and 7% of its population,
America produced more goods in our first 200 years of existence than
all the rest of the world combined, had produced in the entire history
of mankind. America is the richest most powerful and freest nation the
world has ever known. Yet, the Premier of China knows more about the
truth and the why of America than do most Americans. As the founders
warned, a free and prosperous America cannot long remain, unless its
people understand and appreciate the truth of America.
|
Aug 26, 2002
Debunking Myths Of The Japanese Relocation, WWII |
| A
letter written to the Salt Lake City Tribune in response to the
numerous errors contained in an article concerning the Japanese
relocation in WWII
"Japanese-American's Role In WWII Debate; a comment"
|
|
I would like to congratulate you on your feature article "Japanese-American's Role In World War II Debated," by
Dawn Jones. Very seldom has any American Newspaper even attempted
to address the subject of the relocation of "Japanese-Americans" from
the West Coast War Zone in WWII.
As a U.S.Marine veteran of WWII, who was in California during
1942, and presently a member of a huge group of WWII veterans
attempting to correct the revisionism of that history that has occurred
since that time, I appreciate your article. However, in
correcting some of the myths of that era which the public believes, the
article repeats others and fosters new ones.
113,000 People of Japanese ancestry were asked to leave the war
Zone. They should not be called Japanese-Americans. Prior to
WWII, immigrant Japanese, by U.S. law, could not become American
citizens. The Japanese-Americans among the number, were their
children, born here. The adults were Japanese Nationals. As such,
in time of war, they were classified by international law as, "Enemy
Aliens." Germans, Italians and Austrian nationals in America were
similarly classified and placed in a prison Camp, in Crystal City,
Texas; some were put in the relocation camps.
The fine, 442nd, "all" Japanese American Regiment was not
"all." Their officers and some enlisted men were "white."
Perhaps the Japanese Historical group might believe it is the most
decorated unit in American history but it was not. To believe
that is to insult Gen. Washington's Regiments at Valley Forge, dozens
of units of both the North and South during the Civil War, not to
mention WWI and WWII. You have no idea the insult such claim is
to our Marines at Tarawa and Iwo or the Army at Normandy.
The constitutionality of Korematsu vs America, approving the
President's decision, was settled by the U.S.Supreme Court and has not,
as the article suggests, been overturned. The Court said, in effect, it
was a time of war, intelligence indicated that America faced danger
from foreign nationals among us, and time was short. Another
thing that should be remembered, the German and Italian and other
nationals placed in prison camps, have never asked for or been given an
apology or money from America.
No, American, then or now, is pleased at having to remove foreign
nationals from the war zone. Unfortunately, bad things happen
during war to people who don't deserve them; ask Mr. Lee Allen.
He could not escape the miserable concentration camp he was in, accept
by death. Mr. Ted Nagata could leave to join the Army or go to
college, and adults could leave for anyplace other than the coast,
simply by swearing allegiance to America.
Again Thanks.
Gil Ferguson
Ca. State Assembly 1984-1994
Lt. Col. USMC (Ret) WWII, Korea, Vietnam
2105 Descanso, Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
(949) 644-7425
|
Apr 22, 2003
The Last Wakeup For The State GOP |
| CALIFORNIA
STATE GOP IS lost and without leadership. The California GOP is at it's
lowest ebb since 1898. It holds no state office and is without
leadership and at war with itself.
|
|
California now stands alone, as the most liberal state in America.
We not only bucked the national trend in the election, the "left
coast", as we are increasingly called, is now America's only one party
state. The Republican Party is and has been, long before the last
election, in disarray; totally without effective or unifying leadership
at either the state or local level. Political pundits, party leaders
and those who dream of leading the party in the "right", not to be
confused with the conservative direction, have all advanced their
opinions as to why we lost so totally.
Simon's people blame big money GOP party moderates who captured
control of the state party just before the primary, with closing their
political purses to him. He was vastly under funded. Moderates, who
have captured the leadership, complain that Republicans lost and will
continue to loose because their conservative message on abortion, guns
and gays is wrong. Party volunteers feel unappreciated and left to fend
for themselves as GOP politicians depend more and more on money and
less on grass roots to get the vote out. Republican voters were again
disappointed by their candidate and his failure to again mount a
winning campaign and by the apparent lack of party cohesiveness and
leadership. Again they failed to vote in the numbers needed to offset
the democrat-registered majority as they used to do.
Post election, they all, as government school critics do, advance
solutions without regard to the problem---and our Republican Party has
a lot of problems.
First, its demographics. Republicans can't win elections as long as
the borders are open. Nearly every fourth person in California is an
immigrant and as long as they think of themselves as a group, rather
than individuals, and the Democrat Party delivers special benefits to
them, they will continue to vote for their benefactors. And as long as
republican businessmen beckon them with jobs and GOP politicians don't
close the borders, they will continue to come and vote, legal or not,
for the democrats.
The media in the L.A. and Bay areas are a big part of the problem.
Post election surveys show that newspapers, more than any other media,
influence voter decisions. Except for Orange County, voters in the
coastal areas, covered by the state's most liberal newspapers, vote
democrat.
While those problems are large and difficult to address, the major
problem confronting the GOP, is itself. The party has a total lack of
political leadership and its continuing war with itself is slowly
killing it and the volunteer clubs so vital to its success. Our last
three Republican Presidents, beginning with Reagan won with the
conservative message, as did most of the Republicans in the other 49
states, in the most recent election. But that doesn't satisfy the
moderates who want the message to become more like the democrats. They
apparently feel that if we can't beat them we should join them. Special
interest groups believe the party would win if, like the democrats, we
became an umbrella party, promising dispirit groups, such as gays,
Hispanics and Blacks that a GOP vote would bring them more than the
democrats have promised or delivered. To paraphrase Ayn Rand, I think
those voters would still prefer the real thing.
The state party's war with itself began when conservative
politicians ran roughshod over the party and campaign laws in order to
gain the power to name, fund and elect conservative candidates.
Their dream of total party dominance ended with some of their
leaders going to jail, a failed attempt to get the State Party's
Presidential endorsement for Senator Gram of Texas and the Doris Allen
fiasco. Recalling the first women and the first Republican Speaker of
the Assembly in decades because she came to power with Democrat votes,
set off battles within the party that rivaled the French Revolution in
its intensity. Heads rolled and the party hasn't been the same since.
All that and more resulted in party conservatives, who were a major
source of party funding, closing their checkbooks. Party moderates,
those with money, such as Orange County's New Majority, have broken off
and in effect, formed their own rump GOP party, apparently unwilling to
fund good conservative candidates.
So, here we are, democrats hold all the major offices and not a
single GOP politician, aside from Sen. Tom McClintock, who's close
campaign for Controller, the party moderates chose not to fund, has any
statewide name recognition or following. Republican registration has
fallen behind population growth over the past 20 years, as has their
effort to get out the vote.
Its past time that those Republicans who are more concerned with
the leftward tilt of our once golden state, than inside party politics,
call a truce, get their act together and elect new party leaders.
Republicans must decide if they want to split into two parties, one
conservative and one moderate or solidify under the basic tenets of the
party. Abraham Lincoln declared those to be perfectly expressed in the
Preamble to the Declaration of Independence. If the protection of our
sacred rights as individuals to freedom and liberty was good enough for
our first Republican President, they ought to be good enough for us
today. Agreement on that would at least be a starting point on the road
back to political success.
|
May 12, 2003
The Bleeding GOP Elephant | |
| Lots
of talk among GOP leaders about healing the breach between the
moderates and the conservatives but there is absolutly no action. The
elephant continues to Bleed while the "leaders" go Blah...Blah...Blah
|
|
The Republican Party of California just finished its state
convention. It was a convention, like most conventions, replete with
dinners, cocktail parties, meetings, receptions, signs and balloons on
ever wall space in the hotel and much frivolity---but nothing much of
importance happened. Everyone arrived with great expectations and left
wondering why they attended; other than the friendships renewed, they
didn't solve any of the party's problems.
Oh yes, there were elections and the members got to pick their
favorites to serve as local and regional officials--and as one old
party hack remarked, that's the last we'll see of them. Members also
elected a new Chairman, knowing all the while that he will not be
allowed to run the party. That important job will be decided later, in
private, over cigars and drinks in another hotel, as Mr. Parsky and
Sen. Bruelty and a few other, unelected friends, sit down and work that
out.
The whole convention took place and played itself out in a most
bizarre environment. The state party, is obviously at its lowest ebb in
the state's history. It is almost to the point of being irrelevant. Not
only do Democrats own all the statewide offices, they have a veto
proof, near absolute control of both houses. In addition the party is
split between the conservatives and moderates, between the volunteers
and the contributors and between the activists and the power brokers.
Wealthy, moderate Republican businessmen, such as Orange County's New
Majority, have split off from the party and formed into separate
groups, refusing to fund the campaigns of conservative Republicans like
Sen. Tom McClintock, who would now be State Controller, had they
supported him. As it turns out, even Bill Simon would most likely have
won had they not the moderate contributors sat on their check books.
Those problems, not being enough for one party, the normal
democratic manner of electing leaders to run and lead the party has
been subverted. Members are told that, while they may be the appointed
leaders from around the state, with power to select leaders to lead the
party, they can't any longer be trusted to do that job. President
Bush's political guru, we are told, wants the President's friend,
Gerald Parsky and his friends, to run the party; Californian party
members are no longer capable of the job. And at most local levels, the
old, tired and incompetent leadership continues to be elected for yet
another term. They have become like the T.V. crew of the movie,
Groundhog Day, repeating the same meetings and election routines over
and over again with the same dismal results. Why do party members allow
themselves to be used like this? Why don't they stand up and demand
their rights as elected or appointed members?
They sit at the convention and at our County Central Committee,
like potted plants. They seem not to understand that they are supposed
to be the party leaders. They seem content just being there. Apparently
they ran for the office or asked for an appointment, just to be part of
the "IN" group. Well, just what pride or status can they possibly gain,
from being on the inside or part of a group that continues to loose;
one that becomes more irrelevant with each election?
This is the environment in which the party met in convention. The
problems were like a giant five ton bleeding elephant standing in the
center of the convention, dying from it's wounds, while party members
refused to look at it or talk about it or try and ease its pain. The
problems were not solved, they were not discussed, they were not even
mentioned. One member who brought a resolution to address the bleeding
elephant was summarily declared to be, "out of order." Some speakers
did mention they hoped the party would come together, others did
promise to be "uniters not dividers," but they didn't talk about the
bleeding elephant in their midst. They simply uttered banal promises
and hopes; that in reality is about as effective as wishing pedophiles
would stay away from playgrounds.
The California Republican Party is deeply divided over abortion,
guns and social issues. Moderates feel that those are the issues
causing the media and voters to view GOP candidates as pro-life,
homophobic, gunners, supported primarily by religious fundamentalists.
Conservatives on the other hand, remind everyone that both Reagan and
Bush and the Republicans in the other 49 states did great running on
the conservative platform. The fact that conservatives provide the
party with its dynamics and volunteers and moderates provide much of
its financial support, only exacerbates the problem.
This bleeding elephant will not be healed by platitudes or coups or
by moderates, such as our Orange County "New Majority", withholding
their support or Conservatives staying home. If there are any real
leaders in the party, they must demand that representatives from all
the various elements of the party meet and work out these problems.
Heads must be knocked together, people must stay in a room together
until they can agree on the direction and basic principles upon which
all agree. Then they can address those which divide the party and if
they can't resolve them to everyone's satisfaction, agree that we will
stop using them as weapons in the continuing, destructive war against
ourselves.
Unfortunately, its the very leadership needed to call such a
meeting together, that is sadly lacking. Neither the Moderate leaders
of the New Majority, the Lincoln Club, the Central Committee or among
conservative politicians, the CRA or Federated Women, seem to care.
Hopefully someone, some group, will step forward before its too late.
The problems and opportunities of California are too great to allow the
democrats to continue to destroy our once great Golden State.
|
Oct 30, 2003
Face It: We're At War |
| The
public, including the media, does not understand we are at war. Its the
Presidents fault for not telling the people the truth in the first
place. We are not at war with terrorists; we are at war with millions
of Islamic fundmenalist, wahabis, who hate Weastern civilization and
wish us dead.
|
|
If
you listen to the Democrats and the media, nipping at the President's
heels, complaining about casualties, strategy, tactics and leadership
in Afghanistan and Iraq, you would have every reason to believe that
the war is over and it and the President are both fair game for
political attacks. The war isn't over and won't be for years to come.
This war is not about Iraq, Afghanistan or Al Qaida; it's about our
freedom.
This is a war declared against Western civilization and its
Judeo-Christian values. The primary target is America. It was started
and is being fought by the fundamentalist Wahabi element of the Islamic
religion, centered in Saudi Arabia, with a major presence in Pakistan,
Egypt, Syria, Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia. They are in
every country in the world that has an Islamic Mosque; certainly
they're here in America. They have millions of followers, who they have
educated to hate us in mosques and Madrasas (special religious schools)
all around the world. Their followers include many Westerners,
recruited from our own homegrown hate-America crowd.
THE MISTAKE BUSH MADE STILL HAUNTS HIM
We did not go to war against Afghanistan, the Taliban, Usama Bin
Laden or Iraq because we wanted revenge against the people who attacked
us on 9/11, nor did we do it to free people who were living under
tyrants, or because they had or might have weapons of mass destruction
(WMD).
To tell Americans we were going to war for any of those reasons,
was not only untruthful, it was stupid. Attacks on both countries are
the opening battles in an essential plan to win a war declared on us by
millions of Islamic extremists, supported in varying degree by dozens
of nations which encourage them by allowing their mosques and mass
media to spew anti American hatred to their people.
WHY NOT TELL THE TRUTH?
Bush and his administration were so hampered by political
correctness (PC), that they could not bring themselves to tell the
public that an extremist arm of Islam, using terrorism and a new kind
of army has declared war on us. In fact, the administration went out of
its way to tell Americans that we were not in a cultural war and that
we should not even consider that the war had anything to do with some
followers of the Islamic religion. They still refuse to profile Arabic
looking men, wasting our time and money searching little old ladies.
They have chosen to let our own die, rather than profile the enemy.
The President should have said, "We will begin this war by going
after Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, followed by a preemptive
strike against Iraq. We must attack Iraq, precisely because Saddam is
psychotic in his hatred of America and has the financial resources,
technology and willingness to support, encourage and greatly enlarge
the war against us."
He didn't say that. Instead, he floundered around, suggesting we
were going to war to free the Iraqi people, to find and destroy his
WMD's or to destroy a brutish dictator. That was foolish. He is now
suffering because he is challenged on those reasons for going to war.
He should have told us straight out that war has been declared on us
and this is how we are going to proceed in bringing the war to those
who started it.
Had he done so, he wouldn't now need to answer questions about why
the war in Iraq is still going on. He could now be explaining that the
war had simply taken a new turn as terrorists from all over the Mideast
have come to Iraq to fight alongside Saddam's Baath Party.
If we were not in Iraq, those same terrorists would be attempting
to attack us here in America. It should not be difficult to explain but
it is, because he failed to honestly articulate the truth of the who
and why of this war at the beginning.
He should also give up talking about building up Iraq so that the
people there can have a better life in freedom. We shouldn't spend a
dime or a single life for that cause. We are helping build that country
in order to further our own interests;. That is, we want an
economically strong, relatively free people amidst those Islamic
nations who hate us, in order to foment their reform by example.
TOMORROW AND TOMORROW
The very worst thing we could possibly do now is to begin
second-guessing our earlier resolve and talking about a quagmire. This
new enemy, like the North Vietnamese, interpret our self-flagellation
as weakness. It will only encourage them. The more we point fingers and
blame each other over the course of this war, the bolder this enemy
will become. We must be united as never before.
The President could solidify our people if he would just simply
explain what this war is really all about and how we intend to win it
and quit talking about how our intentions are to help the Iraqi people.
Everything we do in this war, every life that is lost, every dollar
that is spent, must only be in the furtherance of our national security
and freedom. This is going to be a long and bitter war.
It's time to tell the truth!
|
Jun 20, 2003
The Korean War -- The Beginning |
| Some
thoughts on the beginning of the Korean War. In 1950, 2nd Lt. Gil
Ferguson was a civilian, going to USC at night and working during the
day to support his new wife and first child. He was also a member of
the U.S.Marine Corps Reserve unit located at Chevez Revine in Los
Angeles. They were the first unit called to active duty in the Korea
War. He landed with the first waves of infantry as a Forward Observer
for Dog Battery, 2nd Bn. 11th Marines, 1st Marine Division. He was
attached to HOW Company, 3rd Bn. 1st Marines.
His Regiment, the 1st Marines was led by the famous Col. "Chesty"
Puller.
|
|
INCHON LANDING TO SEOUL...SEPT. 15, 1950
Some of the remembrances of then 2nd Lt.Gil Ferguson USMC
Looking north from my artillery O.P. (Observation Post) on a high
hill overlooking the Han River, I could see everything, including the
last remaining bridge connecting South Korea to Seoul. I could see the
city itself and all the way to the old DMZ. It was such a great view
that Gen. Smith, our 1st Marine Division Commander, Col. Puller, our
Regimental C.O. and a Colonel from Gen. MacArthur's Staff chose it to
look over the battlefield and discuss our near future plans.
I'll never forget the Army Colonel's response to the General's
question of where we were to set up after taking Seoul. The Colonel
replied, "General MacArthur said you should set up over here;" pointing
to the map. But, he explained, when the General said it, he was waving
at the map and his hand covered half of North Korea. "I'm sure, the
Colonel said,"he meant just north of the city." " Anyway, You'll be
seeing him before you enter Seoul". Wow, I thought, in the real world
of war, things aren't much different at the top than they are at the
private's level.
In my previous war, (WWII), I carried a machine gun and had no idea
about anything on the battlefield unless it popped up in front of my
gun. Now, here I was, a 2nd Lieutenant, Forward Observer (FO) for an
artillery battery, assigned to an Infantry company in the first Marine
Regiment commanded by a genuine hero of the Corps, Colonel "Chesty"
Puller. I saw the whole battlefield and actually knew what was going on
most of the time. Being a veteran and having a good OP is about as good
as it gets in combat.
Just a few weeks before, I had been a Sears Roebuck buyer living in
Santa Ana with my wife and year old son. I was also finishing my senior
year at USC by attending night school three nights a week. On Thursday,
my non school night, I drove to Los Angeles to attend the meeting of my
Marine Corps Reserve unit; the 2nd 105 mm Howitzer Battalion. I was a
Staff Sergeant in charge of the Fire Direction Center. My life as a
civilian, part time student, part time Marine, husband and new father
was going great.
In July of 1950 our reserve unit went down to Camp Pendleton for
our annual two weeks of active duty. It was very exciting for me since
I had just received my WWII battlefield commission. As a new Second
Lieutenant, (2nd. Lt.), I joined the other lieutenants in the Forward
Observer (FO) pool. I enjoyed the new status as an officer but I didn't
relish the idea that as an FO, I would be back in the front lines with
the infantry should we ever go to war again. Of course, the idea of
another war so soon after dropping the Bomb and ending WWII was
unthinkable; otherwise there probably would not have been any veterans
in that reserve unit.
The two weeks at Pendleton had been a very good experience for all
of us . It was Saturday and we were finishing our last day at camp when
we were all called to a special formation. I thought it was called so
that the regular officers who had trained with us could send us off
with a "job well done" kind of speech. Instead a Lt. Col. I didn't
recognize stood in front of the troops and without any preamble said,
"This unit and all of you have been called to active duty. You have
three days to return to your homes and quit your jobs, say good bye and
return here. There will be no exceptions; DISMISSED".
At first we thought it was some kind of demented joke but his
demeanor and the serious look of our own senior officers let us know
that this was no drill. We knew that the North Koreans had crossed
south over the demilitarized zone and were driving the U.S. and South
Korean forces south but that hardly affected us. We were wrong.
Apparently our Marine Commandant was playing golf with President
Truman when Truman told him that MacArthur needed a division to save
Korea and America from a military disaster. All of our armed forces had
been severely depleted after WWII and the Army did not have a complete
unit that could be spared from the occupation forces. The Commandant
volunteered that the Corps would welcome the opportunity to come to
MacArthur's rescue.
Well, the Marine Corps didn't have a division of active duty
Marines. The Corps did have a reserve that consisted of a large number
of combat veterans and in true Marine fashion, they were "ready". So,
we were called to active duty. We were already on the west coast and at
summer training . That meant we were the first unit called to active
duty and within days we were loading our ships in San Diego and heading
for Kobe, Japan where we would combat load and head for Korea.
A terrible typhoon hit Japan and slowed us down and wrecked some of
our gear but we lost little time. To our great surprise, many of our
combat troop units were embarked on old LST's that the Navy had given
to the Japanese after the war. The Japanese had used them for fishing
and the smell was so strong it was almost impossible to sleep below
deck. Since the ships were owned by Japanese and skippered by them, it
was necessary for us to have an interpreter next to the Japanese ship
Captain at all times.
2.
The failure to communicate caused some problems but didn't
seriously affect us. We landed at Inchon late in the evening while the
tide was in. It still caused us to use scaling ladders to get from the
landing boats and over the walls surrounding the harbor. Some of us
were still wearing civilian skivvies and other items from our peaceful
life of a few weeks ago. Oh well, as Colonel "Chesty" Puller said prior
to leaving Japan for Inchon, when he was told that some of my men
didn't have an all military wardrobe, "as long as they have G.1. ammo
don't worry about it". I didn't worry.
After scaling the walls at Inchon, we crossed the outer edge of the
city through sporadic rifle and mortar fire and began to climb the
hills overlooking the harbor. It was so dark that we couldn't see who
the man was in front or beside us. That was made even more confusing
when our mortars and artillery would fire an illumination shell. We
would all stop in our tracks and hold still till the light flickered
out. While the eerie shapes and colors revealed during the light gave
our imaginations something to worry about, it didn't help my FO Team
find our way; we got lost. Well, maybe not lost but I never felt I was
on the hill top I was supposed to be on according to our landing plan.
Good thing we weren't, that hill, we found the next morning, had been
heavily defended by North Koreans.
The next morning we set off for Young Dong Po and Seoul. We used
the road connecting Inchon to Seoul as our guide to orient our attack.
My unit had about a mile wide front beginning at the left side of the
road and running north. The next few days were marked by small fire
fights against delaying actions by the enemy almost every step of the
way. They never let up.
Finally we arrived at Young Dong Po and I set up my OP on the top
of the highest hill over looking the Han River, its only bridge left
standing and the City of Seoul , immediately across the river. It was
from this OP that I registered fire which destroyed the remainder of
the bridge making it more difficult for the North Koreans in their
retreat northward from their old positions in the south. It was also
from this OP that I hosted Gen. Smith, Col. Puller and Gen. MacArthur's
aide.
We left the next day for the river crossing and Seoul. We crossed
the Han and moved toward the city. Just short of the city, I again
found a great OP. The next morning I was surprised to see a parade of
vehicles stop at the base of the little hill I occupied. I watched as a
flock of civilians following two of America's greatest military
leaders, Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Col. "Chesty" Puller began to climb
toward me. At first the two of them stopped just short of the top of
the ridge where I was. Then, as if responding to an unheard order, they
both stepped up on top of the ridge. I yelled over to warn them that a
sniper had just shot a marine there a few minutes before. The infantry
Colonel gave me a look that said," believe me, they know." There they
stood. MacArthur. tall and lean. With a corn cob pipe that had to be
eight inches long protruding from that chiseled face and "Chesty",
short and stocky with a small 2 inch pipe clinched between the lips of
that famous wrinkled face. Photographers, staying close to the ground
shot hundreds of pictures of the two.
3.
The failure to communicate caused some problems but didn't
seriously affect us. We landed at Inchon late in the evening while the
tide was in. It still caused us to use scaling ladders to get from the
landing boats and over the walls surrounding the harbor. Some of us
were still wearing civilian skivvies and other items from our peaceful
life of a few weeks ago. Oh well, as Colonel "Chesty" Puller said prior
to leaving Japan for Inchon, when he was told that some of our men
didn't have an all military wardrobe, "as long as they have G.1. ammo
don't worry about it". I didn't worry.
After scaling the walls at Inchon, we crossed the outer edge of the
city through sporadic rifle and mortar fire and began to climb the
hills overlooking the harbor. It was so dark that we couldn't see who
the man was in front or beside us. That was made even more confusing
when our mortars and artillery would fire an illumination shell. We
would all stop in our tracks and hold still till the light flickered
out. While the eerie shapes and colors revealed during the light gave
our imaginations something to worry about, it didn't help my FO Team
find our way; we got lost. Well, maybe not lost but I never felt I was
on the hill top I was supposed to be on according to our landing plan.
Good thing we weren't, that hill, we found the next morning, had been
heavily defended by North Koreans.
The next morning we set off for Young Dong Po and Seoul. We used
the road connecting Inchon to Seoul as our guide to orient our attack.
My unit had about a mile wide front beginning at the left side of the
road and running north. The next few days were marked by small fire
fights against delaying actions by the enemy almost step of the way.
They never let up. Finally we arrived at Young Dong Po and I set up my
OP on the top of the highest hill over looking the Han River, its only
bridge left standing and the City of Seoul , immediately across the
river. It was from this OP that I registered fire which destroyed the
remainder of the bridge making it more difficult for the North Koreans
in their retreat northward from their old positions in the south. It
was also from this OP that I hosted Gen. Smith and Gen. MacArthur's
aide.
We left the next day for the river crossing and Seoul. We crossed
the Han and moved toward the city. Just short of the city, I again
found a great OP. The next morning I was surprised to see a parade of
vehicles stop at the base of the little hill I occupied. I watched as a
flock of civilians following two of America's greatest military
leaders, Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Col. "Chesty" Puller began to climb
toward me. At first the two of them stopped just short of the top of
the ridge where I was. Then, as if responding to an unheard order, they
both stepped up on top of the ridge. I yelled over to warn them that a
sniper had just shot a marine there a few minutes before. The infantry
Colonel gave me a look that said, "believe me, they know." There they
stood. MacArthur. tall and lean. With a corn cob pipe that had to be
eight inches long protruding from that chiseled face and "Chesty",
short and stocky with a small 2 inch pipe clinched between the lips of
that famous wrinkled face. Photographers, staying close to the ground
shot hundreds of pictures of the two.
Then, they left. In a few brief moments my OP was returned to its
former ignominy; home to none, other than me, "Smoky" my Scout Sergeant
and my FO Team.
We entered Seoul at mid day, using Moppo Street, the main boulevard
that cut through the city S. W. to N.E., as our guide. I had been
ordered to the Infantry Battalion headquarters to serve as Liaison
Officer, (LNO) replacing another Lieutenant who had been relieved of
duty because he had gotten into a fist fight with another officer over
the use of supporting arms. I know how outrageous that may sound to
civilians but combat doesn't completely dull common jealousies, pride
or arrogance. We artillerymen feel we are better trained and more
experienced in supporting arms control than other officers. Infantryman
and Pilots and Naval Gunfire Officers don't always agree with us.
My new job was to coordinate the air and naval gunfire with
artillery and mortar fire. We moved into the middle of Seoul, astride
Moppo Street, with only moderate resistance but with a lot of shooting,
smoke, fires and unusual smells. We established Battalion Headquarters
in an abandoned prison. I picked out a good cell for my team.
The prison was about a block behind where the infantry and my old
FO team were digging in for the night. I got all the FO's on the radio,
told them to register their normal barrages about a block in front of
them before it got dark. The normal barrage is a preregistered fire
mission just in front of the troops. The supporting artillery is fixed
on that fire mission at all times,unless, they are firing at another
target. It assures the infantry that if they are attacked, the
artillery will be quick to respond.
As they began to register the guns, I and other officers were
called to a meeting with the regimental commander. We met under a kind
of vaulted dome in the entrance of the jail. The meeting had hardly
begun when a white phosphorous artillery shell hit the top of the roof
above us. Burning white phosphorous fell down on all of us burning
holes in our dungarees and burning skin where it touched.
Well, that broke up the meeting. All artillerymen and I were
roundly cursed by everyone while we were being treated by the corpsman.
The meeting never resumed and I returned to my jail cell and my radio
operators in time to finish registering the guns.
As darkness fell, our artillery units began firing harassing and
interdiction fires all throughout the city. About twelve thirty the
Infantry Battalion Exec came to me and said we were going to attack at
0100, (1am). I thought he was kidding as did everyone else.
4.
We had never practiced a night attack in the open, much less in a
city at night. I began talking to my FO's and planning what we would be
doing. Sgt. Smoky Summers, my old FO team Sergeant had taken my place
as team leader and he and Sergeant Clark Henry with George Company,
were both telling me that there were still infantry patrols out in
front of them and that they were waiting for them to return before
calling for fire but that other than that, we were all ready to fire
and launch the attack. However, word came that the attack was delayed
because of communication problems in the infantry.
It was just a few minutes before H-hour, 0100, when the radio
blasted so loud in my radioman's ear that I could hear it, TANKS,...
TANKS! Both Smoky and Henry were yelling. Then in very collected and
calm voices they rapidly painted a verbal picture to me of what they
could see. Our patrols were almost back when everyone heard the sound
of tanks. Looking up Moppo Street they could make out sparks along with
the unmistakable sound of tanks. I immediately called for the normal
barrage and learned from Smoky and Henry, that the tanks were
approaching at a rapid pace. Henry said he could see a bazooka man
running out to meet the tanks. The Marine crouched down on the side of
the street and waited until the lead tank was abreast of him. He stood
and fired. The tank stopped as if it had hit a wall. It spun around in
the street because a tread had been knocked off. At the same instant
the artillery shells began to fall. The second or third tank was hit.
Some of our infantrymen could be seen moving out to meet the tanks even
though they risked getting hit by our fire, the tanks and the North
Korean troops that were alongside and following the tanks.
All in all, there were 14 tanks and over a battalion of infantry
along side them. While our first salvo was falling, I was calling for
more fire power. Within minutes all of the 18 guns of my battalion were
firing, then all of the nearly 70 guns of the regiment. Before it was
over, a battalion of Army Artillery was firing their 155 long toms. The
air was full of High Explosive (HE) and Willy Peter (WP) shells of all
caliber. Amidst it all, I was told that some of our guns were firing
"out". Shells were falling very near some of our tanks and infantry
down near the river. I tried to explain to the Colonel that their
origin could not be identified and that we could not afford to stop all
the guns for fear that the enemy tanks, not yet hit, would break
through. He agreed and told the infantry unit and tanks to fall back,
which they had already begun to do. The battle raged on for two hours.
We were almost completely out of ammunition when the firing slowed.
It all stopped almost as suddenly as it had begun. Smoky and Henry
called for "cease fire" at about the same time as the infantry was
saying the tanks were either all hit or those that were not hit had
withdrawn. Everyone could see down the street pretty well during the
battle because the mortars and some of the artillery had been firing
flares.
5.
As the first light of day began to penetrate the city, it became
easier to see, but still, there was so much smoke and so many fires
from the burning buildings that it was hard to be certain about what we
were seeing. It soon became evident, that we had been in a major
battle. Burning tanks seemed everywhere. Dead North Korean soldiers lay
on the streets in between the tanks, their bodies still smouldering.
I'm sure the very same thought was going through everyone's head; what
would have happened to us had we been out of our defensive positions
and attacking as planned. We would have run right into the tank attack.
We could not have called for our normal barrages since we would have
been under them. To this day, when I meet another Marine who was there
that night we marvel at the miraculous intervention that saved us that
night.
We moved through the city and set up a few miles north in the
Korean Ag College. I took a young Korean boy who had followed us since
entering Seoul, acting as my interpreter, to look for his family. We
found their remains. They were part of the civilians rounded up by the
North Koreans as they fled the city and were exterminated. I spent the
night with him and the mourners and returned to the battalion the next
morning.
A few days later, I was in a meeting with Col. Puller, he told us
that we would soon be returning to Inchon to board ship and sail for
North Korea. In the midst of his remarks, an Army jeep pulled up. A
young Army Captain leaped out, strode over to our group, faced Col
Puller and gave him a snappy salute;" Sir, General MacArthur sends his
regards and invites the Colonel to join him and President Sigman Rea
tomorrow in ceremonies returning the City of Seoul to the Korean
people". Without a moments pause, Puller, while returning the officers
salute; responded, "thank you Captain, please convey my regards to the
General and tell him, no thanks, I take cities, I don't give them
back".
I could hardly believe my ears, I had just been privy to one of
those famous military quotes. While it wasn't exactly an "I shall
return" or "nuts", it was a typical Puller response and one I and the
Corps shall always remember.
The battle for Seoul was quickly forgotten as we moved back to
Inchon and began to ready ourselves for North Korea and the Chosen
Reservoir. It was going to be one of the worst wars, certainly the
coldest, I would ever fight. -30-
Lt. Col. Gil Ferguson, USMC Ret. WWII, Korea, twice, Vietnam 3 times
Former California State Assemblyman 1984- 1994
|
| |
