Marketing seeks to create images in our minds by relying on the creativity of a writer. Political marketing often involves the creation of myths, transforming an ordinary man into a heroic figure with selfless ideals who is willing to endure suffering to serve his fellow man.

This transformation of normal ordinary men into heroes of mythical figures has never been more obvious than the stories of our most recent Liberal presidents Clinton and Obama.

We were just subjected to a reelection commercial featuring former President Clinton explaining the potential fallout and risk for President Obama if the SEAL raid in Pakistan had gone horribly wrong.

Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there . . . suppose they had been captured or killed. The downside would have been horrible for him [Obama].

This was a unique opportunity for Americans to observe and compare our most notorious Narcissists, and watch one create the typical Narcissistic pool for all of us to admire the other’s reflection.

The myth of Narcissus is from the ancient Greeks. Greek Myths are stories that are a means to teach lessons of morality. If you will give your imagination a little freedom we will imagine the Myth of Narcissus in a contemporary setting.

Echo the Nymph was desperately in love with the handsome young hunter Narcissus, but he was proud and disdained all those who admired him, for he was in love with himself. Nemesis, a tricky god, directed him to a pool where he could observe his own reflection. From that point on, Narcissus spent all his time observing his own handsome features, unable to quit staring at his image and caring for nothing else, he eventually died by the pool. A flower grew where he fell and was to be known as the Narcissus.

If we replace Echo with the American people and the personality of Narcissus with President Obama, the basis for the myth is recreated after two thousand years.

While the American people have been dreaming of being loved and cared for by the object of their imagination, the harsh truth becomes more glaringly obvious with the passage of time, for the Narcissist exists for himself and only loves his own being.

Only Bill Clinton, the accused serial rapist who refused to kill or capture Osama and avoid the catastrophe that was 9/11, understands the strain facing the Narcissist Personality. For when he says:

“Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there . . . suppose they had been captured or killed. The downside would have been horrible for him [Obama].”

Zeus Is The Universal Boogeyman, Here Disguised As A Swan He Rapes Leda

Zeus Represents The Powers That Threaten Mere Mortala And From Whom We Need The Protection Of An Omnipotent

Former President Clinton concentrated on portraying Obama as the wily Prometheus who risked stealing fire from Zeus to give it to mortal man. He thus risked the possibility of tragedy through this trial of personal sacrifice. For in the myth, Zeus was enraged with the theft and tied Prometheus to a rock on a mountain and during the passage of each day, an eagle ate his liver and each night his liver grew back, to be eaten again the next day. Oh, how Prometheus suffered for the crime of bringing the fire of Zeus to mankind: fire that was used only for warmth, cooking, and light. Prometheus became a man of constant sorrow for the crime of serving man. This is the fate Obama risked to serve his people. He was so near this position of constant sorrow that he needed to be pulled from the golf course during the commission of this service to mankind, lest the mission fail and he would be tied directly by a Zeus like boogeyman, supine on the mountain and the feathered beast allowed to savage his vital organs.

The personality of this same Prometheus has been a favorite reference for Karl Marx to portray the martyrs of Communism, representing those who suffer unselfishly for the cause of mankind.

True to form, the Narcissist views the world as it relates to him. Thus we have become inoculated to the “I” word and now are conditioned to view world events through the personal pronouns of Obama.

“Tonight, I can report . . . I directed Leon Panetta . . . I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . . I’ve made clear . . . Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear . . . Tonight, I called President Zardari . . . and my team has also spoken . . .These efforts weigh on me every time I, as commander-in-chief . . . Finally, let me say to the families . . . I know that it has, at times, frayed . . .”

In our personal lives, we tend to tire of people who see the world revolving around them and all to ready to overuse the personal pronouns in every conversation, but with Obama, we have been conditioned to excuse and overlook his boorish behavior.

Being programmed by these harpies of Madison Avenue to believe and accept the allusion of the strong leader who protects us from the evil of the world is a feature of being subjected to media. Most of the recent efforts Of the Obama marketers have been amateurish and obvious, but precious few of us caught the ambiguities of Clinton marketing Obama.

Sometimes, it is the utter audacity of the marketing ploy that creates the lasting impression. The vision of a man’s liver being eaten each day and of a maiden being raped by a God in the form of a swan are not easy to accept, but they have survived for 2500 years, and their story lines are still being used to teach and create allusions.

Unfortunately for Obama, the image of Narcissus is working against him, for Narcissus is his only enemy and it is his self-absorption that ultimately destroys him. The comparisons are all too obvious and transparent, and his adoring public like Echo grows weary of the self-absorbed man who loves himself above all others.

NARCISSUS. A large genus of flowers of the amaryllis family, native to Asia and Europe, is called narcissus. Included are the daffodil, the poet’s narcissus, the jonquil, and others.

Yes, the troops in Afghanistan have been inspired or at least lectured, by a vainglorious president, a man of little note and record, President Obama. In a speech hailed by Obama’s most outspoken sycophant and pimp, Chris Mathews, as being reminiscent of Henry V’s address to his troops on the eve of a critical battle, in which they faced almost certain annihilation at Agincourt, France.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Chris Mathews,

“I imagine being a soldier over there — this is what you want to hear.”

It was right out of Henry V actually, a touch of Barry, in this case, in the night for those soldiers risking their lives over there.

The troops are backed up by the people at home and there you have your Commander-in-Chief there with you personally. It’s great stuff.

Well that’s great stuff. I was so proud of the President there, I must say. This has nothing to do with partisanship; this is the Commander-in-Chief meeting with the troops.

In his typical style, Mathews continued to praise Obama, making up for a lack of meaningful content with enthusiasm and adolescent puppy love.

Jim Moran, Democrat from Virginia, seemed to read from the same script writer, he also joined the chorus praising Obama:

“He is our Commander-in-Chief and not just by claiming to be, but by acting as a Commander-in-Chief should act. This was a Commander-in-Chief’s speech. It was not political. It was motivational; it was just exactly what the troops needed to hear and [just] as important, what their families need to hear back home.”

Moran claimed that the president was “acting” like a commander “should act” and not just by claiming to be a commander, that the speech was not about politics and that Obama was not going to make this into a campaign issue. One of the most remarkable things about Moran’s remarks is that he said them with a straight face.

We must remember that no one knows exactly what Henry V said on the eve of that fateful battle. We tend to romanticize about him and the battle because of Shakespeare’s play.

Henry’s position was more tenuous than Obama, he faced not only the destruction of his army, but his own death. There was no question as to the courage of the war time commanders in the days of Henry V. He needed to inspire his men to fight beyond their abilities and he was willing to fight alongside them.

The genius of Shakespeare and the speech writers of Obama are hardly worthy opponents, but Mathews has stressed the similarity of Obama and Henry. Of course the Henry that everyone visualizes is a fictional character, but the fill in the blank president is primarily a fictional character, since we don’t really have the facts concerning his murky past.

Shakespeare’s Henry had to convince his troops that their smaller numbers would be an advantage, that battles were more than mathematical formulas; they had the opportunity to fight for honor, for justice, and for glory. The upcoming battle was an honor and a chance to accumulate more honor than anything else they would face for the rest of their lives. Henry was careful in noting the bond between king and commoner, in Act III, scene 1, he skillfully unites himself with his men.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition….
(IV.iii.60–63)

Thus Henry reassures the commoner that he will be forever linked to royalty by fighting in the glorious battle.

Although, Shakespeare has inspired the speeches of many commanders before battle, most have been careful to delete the nuances of class distinctions and leave out the “I” word, but it is too hard to resist for our Narcissist. He wants desperately to be perceived as a great war strategist and leader, to be identified with our warriors, and unless he sounds as if he is actively involved like Henry was, his image suffers.

Good evening from Bagram Air Base. This outpost is more than 7,000 miles from home, but for over a decade it’s been close to our hearts. Because here, in Afghanistan, more than half a million of our sons and daughters have sacrificed to protect our country.

Today, I signed a historic agreement between the United States and Afghanistan that defines a new kind of relationship between our countries — a future in which Afghans are responsible for the security of their nation, and we build an equal partnership between two sovereign states; a future in which war ends, and a new chapter begins.

Tonight, I’d like to speak to you about this transition. But first, let us remember why we came here. It was here, in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden established a safe haven for his terrorist organization. It was here, in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda brought new recruits, trained them, and plotted acts of terror. It was here, from within these borders, that al Qaeda launched the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children.

And so, 10 years ago, the United States and our allies went to war to make sure that al Qaeda could never again use this country to launch attacks against us. Despite initial success, for a number of reasons, this war has taken longer than most anticipated. In 2002, bin Laden and his lieutenants escaped across the border and established safe haven in Pakistan. America spent nearly eight years fighting a different war in Iraq. And al Qaeda’s extremist allies within the Taliban have waged a brutal insurgency.

But over the last three years, the tide has turned. We broke the Taliban’s momentum. We’ve built strong Afghan security forces. We devastated al Qaeda’s leadership, taking out over 20 of their top 30 leaders. And one year ago, from a base here in Afghanistan, our troops launched the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. The goal that I set — to defeat al Qaeda and deny it a chance to rebuild — is now within our reach.

Still, there will be difficult days ahead. The enormous sacrifices of our men and women are not over. But tonight, I’d like to tell you how we will complete our mission and end the war in Afghanistan.

First, we’ve begun a transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Already, nearly half of the Afghan people live in places where Afghan security forces are moving into the lead. This month, at a NATO Summit in Chicago, our coalition will set a goal for Afghan forces to be in the lead for combat operations across the country next year. International troops will continue to train, advise and assist the Afghans, and fight alongside them when needed. But we will shift into a support role as Afghans step forward.

As we do, our troops will be coming home. Last year, we removed 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Another 23,000 will leave by the end of the summer. After that, reductions will continue at a steady pace, with more and more of our troops coming home. And as our coalition agreed, by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country.

For those of you who read Obama’s speech, I commend you for your dedication and patience. Our troops could zone out, but they were ordered to listen to the inane political commentary. Shakespeare’s speech is still being recited four hundred years later, I doubt if any teachers will be requiring students to read or recite Obama’s speech after the election in November; unless, the Progressives can assert their control over the country and in Orwellian and Maoist fashion, the insipid remarks of Obama are celebrated as great classical literature.

In response to Mathews and Moran, the speech was an example of poor and boring theatrics being used to score cheap political points. The troops were bored to tears and so is America. Your comparison of Obama’s speech writers to Shakespeare is hilarious, but entertaining. May I suggest you keep these fictionalized accounts in the forefront, we have come to expect nothing less from the fill in the blanks president.

Last week President George W. Bush led a group of servicemen and woman who had been wounded serving our country on a 100 kilometer mountain bike ride. Called the W100 it ” highlights the bravery and sacrifice of the warriors wounded in the global war on terror, as well as those organizations that have made continuing commitments to supporting America’s heroes.” It is just one way our former President shows his support for our heroes via the Military Support of the Bush Institute:

The Bush Institute honors the sacrifices and service our U.S. servicemen and women and their families make for our freedom. The Institute helps military support organizations achieve their missions more effectively by raising awareness and spotlighting best practices.

Check out some of the great pictures from the event:

George W. Bush slowed up his mountain bike and looked around.

The former president saw many of the 19 wounded veterans riding in the the Bush Institute’s Warrior 100K Ride still holding strong. But with only a mile left to go on the final leg of the three-day event, he didn’t see them all.

So Bush paused the lead group in the middle of Palo Duro Canyon State Park and waited until every last veteran made their way to the front.

“Team ride,” he said. “We’re gonna ride it in together.”

Bush and and the group of veterans then powered up the last hill and crossed the finish line early Saturday afternoon with an American flag in tow. The effort drew out thunderous applause from volunteers and a clutch of patriotic fans.

It even brought a few in attendance to tears.

“Seeing that flag just raised the hair on my arm,” said retired Army Col. Michael Endres, director of the Bush Institute’s Military Service Initiative.

[link]

If we are to gauge the level of respect and honor in our civil society, we need only look to those we – or our elected representatives – consider deserving of special hero worship. Some of these high honors include the flying of Old Glory at half-staff, the honor of having Naval vessels named for an individual, or perhaps being the recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Considering several events of late, I can not help but think that the standards that our society deems iconic have hit some unacceptable lows.

Three examples of late have had me shaking my head in bewilderment, tho I’m quite sure these are not only examples.

The Republican governor has ordered U.S. and state flags flown at half-staff at all state government buildings on Saturday, the day of her funeral.

Christie defends his decision by deeming the singer a “cultural icon” of the state, along the lines of Jersey musicians Frank Sinatra, Count Basie and Bruce Springsteen.

He goes on to say, “Whitney Houston was an important part of the cultural fabric of this state … Her accomplishments in her life were a source of great pride for many people in this state and for this state as a whole. On that basis, I think she’s entitled to have that recognition made for her.”

According to official Flag Code, Gov. Christie has all rights as the Governor of the State to order the Old Glory’s half-mast status to honor whomever he wishes. That is not in question. What may be in question is his judgement in applying such an honor to a woman who can hardly be considered a role model to the young, and ended up abusing her extraordinary gift of song. Or perhaps this is what our society has come to… that our focus, adoration and attentions gravitate to drug addicted entertainers instead of genuine heroes amongst us that do not enjoy national fame.

It’s also embarrassing that this extends even to our 24/7 news outlets, i.e. Greta Van Sustern interrupting an interview with Karl Rove about the new Obama budget for the “breaking news” of the jet, carrying Whitney Houston’s body, hitting the tarmac in New Jersey. You’ve gotta be kidding me…

In a society where few can name the Vice President or Speaker of the House, but can name the past four season’s winners on Dancing with the Stars, I suppose it’s not all that surprising that ratings conscious broadcast entities cater to this mentality. But I do find it disconcerting that arrangement of priorities has reduced our fates, and that of our children and grandchildren, as nothing more than a side note or also ran…. preempted by another pandering opportunity to mourn sundry entertainers – like Houston and Michael Jackson – who also happen to be junkies that ended up engineering their own deaths.

What have we come to when we telegraph to the young that these people are deserving of some of our highest honors?

I have to admit, as a Navy wife back in the era of Vietnam, the announcement by Obama Naval Secretary appointee, Ray Mabus, to name the latest littoral combat ship off the drydock after former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, really stunned me. While I have nothing against Ms. Giffords personally, and wish her well in her recovery, I find that such an honor bestowed on someone because they were the target of a lunatic falls fall short of our traditional standards for naming naval vessels in the past, as documented by this 2011 CRS report. Generally, the LCS class is named for small and medium sized American cities.

But this is not Mr. Mabus’ first, or only controversial choice of names. In April, 2010, the Naval Secy announced the LPD-26, the 10th ship in the class, would be named for the late Representative John P. Murtha. Needless to say, this was not a decision that was received well by the masses. While Pelosi saw him as a tireless advocate for the troops, more than a few of us instead remembered his 2005 accusation that US Marines killed Iraqis in cold blood…. Marines that were later exonerated of charges.

The proposed LCS Gabrielle Giffords is not only an off tangent honor for that class of ship, but also in the fact that very few ships are named after the living. This places the former House member in the exclusive company of Carl Vinson, Adms Rickover and Burke, John Stennis (weird in itself that a ship is named after a racial segregation Senator…), Bob Hope, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and George Bush the elder. And why? Because she was the unfortunate victim of a shooting?

Mabus comes up with a pretty flimsy reason… as quoted from the Washington Times editorial I linked above.

Mr. Mabus said Mrs. Giffords was a source of “great inspiration” who represents “the Navy and Marine Corps qualities of overcoming, adapting and coming out victorious despite great challenges.”

I’m sorry, but I have to agree with the Times editorial staff… if overcoming, adapting and achieving victory over great challenges is the criteria, one need look no further than Walter Reed Hospital for heroes who willingly took bullets for our nation for that inspiration.

USNS Cesar Chavez

Although the authority to choose naval vessel’s names has been the Secretary of Navy’s privilege since the late 1800s, this does not eliminate Congressional interest, and influence, when controversial suggestions arise. Incidents where Congress and the POTUS have interceded are documented as examples from the CRS background report:

For example, one source states that “[the aircraft carriers] CVN 72 and CVN 73 were named prior to their start [of construction], in part to preempt potential congressional pressure to name one of those ships for Admiral H.G. Rickover ([instead,] the [attack submarine] SSN 709 was named for the admiral).”20 Another example was
a rivalry of sorts in Congress between those who supported naming the aircraft carrier CVN-76 for President Truman and those who supported naming it for President Reagan; the issue was effectively resolved by a decision announced by President Clinton in February 1995 to name one carrier (CVN-75) for Truman and another (CVN-76) for Reagan.21 One press report suggests that the decision to name CVN-77 for President George H.W. Bush may have been influenced by a congressional suggestion.22 Section 1012 of the FY2007 defense authorization act (H.R. 5122/P.L. 109-364 of October 17, 2006), expressed the sense of the Congress that the aircraft carrier CVN-78 should be named for President Gerald R. Ford, and the Navy announced on January 16, 2007, that CVN-78 would be so named.

And apparently this discernible trend by Obama’s Naval Secretary appointee has begun to raise Congressional eyebrows. So this past December, “…a clause in the Dec. 12 congressional report accompanying the defense authorization bill calls on the defense secretary to review the policy for naming vessels.” This is not exactly a vote of confidence in the trend of name choices and defining the acts which are deserving of this honor.

This was done prior to the announcement of the USS Gabrielle Giffords. And I honestly believe that few Congress members would have the fortitude to stand up and say that one of their own is not worthy of this honor for fear of public repercussions. But I will. And frankly, I do believe that not only should Ray Mabus.. who served two years in the Navy in the 70s… be bounced out with nothing but skivvies in hand, but that his choice of names should be reviewed and reversed before the paint is dry on the hull.

The last example of the decline of US moral society, as reflected in “honors”?

By gum, there’s not much to say about this abomination of choice. Why did Obama feel Buffett, a close crony to his admin, was worthy of such an honor?

Obama said Buffett “uses his stature as a leader to press others of great means to do the same.” “

Apparently, this POTUS believes that if one of wealth decides to gift their inheritance to those they don’t know instead of relatives, it’s an example of leadership.

????

So what do we have here? Flags at half-staff for junkies, ships named for labor leaders, and Congressional members who either accused and disgraced our military, or simply were a victim of a loon, and the celebration of any-one-but-family charitable giving. Is our society in such moral decline that this is an acceptable trend by our elected leaders?

Or have our thresholds gotten so low that one really knows, or cares, what constitutes a hero/heroine, worthy of honor anymore?

As I am sure many of you have read Michael Avery, a professor from Suffolk University Law School not only balked at the idea of sending care packages to military men and women overseas in active duty, he took it a step further when he said in part:

“I think it is shameful that it is perceived as legitimate to solicit in an academic institution for support for men and women who have gone overseas to kill other human beings.”

He wrote this in response to a campus wide email soliciting holiday care packages. When you look at Mr. Avery’s academic background, it is easy to see why he has this twisted view of the world. Among his credits listed at Suffolk University’s Law School website, he attended the University of Moscow for one year and also has served as special counsel to the ACLU.

Now I could delve into a thoughtful, yet angry tirade about his insensitivity to the military. Or I could say that even as hateful and ignorant as his position is, he has a right to express it under the very First Amendment granted to him in the Constitution; a right that has been fought and died for by our brave military men and women since the birth of our great country.

However, while viewing the responses to the story about this on the Daily Caller’s website, I found one response to be the antithesis of Professor Avery’s asinine comments. I would like now, to post this response and the only attribution I can give is the screen name of the respondent – Night_wolf_45.

Mr Avery,

While a majority of e-mails pertaining to your distaste for US care packages will likely be hostile in nature, I assure you that my message will strive to be anything but. As a US soldier and an officer in a light infantry brigade, I have seen both the dark side of humanity as well as sacrifice in its most pure form. Though not as educated, nor as knowledgeable as you in a vast number of areas, I may speak from experience when noting our operations overseas. While it is true that armies deal in death, we also strive to protect life, as a medical platoon leader in Afghanistan we served both civilian and hostile force with the same diligence and care as we would an American causality. On numerous occasions we treated children screaming from the shrapnel of a misplaced footstep as well as those who proved to be the genesis of the aforementioned injury.

Professor Avery, we do not deal solely in death, as if we did I would not find this career to be a suitable alternative to the academic realm of which I one day wish to return. In fact my job is honestly the antithesis of death, as it is for a vast majority of those who adorn the regalia of a soldier in a modern army. Unlike our enemies, we care for those who bleed, regardless of their affiliation, unlike those who wish us harm, we attempt to abide by the laws of war, and unlike those who leave explosives in crowded streets, we attempt to protect those who cannot protect themselves. While you may see this as an ignorant and idealized version of war, I could say the same for the comments you yourself had made. I am not a murderer Mr. Avery, nor do I condone the slaughter of civilians, I am a man who made a choice to protect living beings in a land that I would otherwise have never seen. True I have witnessed death, from the labored respirations of a dying member of the ANA, to the metaphorical demise of innocence, found in the tear strewn face of a soldier who had lost a comrade before their eyes.  You see Mr. Avery, we were not the agents of death, but rather the nemesis of it. Even when the biological limitations of an individual were on the verge of collapse, we only relented in our battle with mortality when our clinical limitations and beleaguered efforts, could not overcome the inevitable. I am not asking to be called a hero sir, a title that would be better applied to the remarkable men who served under me, I’m simply asking to not be labeled a murderer. As a man of law you can see the distinct difference, if your generalization of those in uniform were to be true, and if all men and women were guilty by association, one would ultimately be forced to surmise that there would be no one left to guard the institutions, as we would all be interned. True, many of us are unremarkable, and unlike those with an outstanding intellect and pension for academia, we found a career in which we can excel. However, regardless of political ideations, we are often taken from home to fulfill the call of duty, both the one were a legally bound to answer, and the one we ourselves intrinsically create. We leave our wives, children, pets, parents, loved ones, bills and personal strife behind us, for a penance of what we should be paid, in a land we seldom know. You see sir, a care package is not a message of death, nor is it a cluster of bullets in a chamber pointed at a child, if anything, it’s a reminder that we are remembered and we are longed for.”

With thoughtful, intelligent folks like this in the military, not only do I feel a swell of patriotism, but I see light at the end of the tunnel of darkness that is modern progressivism.

Sept. 15, 2011 President Barack Obama makes remarks before awarding the Medal of Honor to Dakota Meyer, left, the first Marine to be so honored for actions in Aghanistan, at White House ceremony. "You did your duty, above and beyond," Obama told Meyer after reciting his dramatic story. Though the corporal and a fellow Marine were going against orders — commanders considered their effort too dangerous — they were doing what they thought was right, Obama said. Bill O'Leary / The Washington Post

Fortunately for us, we have a living hero to receive the Medal of Honor and not a dead one.

NYTimes account of the September 8, 2009 ambush in eastern Afghanistan:

Mr. Meyer, 23, now a sergeant in the inactive reserve, was an infantry corporal on Sept. 8, 2009, when an Afghan and American column headed before dawn toward the village of Ganjigal in Kunar Province.

The men in column — a mix of Afghan soldiers, border police officers and American trainers — were to meet with local elders. But they had been betrayed and walked into an ambush.

Corporal Meyer and another Marine had been assigned to secure a flank, and as Taliban gunfire began and the rest of his team was trapped, he was several hundred yards away.

Corporal Meyer listened on the radio as the rest of his Marine training team tried calling for help, and as Capt. Will Swenson of the Army, who worked with the border police and was also trapped, shouted into his radio for artillery support to suppress the Taliban fighters.

Officers at the nearby Army headquarters denied the request for artillery support, leaving the men, many of them wounded, to fight on their own until helicopter gunships arrived. (Investigations later suggested the Army officers decided that because the trapped troops were unaware of the precise locations of all of the other troops on the operation, artillery fire might have endangered them and was best withheld.)

Corporal Meyer asked permission several times to go into the ravine and to fight. He was told to remain in place, but decided to rush to the village nonetheless.

In the course of six hours, survivors said, Corporal Meyer and his driver, Staff Sgt. Juan J. Rodriguez-Chavez, led five fights into the ravine toward Ganjigal. Four times they helped recover wounded men, first Afghans who were pinned down and later Americans similarly trapped.

After the corporal freed Captain Swenson, the captain joined him in the fighting while an Army platoon nearby declined to help. On the last trip they recovered the remains of three Marines and a Navy corpsman. By then, according to the Marine Corps’ account of the fight, Corporal Meyer had killed eight Taliban fighters and stood up to several dozen more. (A fifth American later died of wounds suffered in the ravine.)

Two years on, the ambush in Ganjigal has been examined, reexamined and presented in many different ways, often as an institutional failure and an example of the limits and dangers of the counterinsurgency theory that was pressed upon the troops by Gen. David H. Petraeus and the Pentagon. The betrayal by the villagers, the confused lines of command, the withheld artillery fire, the inaction of an Army platoon that might have helped the trapped men — have all been documented.

In his remarks on Thursday, Mr. Obama did not mention the local treachery or the lapses of officers who might have helped that day. Instead, he dwelled on Mr. Meyer, who is described as a remarkable selfless example of a citizen at his best.

“Dakota later confessed,” the president said, of the fighting in Ganjigal, “I didn’t think I was going to die. I knew I was.”

DoD:

Meyer and others who had joined him picked up the fallen Marines and, “through all those bullets, all the smoke, all the chaos, carried them out one by one – because as Dakota says, that’s what you do for a brother,” the commander in chief said.

“Dakota says he’ll accept this medal in their name,” the president said. “So today, we remember the husband who loved the outdoors, Lt. Michael Johnson; the husband and father they called ‘Gunny J,’ Gunnery Sgt. Edwin Johnson; the determined Marine who fought to get on that team, Staff Sgt. Aaron Kenefick; the medic who gave his life tending to his teammates, Hospitalman 3rd Class James Layton; and a soldier wounded in that battle who was never recovered: Sgt. 1st Class Kenneth Westbrook.”

Obama said while he knows Meyer has thought of himself as a failure because some of his teammates didn’t come home, “as your commander in chief, and on behalf of everyone here today and all Americans, I want you to know it’s quite the opposite.”

“Because of your honor, 36 men are alive today,” the president said. “Because of your courage, four fallen American heroes came home, and in the words of James Layton’s mom, [their families] could lay their sons to rest with dignity.”

Meyer’s father, Mike, grandparents, and more than a hundred friends and family members attended today’s ceremony.

Because of Meyer’s humble example, children all across America will know that “no matter who you are or where you come from, you can do great things as a citizen and a member of the American family,” the president said.

From WaPo:

When President Obama recently called to tell Meyer he would be awarded the Medal of Honor, the military’s highest honor, Meyer didn’t take the call. Meyer, now 23, was working a new job in construction and asked the president to call him back another time.

“He told me, ‘If I don’t work, I don’t get paid,’ ” Obama recounted with a chuckle Thursday afternoon at the medal ceremony for Meyer in the gilded East Room of the White House.

“Dakota is the kind of guy who gets the job done,” Obama said.

Meyer, of Kentucky, became just the third service member to earn the award for service in the Afghanistan or Iraq wars, and he’s the first living Marine to have earned the honor since 1973.

~~~

The Obama administration has previously awarded the Medal of Honor to two other Afghan war veterans. Army Staff Sgt. Salvatore A. Giunta, who received the award on Nov. 27, 2010, and Sgt. 1st Class Leroy A. Petry, who was honored at a White House ceremony last month.

Marine Cpl. Jason E. Dunham is the only other Marine out of the 10 Medal of Honor recipients for actions in the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Doug Mills/The New York Times "An American who placed himself in the thick of the fight." That is how President Obama described Dakota Meyer on Thursday in awarding him the Medal of Honor for helping rescue fellow Marines pinned down in battle in Afghanistan.

After the propaganda effort by the MSM to elect the empty suit called Obama, everyone is extremely suspicious of efforts to promote this man of no accomplishment. Thus when the White House gave Sony (a company that just hosted another fund raiser for the eternal campaigner) the supposed top secret details of the mission to assassinate Osama, the paranoia strikes deep; but seriously, is this president that ignorant to publicize top secret data on the wide screen to the world? I don’t think so

There is paranoia over Sony’s movie on Bin Laden; I am not sure it is worthy of our attention. Scheduled to be released a month before the presidential election, Conservatives are convinced it will be an attempt to cast Obama as a commander of commandos type role who couldn’t have been closer unless he was in the chopper and Liberals are hoping against common sense, it will portray the president in a positive light and will make the American public forget the failures of the past.

There are several factors within this dynamic that we as Conservatives and Liberals are ignoring. Propaganda films in the tradition of Goebbels are painfully obvious and laughable by standards of a literate viewer. The films of Michael Moore come to mind and they certainly swayed a segment of the cerebrally challenged, but now they have become cult films for those who are intrigued by the bald faced lies.

We are now comparing directors, Goebbels and Moore, they are considered caricatures of serious film directors. Robert Redford is a serious director who lets his political convictions overwhelm his artistic talent and his legacy will reflect his compromises.

Kathryn Bigelow is scheduled to direct the Bin Laden Film. She directed The Hurt Locker, if you recall there was no political motive expressed in that movie. It portrayed the characters who defuse the bombs in Iraq and she portrayed them in a manner that left the viewer breathless during the intense drama of the action scenes; at least I was breathing hard and my hands were shaking during those scenes. She did it, she showed us the men who do an unsung job and portrayed them as heroes. She didn’t promote the BS like the typical Hollywood Liberal of the Meryl Streep, Robert Redwood tradition of hating everything about America but the money.

In other words, she relied on artistic talent rather than Leftist rubbish to portray our heroes, a rare quality for our movie people.

She has a following and a name that can be developed. Do you really think she will jeopardize her future to make a propaganda movie for a failure like Obama.

A propaganda movie can also backfire on the Liberals and Obama leaving them shattered for decades. The world is not the naive place it was when Gore and Moore promoted their lies to the world.

I may be the only Conservative who feels this way, but I say let Bigelow make her movie. She, the Liberals, and Obama know the gamble of not portraying this mission accurately and the inevitable result of a propaganda movie becoming the laughingstock of the world.

There are many former service men and active military who will be watching this movie with the most critical eyes in the world. You aren’t going to fool these patriots. Let the cameras roll or should I say let the heads roll if you mess up.

The debt ceiling talk overshadowed an important story yesterday. The Medal of Honor was awarded to Army Sgt. Leroy Petry

That hand he is missing is one of the reasons why he was awarded our nations highest honor. He was wounded in a firefight after which a grenade landed near him and two of his fellow Rangers, he picked it up and threw it but not before it detonated shortly after it left his hand, destroying the hand but saving the lives of his two friends and himself. A robotic arm was fitted to his arm, he reenlisted and then went back to war.

The man is a stud.

UNITED STATES ARMY

On May 26, 2008, Staff Sergeant Leroy A. Petry, as a member of a Ranger helicopter assault force conducting a daylight rotary wing raid in the vicinity of Paktya, Afghanistan, distinguished himself conspicuously and with gallantry and intrepidness, by risking his life above and beyond the call of duty, during an extremely close and violent engagement with an extraordinarily determined and well armed enemy. During the initial engagement, Staff Sergeant Petry was shot through both legs and another Ranger was hit by enemy fire. Shortly thereafter, an enemy hand grenade landed amid Staff Sergeant Petry and two other Rangers; despite his serious leg wounds, Staff Sergeant Petry unhesitatingly moved to the grenade, grabbed it, and immediately threw the armed grenade away from his fellow Rangers. The grenade detonated shortly after Staff Sergeant Petry threw it away from his fellow Rangers resulting in a catastrophic amputation of his right hand and multiple shrapnel wounds penetrating his body. This deliberate individual act of heroism by Staff Sergeant Petry saved the lives of his fellow comrades and allowed the completion of the mission.

The helicopter assault force was committed to execute a rare daylight raid to accomplish the mission based on the high value of the target and its fleeting nature. Soldiers and helicopter assets were exposed to unusual risk by landing within small arms range of confirmed enemy forces. At 1334z. on May 26, 2008, the assault force began to clear the objective area. Sergeant Petry’s task was to locate himself with the platoon headquarters in the target building once it was secured and serve as the senior Non-Commissioned at that site for the remainder of the operation. Recognizing one of the assault squads needed assistance clearing their assigned building, Staff Sergeant Petry relayed to the Platoon Leader that he was moving to the squad to provide additional supervision and guidance during the clearance of the building. Once the residential portion of the building had been cleared, Staff Sergeant Petry took a member of the assault squad, Private First Class Lucas Robinson, to clear the outer courtyard knowing it had not been cleared during the initial clearance. Both Rangers moved into an area of the compound that contained at least three enemy fighters that were prepared to engage friendly forces from opposite ends of the outer courtyard. Staff Sergeant Petry and Private First Class Robinson entered the courtyard and immediately to their front was an opening followed by a small chicken coop. As they moved to cross the open area before the chicken coop, an enemy insurgent accurately engaged them with AK-47 fire from an approximate range of 10 meters. Staff Sergeant Petry was wounded by one round, which went through both of his legs, and Private First Class Robinson was hit in his side plate by a separate round. While wounded and under accurate enemy fire, Staff Sergeant Petry led Private First Class Robinson to the cover of the chicken coop. The enemy continued to deliver accurate sustained fire in the vicinity of the chicken coop as Staff Sergeant Petry rapidly assessed the situation and reported that contact was made and that there were two wounded Rangers in the courtyard of the primary target building.

Upon hearing the report of two wounded Rangers, Sergeant Daniel Higgins, a team leader, immediately moved to the outer courtyard. As Sergeant Higgins was moving to Staff Sergeant Petry’s and Private First Class Robinson’s position, Staff Sergeant Petry threw a thermobaric grenade in the vicinity of the enemy position. Shortly after the grenade exploded, which created a lull in the enemy fire, Sergeant Higgins arrived at their position and began assessing their wounds. While Sergeant Higgins was evaluating the severity of their wounds, an insurgent threw a grenade over the chicken coop at the three Rangers. The grenade landed approximately ten meters from the three Rangers, knocked them to the ground, and wounded Sergeant Higgins and Private First Class Robinson. Shortly after the grenade exploded, Staff Sergeant James Roberts and Specialist Christopher Gathercole entered the courtyard moving towards the contact. Staff Sergeant Petry, Sergeant Higgins, and Private First Class Robinson were still grouped together on the side of the chicken coop when another grenade landed a few feet from Sergeant Higgins and Private First Class Robinson. Recognizing the threat that the enemy grenade posed to his fellow Rangers, Staff Sergeant Petry, despite his own wounds and with complete disregard for his personal safety, consciously and deliberately risked his life to move to and secure the live enemy grenade and consciously throw the grenade away his fellow Rangers, removing the immediate threat to their lives. As Staff Sergeant Petty released the grenade in the direction of the enemy, preventing the serious injury or death of Sergeant Higgins and Private First Class Robinson, it detonated and catastrophically amputated Staff Sergeant Petry’s right hand. With a clear mind, Staff Sergeant Petry assessed his wound and quickly placed a tourniquet on his right arm. Once this was complete he reported that he was still in contact and that he had been wounded again.

Staff Sergeant Petry’s selfless and conspicuous gallantry during daylight hours of May 26, 2008 undeniably risked his life while saving the lives of two fellow Rangers and through great individual sacrifice and personal intrepidness enabled the assault force to accomplish its mission. His actions epitomize the Army’s Warrior Spirit and have brought great credit to the 75th Ranger Regiment.

The Army’s webpage in honor of Sgt. Petry is well done with multiple graphics of the fight:

Job well done soldier

Arleen Ocascio, director of the VA cemetery in Houston, has decided to take the Marxist Revolution a step further and has decreed that there will be no references to God or Jesus and that all ceremonies must be written and submitted to her for pre-approval. Obviously, this low level bureaucrat has decided Obama’s Revolution is stalled and she must pick up the standard and impose her will on the veterans who come to the cemetery to bury their loved ones.

According to her, there will be no mention of a Christian or Jewish God at future ceremonies, she has spoken and her feelings reflect the Democrats and their antagonism against God. There seems to be no antagonism against Allah, at least he has not been mentioned in Ms Ocascio’s demands that religion or God not be mentioned in the ceremonies taking place in her cemetery.

Marilyn Koepp, Secretary of the National Memorial Ladies, a volunteer group that attends every funeral at this particular cemetery, was told by Arleen Ocascio that they could not mention God while on the cemetery grounds.

It’s true that Obama’a Democrats wants to erase all traces of God from public buildings and our schools, but why must they insist that the veterans who pay the ultimate sacrifice or old heroes from the wars of yesteryear deny the presence of God before being interred with their brothers. Why is this tyrant being allowed to impose the Socialist creed against religion on the grieving families of our patriots. Is Obama’s hatred of our military, going to be allowed to force undue suffering on our Goldstar families when they are at their most vulnerable time.

There is a movement calling for the firing of Arleen Ocascio, not a reassignment, a termination. It is imperative that we demand her termination; otherwise, similar encroachments by Obama’s Socialism will continue to erode away our freedoms and the Constitution. If we allow every Marxist ideologue with a bit of power to usurp our freedoms at their whim, we will lose our Liberty.

This woman must be terminated, not transferred to sow other cushy job, but terminated without benefits. We can no longer stand around and watch these petty tyrants throw their weight around and cower in fear. They are petty Marxists who think they have power over the Constitution because of Obama’s disregard for the Constitution.

We have been pushed, it is time to show these pathetic little Marxists how the brotherhood of patriots regards their disregard and disdain of our basic rights and freedoms.

Don't Mess With Our Vets

Have a great Fourth of July,
think of our troops now and again
You see, fireworks mean they might die
Give pause to think what might have been

If not for those brave souls who stand
so that we patriots and cowards alike
Can sleep and dream in this great land
And play with kids on wobbly bikes

Pray for them who ask so little, yet give so much
While they walk point in Obama’s manmade Hells
Yet Obama says they must beg for a mere crutch
And pay their own insurance to guard their health

While he flies with dauntless courage in Air Force One
Tirelessly on guard to protect us each and everyone
But please let them know there are those among us
Who love them and would never throw them under the bus