Army agrees Kansas priest worthy of Medal of Honor
TOPEKA, Kan. -- A Kansas priest already under consideration for sainthood has won the endorsement of the Army's top civilian leader to receive the Medal of Honor.
The Rev. Emil Kapaun was a captain and chaplain in the Army in Korea and taken prisoner in 1950 when the Chinese captured his unit. Kapaun continued to serve the men's needs, risking his life to provide them with food and water amid squalid conditions.
Kapaun, a Roman Catholic, died in a prison camp in 1951.
In one of his final acts as Army secretary, Pete Geren, wrote Rep. Todd Tiahrt, of Goddard, Kansas, saying he agreed Kapaun was worthy of the honor. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has also endorsed Kapaun's honor.
Seven chaplains have received the Medal of Honor. From www.frkapaun.org: About Father Kapaun
Father Kapaun, was born in Pilsen, Kansas in the Diocese of Wichita, Kansas on Holy Thursday, April 20, 1916. He was ordained as a Priest for the Diocese on June 9, 1940 and entered the U.S. Army Chaplain Corps in 1944.
Separated from the service in 1946, he re-entered the Army in 1948 and was sent to Japan the following year. In July of 1950 Father Kapaun was ordered to Korea. On November 2 of that same year he was taken as a prisoner of war. In the seven months in prison, Father Kapaun spent himself in heroic service to his fellow prisoners without regard for race, color or creed.
To this there is testimony of men of all faiths. Ignoring his own ill health, he nursed the sick and wounded until a blood clot in his leg prevented his daily rounds. Moved to a so-called hospital, but denied medical assistance, his death soon followed on May 23, 1951.
The Diocese of Wichita and the Vatican have begun the formal process that could lead to Father Kapaun's canonization. In 1993, it was announced that Fr. Kapaun would receive the title of "Servant of God".
#1
While he was indeed a good guy, the MoH is reserved for combat soldiers, which is why it is not presented to intelligence agents, civilian contractors, or Obama, even though he would like one to add to his collection, alongside his Nobel Peace Prize, his Order of Lenin, his 1st Place Cannabis Cup, his Westminster Best In Show Award, his NAACP Image Award, His Emmy and Oscar and MTV music video award and Pulitzer Prize.
#3
As I understand it--and I could be wrong--the MoH is not only for heroism in combat. I believe that several people have received it for unusual courage in resisting the enemy as POWs. For example, I think that Admiral James Stockdale received it for heroism as a POW.
Posted by: Some guy ||
10/14/2009 11:59 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I know of at least one priest who was awarded two Silver Stars for valor in combat, one in France and the other in Korea. Medics are awarded the MoH, why not chaplains?
#1
From the article: Taming this land and its human inhabitants into a civilized country will require great investments in time, resources, imagination and intelligence. Bringing Afghanistan out of the Stone Age is not a decade-long project; we are already seven years into the war, and its only getting worse. Some people say it will take two generations, but more realistically, a century will be needed. My personal estimate is 60 years will be needed. In either case, the US electorate will not accept it. (As a side note, AFAIK in the USA there are still no college-level courses available in Dari or Pashto).
#2
From a comment posted to Yon's article"I believe the phrase for the kind of long-term tutelage you envision is 'colonization'.
And that's simply a non-starter. I don't see either US party being willing to sink decades worth of blood and treasure into Afghanistan for a benefit which is not easily measurable on a balance sheet."
Then there's Pakistan, which is looking more and more like Afghanistan with nukes.
#4
Yon is correct, IMO. This is a fools errand. Better to come to that conclusion quickly, leave, but do so with the explicit statement by Barry saying that should any American or Allied target be hit, ever, where the guilty party can be tracked back to either Afghanistan or the tribal belt of Pakistan, then a whole lot of US heavy bombers are going to be making multiple visits to that region.
#5
remoteman, that young Afghan gentleman from Denver that just was bound over for trial was trained and managed by Al Qaeda allies in Peshawar, if I recall correctly. Why should we wait until the next one succeeds, when we are already there with the anvil of troops in Afghanistan, the hammer of US-controlled Predators in Pakistan... and the Pakistan army noisily attacking some of the jihadi groups from the Islamabad side?
#2
It ceases to amaze me anymore, really. What irks me the most is that I thought Hillary had more sense (and balls) than that and would, when necessary, stand up to The 0ne. I guess I gave her too much credit. What a disgrace.
Want to hear a real laugher? Despite the current disharmony in politics, there's one policy on which all of Washington agrees. Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, president and Congress all agree that after last fall's financial crisis, the federal government has to regulate the financial industry more closely to protect our economy from risk of systemic financial collapse.
Here's the joke. As boom- and bust-prone as high finance always has been and remains, the greatest systemic risk to our economy is not Wall Street. It's the growing federal debt (and weakening dollar) being enacted by those Washington politicians -- the ones who want to protect us from Wall Street.
It soon may be not a risk but a certainty of generations-long economic stagnation and hard times as a direct result of "unsustainable" and ever-growing national debt, driven by a federal budget almost half of which is to be paid for each year by borrowing money -- primarily from China -- and already weakening the dollar such that foreigners are trying to get rid of their dollars any way they can.
Don't take my word for it. In June, the Congressional Budget Office published "The Long-Term Budget Outlook," its summary reading in part: "The federal budget is on an unsustainable path -- meaning that federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. ... Rising costs for health care and the aging of the U.S. population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly. ...
"... Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress income growth. ... The accumulation of debt would seriously harm the economy. Alternatively, if spending grew as projected and taxes were raised in tandem, tax rates would have to reach levels never seen in the United States (highest marginal income tax rate so far: 94 percent, in 1944-45). High tax rates would slow the growth of the economy, making the spending burden harder to bear."
And yet the same Congress and president who want to stop the banks from taking too much risk cannot stop themselves from ever more deficits. Indeed, so intoxicated -- nay, hypnotized! -- by debt is the current government that it is not even proposing to try to cut back.
Last week saw, at the same time: 1) the world shuddering about the debt-driven weakening dollar ("The biggest story in the world economy is the continuing fall of the U.S. dollar, or at least it is everywhere outside of Washington, D.C., the place most responsible for its declining value." -- The Wall Street Journal) and 2) Washington cheering Sen. Max Baucus' health bill's spending levels ("Health Care Bill Gets Green Light in Cost Analysis" -- The New York Times).
That's right. The federal government is giving the "green light" for the country to drive to the poorhouse -- and drive there, I would argue, by way of the lunatic asylum. Are they nuts? Consider a few details.
Before the Baucus health bill is enacted, $9.3 trillion of newly created deficit already has been added to the national debt. The Baucus bill is considered a triumph of careful budgeting because it may cost only $829 billion -- and will not add to that unsustainable deficit because it is to be paid for by cutting Medicare and other programs by about $400 billion and raising taxes primarily on health care insurance by about $400 billion.
Now, forget for the moment that even the Congressional Budget Office doesn't believe its own numbers. (Last week, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote to Baucus, warning, "Long-term budgetary impact could be quite different if those provisions were ultimately changed." That is, CBO must score the cuts called for by the bill. However, Congress invariably fails to actually implement the painful cuts, but it does keep or increase the benefits. That is why entitlement programs always cost much more than is predicted.)
But let's assume the numbers are real. This is still insane. Remember, until a few months ago, President Barack Obama insisted on passing health care legislation this year (during the economic crisis we are still
in) because it would lower overall costs -- a necessary step for a return to a healthy economy.
But neither he nor Congress could design a bill that saved money. So they are settling for not adding to the "unsustainable" current deficit.
Here's a thought: As shrinking the unsustainable deficit is a critical prerequisite for a healthy economy, why not just enact the $400 billion of Medicare cuts and $400 billion of health insurance tax increases -- thereby reducing the 10-year deficit by about $1 trillion (when you count reduced interest payments) -- but don't provide the new entitlement benefits that were the purpose of the bill?
Helping out the uninsured might be a nice notion someday. But the first priority now is to avoid permanently destroying our economic capacity -- as we rapidly are doing -- by the insanity of adding to entitlement programs while the dollar begins to fail and the CBO predicts we never will recover from the current debt and deficit levels. So cut the 10-year deficit by that almost $1 trillion.
Then incrementally move the eligibility age for Medicare and Social Security to 70 by 2030. That would reduce their costs by about 3 percent of gross domestic product, which is about what it would take to keep them functioning without bankrupting America. It's a start.
Stop the madness. Don't increase benefits; cut costs. Now. It's doable -- except for the fact that Washington is nuts.
His new movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story," begins by suggesting that all was well until Ronald Reagan became president and cut the top 90 percent income tax rate. Everything was downhill from there.
But by the end of the movie, he says the problems really began in 1945, when Franklin Roosevelt died without enacting his proposed Second Bill of Rights, which would have "guaranteed' everything from a "remunerative job" and a "decent home" to "adequate medical care," a "good education" and "adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment".
Adding to the confusion, he lavishes praise on Barack Obama and his "spread the wealth around" rhetoric. But Moore also demonizes as symbols of capitalism Clinton Treasury secretaries Robert Rubin (formerly of Goldman
Sachs) and Lawrence Summers, and former New York Fed President Timothy Geithner without mentioning that Rubin has been Obama's adviser and that Summers and Geithner are, respectively, his chief economic guru and treasury secretary. Nor does he acknowledge that Obama continued the bailout policies of George W. Bush.
Moore declares capitalism evil, but he's never clear about what "capitalism" means. Considering how much time he spends documenting the cozy relationship between business and government, I thought he might mean "state capitalism."
But then he uses the term "free market" as a synonym for what he doesn't like.
What does the free market have to do with businesses manipulating government and strong-arming Congress for bailouts? Moore properly condemns both.
What does he want instead of "capitalism"? He's coy about that. Claiming that the public became increasingly curious about socialism once Obama was accused of favoring it, he goes to the only self-described socialist in Congress, Sen. Bernie Sanders, to ask for a definition. Socialism, Sanders tells Moore, means "the government represents the middle class and working class, not the wealth."
Huh? That's socialism? It's not government ownership of the means of production and the abolition of private property and free exchange? Sanders reads Marx and Lenin very broadly. By his definition, I'm a socialist. I want government to represent the middle and working classes. Of course, Congress does that best by leaving them free, economically and otherwise.
Moore visits the National Archives to see if the Constitution establishes capitalism as the country's economic system. Seeing the words "people," "union" and "welfare" in the document, he says, "Sounds like that other ism."
That's just silly. The Constitution limits government's power to interfere with the people and their property. The Constitution is on the side of the free market.
Toward the end of the movie, Moore says capitalism is irredeemably evil and "has to be replaced." With what? I assumed he'd say socialism, but instead his answer is "democracy."
This apparently means expanding "hundreds of worker-owned businesses" in the United States.
But since workers are already free to start businesses, what's his point? A more astute observer would show how government intervention -- licenses, taxes, regulations -- inhibits such businesses.
Thankfully, I will soon have my own show on Fox Business Network to make such points. I'll invite Moore to come on as a guest.
For two hours, Moore rails against reckless banks and government bailouts, but never once mentions the government-business partnership that created the conditions for the turmoil. The fact that America no longer has a genuinely free market is the unnoticed 10,000-pound elephant in Moore's room.
Watching "Capitalism," you'd never know that the federal government colluded for decades with the financial, real estate and construction industries to divert resources into housing in the name of promoting home ownership -- even for people who couldn't afford it. You'd never know that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were, and are, privileged government-sponsored enterprises that encouraged shaky loans.
At least Moore has an inkling of what's wrong: cozy ties between Wall Street and government. Moore thinks the answer is better regulators or nationalization of banks. But his own evidence suggests that the real answer is a separation of state and economy -- stripping away Wall Street's privileges.
In other words: Limit government's power. Let the free market work.
#2
Geez, with Moore theres more than enough of him. I bet one days food for this fatph&** would feed four regular people. Selfish largesse = I doubt this guy has missed a meal, sense of entitlement or roof over his head, Ever., Ever., Ever.
#4
"all was well until Ronald Reagan became president and cut the top 90 percent income tax rate. Everything was downhill from there"
Well gee, Mikey, nothing's stopping you from paying over 90% of your income to the gummint. If you really believe a 90% tax on the rich is a great idea, of course....
F*ckin' greedy hypocrite.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/14/2009 18:15 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I watched abt 4 min's of Moore on Hannity last week - that's all I could stomach. Moore is either very very stupid or just a huge liar banking on the stupidity of the avg American. Or, maybe he's both. Moore's opinions were so devoid of reason and facts during the interview I almost felt embarrassed for the buffet jockey.
#1
It's pretty amazing what this man has to do to retain his tiny, dwindling audience. In the process he has proved himself to be a 'mashed-up bag of potatoes slathered in Aqua Velva.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/14/2009 11:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
RofO; you're insulting potatoes with that remark.
#3
Olbermann also needs to visit his optometrist. Have you looked at Michelle Malkin lately? She's a hottie.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/14/2009 15:35 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Actually the 'mashed up bag of meat with lipstick' could have been Teddy Kennedy after a night trying to pick up chicks with Chris Dodd back in the 90s.
On the other hand, as Mike says, Michelle Malkin is smoking hot.
Posted by: lord garth ||
10/14/2009 20:30 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Olby is so screwed up he probably has a Helen Thomas pin-up.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Want to hear a real laugher? Despite the current disharmony in politics, there's one policy on which all of Washington agrees. Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, president and Congress all agree that after last fall's financial crisis, the federal government has to regulate the financial industry more closely to protect our economy from risk of systemic financial collapse.
His new movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story," begins by suggesting that all was well until Ronald Reagan became president and cut the top 90 percent income tax rate. Everything was downhill from there.
