Subsequently, after years of Russian failure, the United Nations recently became involved and voted against their involvement in the fractured United States. With no sitting president, vice president, Speaker of the House, or Congress to have a say in UN involvement, a vote went to the floor to effectuate a peacekeeping mission to the shores of the United States. High-ranking representatives from the Navy and Marines met with them on the Virginia coast and rejected the UN’s offer. Reluctantly, Russia recalled its forces. The Chinese, seeing that their US assets might soon be lost, pleaded with the UN to give them more involvement in the peacekeeping process. The UN objected. The Chinese responded by withdrawing its funding of the United Nations and submitted a notice to the Security Council to have its offices removed from Hong Kong. Pressured to comply, the UN agreed to China’s terms.
Lieutenant Colonel Horowitz stood in front of a company of Marines, soldiers, and militiamen, giving the orders of the day to his senior enlisted noncommissioned officers.
Every branch of military was represented and neatly organized with its own personnel. As was expected, he had the Marines to his right, the Army to his left, and the militiamen to the rear of the Navy and Air Force and Air National Guard.
Behind them was the staging area for a large array of fighter jets and helicopters that had been flown in from the West Coast.
When the lieutenant colonel was done, he called the company to attention, then dismissed them.
Darrick came running out from one of the formations of active-duty Marines. He had been reinstated in one of the lieutenant colonel’s programs to strengthen the military units under his command. Darrick’s previous rank was reinstated with a field promotion to sergeant.
Standing eagerly off to the side of the morning formations, Carissa and Tommie stood among a few loosely scattered civilians. They weren’t there waiting for Darrick as much as they were another person’s important day.
Darrick ran over to Carissa and swooped her up in a warm embrace. He kissed her on the lips. “Man, did I miss you!” he said, still smelling rancid from a week’s worth of deployment. Carissa didn’t care. Having Darrick back made the day perfect.
“I missed you, too, babe!” she said, hugging him tighter.
“I can’t believe we have to push the wedding day back,” Darrick said.
“It’s important that Andy is there when we tie the knot,” she reminded him.
Darrick smiled at her. “I love you!”
“I love you, too!” she replied, smiling back.
Tommie stood there, as awkward as ever. He had a new confidence about him that he seemed to wear on his sleeve. He’d spent the last four years training with Darrick and militia groups to acquire the necessary survival skills he’d need. All that training not only served to make him proficient, but almost gave him a smug kind of self-assurance. It never really showed on a daily basis. Rather, it highlighted his character flaws and reinforced them with attitude.
Darrick shook Tommie’s hand. “It’s good to see you, Tommie.”
“You too, Sarge.”
Darrick laughed. “That’s something the Marines don’t say.”
“That may be, but I’m not a Marine,” Tommie bantered.
Dressed in Marine Corps field fatigues, Sergeant Darrick Mitchell grabbed Carissa by the hand, and together they approached a smaller platoon of recruits who were about to be moved from Cherry Point to Parris Island, North Carolina. The recruits stood there in the position of attention, waiting for their zero-day drill instructor to dismiss them.
Darrick and Carissa waited for the DI to give the recruits the command to fall out. Standing among them was none other than seventeen-year-old Recruit Andrew J. Mitchell. Standing a little taller than his peers, Recruit Andrew Mitchell was positioned toward the front of the platoon.
“Fall out,” Drill Instructor Sergeant Cotters sounded off.
The recruits jumped out of formation and were abuzz about their departure to Camp Lejeune. Many of them were jumping into the back of the deuce and a half M35 cargo truck. Others ran to their loved ones to say their goodbyes, but not Recruit Mitchell. He was still struggling with his awkwardness of showing affection and sharing feelings. Where Darrick felt the other recruits might falter at the screams of a Marine Corps drill instructor, he knew Andy would thrive.
“Mitchell,” Darrick called out. It was a proud moment for him. Seeing his son joining up with the Marines to follow in his footsteps was a massive confidence booster.
Recruit Mitchell was climbing into the truck when he heard his dad call out to him. Looking over his shoulder, he stepped down from the truck and walked over to Darrick and Carissa.
“Do I call you dad or sergeant?” Andy asked, completely expressionless.
“When you’re a recruit, it’s sir. After you graduate, call me Sergeant Mitchell, but only if you’re in uniform. When we’re both in our civvies, call me dad.” Darrick was smiling at his son. “I’m proud of you, Andy. You’re taking a really big step toward manhood.”
“C’mon, dad – I mean, sir. How many times have I asked you to stop calling me Andy. It sounds so childish.”
“I’m sorry, Recruit Andrew Mitchell. I’ll try harder.”
Darrick looked at his son one last time. He knew this would be the final moment of his life that he would identify with his son as a civilian. Hereafter, he would be a Marine. Not long after that, a battle-hardened Marine. Andy needed the strict regimen of Marine Corps life. Emotions weren’t required, only obedience. It was something they believed he could do.
“Thank you, sir. See you after boot camp.”
“Be seein’ ya.”
Recruit Mitchell looked over at Carissa and nodded to her. She put out her arms, expecting a hug. It was the universal request for affection. Andrew didn’t like being touched, but he obliged her.
“See you in thirteen weeks,” he said to her.
“Be seein’ ya,” she said, mimicking her fiancé.
Recruit Mitchell climbed into the back of the truck. A drill instructor came around with a clipboard and confirmed every recruit was accounted for. The truck drove away.
“Now what?” Carissa asked Darrick, turning to face him.
“Command said the Russians are leaving and that we’ve earned a ten-day leave. I say we go home and enjoy our liberty. God knows what troubles are coming with the morning.”
About the Author
L. Douglas Hogan is a U.S.M.C. veteran with over twenty years in public service.
Among these are three years as an anti-tank infantryman, one year as a Marine Corps Marksmanship Instructor, ten years as a part-time police officer, and twenty years working in state government doing security work and supervision.
He has been married over twenty-five years, has two children, and is faithful to his church, where he resides in southern Illinois.
Book 3: Resurgence, is coming soon. Sign up here to be alerted via email when it’s ready: https://www.ldouglashogan.com/
Excerpt from Oath Takers
OATH TAKERS
CONTRASTING A DIVIDED AMERICA
I'm especially sure in today's political queries that you are, at least somewhat, aware of the stark differences between the Republicans' agenda and the Democrats' agenda. Even in today’s muddy arena of mud-flinging showdowns, it is becoming more apparent that many political officials are seeing blurry lines between the two political party giants. No matter what political party you feel you are more appropriately aligned with, you still have an obligation to uphold the Constitution.
Wake after wake of controversial topics are overwhelming the most committed politicians. Democrats are leaving the Democratic Party; Republicans are speaking out against their own party. The hate and bitterness are reaching near unprecedented levels. Paint them red or paint them blue, Republican or Democrat, it really doesn't matter what party you claim to be; it all comes down to Liberalism or Conservatism. Politicians tend to paint Conservatives red and Democrats blue. Be it as you will, it rea
lly doesn't matter what color you are, the question is, "Are you Liberal or Conservative?" Are you upholding LIBERTY or are you dismantling it?
There are many political stances that would render you a Democrat and others that would render you a Republican. Issues that split the two giants are domestic policies, foreign policies, defense issues, abortion, gun control, gay marriage, and the economy. These issues can be divided into three primary categories: national, civil and moral. These issues are the backbone of party issues.
For the purpose of this chapter, I would like to step away from two of these issues and focus on moralism. An idea, I think, America is slipping away from. I'm under the awareness that morality dictates virtually every aspect of life. The absence of morality causes a tailspin that slings out anything that's not grounded. Two major political powers are tearing this country apart by their differing views and polarizing issues. But, specifically, it's not the party names that's causing all the ruckus. It's the morality that ushers in ideology within the parties. Moral groups are not called Republican or Democrat; they are called Liberal and Conservative. While morality may be fluid, the lack of it is the definition of depravity.
Let's consider this; Liberalism is not necessarily Democratic; and Conservatism is not necessarily Republican. Hang on, I'm building up towards my big spill. There are Liberals in the Republican Party and there are Conservatives in the Democratic Party. Now both sides are swooning at the notion that, like Roosevelt's term of office, an unwelcome party has infiltrated political lines. It's not like that! Keep reading.
A political party is objective. They are material organizations to which you must be a registered member. It is, in a sense, an object of attention. This is not the case with Liberalism and Conservatism. These two things are not political parties. It is nothing you can register into. They are subjective. They are philosophies, ethics, values, principles, ideologies, and moralities. They differ depending on the person to whom they are a part of. They evolve as the person evolves. They are subject to the individual and are, in many cases, the product of the environment in which they were raised.
Now, let's expand the scope a little bit. Earlier I basically said that Liberalism and Conservatism were codes of conduct. Let me suggest to you that they are states of mind, if you will. One state of mind is that of high moral clarity and ethics. The other is a separate set of rules that apply to the individual. It is a sense of feel-goodism, or the quick and easy path (the dark side). One is selfishness and the other is selflessness. One says, "I'll take what I can get," whether it's for political gain or for the individual's desire, and the other says, "That is not ethically and/or morally correct." An opportunist will almost always be Liberal.
Another type of person that will almost always be Liberal is the pacifist, but only if others are involved and there is no stake involved on their part. A pacifist that is pacifying for his own sake is not a Liberal but a Conservative. Whereas, a pacifist that is pacifying when something larger than himself is at stake is a Liberal. Liberalism was exemplified in the Liberals lack of concern in the growing threat of the Red Curtain, that is to say the Communist threat of the mid-century. Nothing was done for the better part of twenty years; therefore, the threat grew. Liberal ideology was that the United States was in no "imminent" danger. Thus pacifying the Communist threat until America was living in fear of annihilation. It was conservative values that caused the Red Curtain to fall. Why? Because somebody understood that pacifying evil will only enlarge evil's boundaries. It must be destroyed in its tracks.
We are seeing the same thing with the current threat known as ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). The Obama administration has been pacifying the terrorists because they feel that they are no “imminent” threat to the United States. They maintain this view until the threat has grown and become a legitimate and imminent threat to the United States. Now, they are beheading Americans, crucifying children and burying them alive, burning caged people and animals, because the threat was allowed to grow and embolden itself.
The nature of Conservatism is to pacify others when they are the issue, but pacification against large legitimate threats is not how Conservatives deal with them. They understand that the threat is a menace to the liberty of America. The Liberal wants that threat to be ignored until it threatens his individual liberty. When his liberty is then threatened, it becomes paramount to take action. Liberals care little about the liberties of others until their personal liberties are at stake. They would rather not be bothered with the nuances of foreign affairs. The Liberal nature is to indulge themselves and ignore external threats, in the hope they will not become victims. The Liberal will clamor until his/her beliefs are imposed on everybody. The Conservative understands his/her rights are unique to themselves, but will not pacify themselves if it means securing liberty for all; they will sacrifice themselves in a manner exemplified only by patriotism.
Unfortunately, for Liberals, they feel their unique individualism should be forced upon every American. Because the Liberal does not like guns, they push gun control upon every American. My personal message to Liberals is, if you don't like guns, don't buy them. When you are experiencing an emergency, wait twenty minutes for the police to arrive. They have guns too, but for some reason, Liberals believe the police and military should be the only ones equipped. That assumption is incorrect, given the Constitution's Bill of Rights has forever given the average American the right to keep and bear arms, in order to secure LIBERTY forever in these States.
No American has the right to impose their belief system upon that of another. Thomas Jefferson once stated, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” You heard it here; Thomas Jefferson says that when laws violate the rights of the individual, it is done so by a tyrant.
Let me conclude this chapter by saying all aforementioned Liberal and Conservative chatter was done in order to establish that there are very differing views in this country. The views expressed here are pretty concrete. I understand that there are exceptions in every case. There is a mixture of people, considered “moderates,” and also there are exceptions in the ideologies aforementioned. But, for the most part, the views are so contrary that they literally divide America into two categories: Those who seek to undermine and destroy the Constitution's writ of individual liberty and those set to defend LIBERTY at great peril to themselves. Oath takers ought to be on the side set to defend LIBERTY at great peril to themselves. Be liberal, be conservative, with the willingness to die for something greater than yourself. But do it defending the individual liberties of all, so that we can remain American.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT
I think the following letter should be a required reading for all Presidents
Throughout the pages of this book, I am making every possible effort to reveal truth as it is. I believe that truth is truth and the fact that someone may view truth in a different light does not take away from the fact that truth is unalterable. Truth does not care what race, sex, or ethical background you are. It does not exist within the realm of human perception. It transcends time, culture, ethnicity, and sex. It does not matter how it is viewed, interpreted, or expressed. Therefore, I plan on telling you how it is. How you take it is entirely up to you. It will not be watered down, it will not always feel good, and it certainly will not appeal to "Feel-Gooders."
I define a "Feel-Gooder" as a person who looks for the moment and allows that moment to determine his/her standing on any given issue, despite his/her system of values. It is the person who says to himself/herself, "If it feels good, then do it." Perhaps, for the sake of defining this doctrine, I will refer to the attitude as "feel-goodism."
This attitude is the spirit America is discovering for a second time. Many of you may have experienced it through the Woodsto
ck period. It was a time when peace, love, drugs, and rock-n-roll were all that mattered. It is the spirit that says to our children, "If it is not harmful to others or violating any rules, then do it."
The liberal element of these "children of the flowers" have become scornful and filled with hate through the years. Their hatred has taken them over and now they are teaching America's sons and daughters in the colleges. They teach their point of view and radicalize our sons and daughters. Our kids leave their professors behind and scorn the United States as if they are their professor's champion of all that is good and right. Unfortunately, they are on the left. Their mind's eye has been seared shut and their new attitude is one of "tolerance."
The problem with this attitude is that once a generation accepts it, the proceeding generation will not only accept the attitude as the norm, but also will undoubtedly add his/her own perception to it. What was tolerance to the preceding generation is no longer tolerance, but the norm. Therefore a new level of tolerance must be created and accepted. With each acceptable state of tolerance, a standard is dropped.
With political correctness on the scene, it has become apparent to many Americans that Constitutional Rights and Constitutional Righteousness have become blurred. What our Founding Fathers held to be “inalienable” suddenly becomes “alterable.” And it's all for the purpose of political correctness.
Political correctness is a lot like pepper spray. Not only does it temporarily blind the person it hits, but it also (unavoidably) gets in the eyes of everybody that is in the immediate vicinity, whether you want it there or not.
With political correctness, once a person views something a particular way, the law concerning the view must reflect the new perception of that law. The person, in turn, is blinded to seeing the law as a violation upon his/her rights until it is changed to suit the new point of view. Fellow "Feel-Gooders" now see this with alarming clarity, and they, in turn, become blinded by the same point of view, even if they do not particularly want to view it that way. I guess the issue at hand would be "alternative."
Deadfall Page 18