| Thursday, March 30, 2006 |
| Common Name, Uncommon Valor |
From The American Security Council written by Ralph Kinney Bennett: The story of Paul Smith.
Since his days growing up in Tampa, Fla., the lanky kid with the slightly mischievous smile had wanted to be a soldier. By this bright morning, April 4, 2003, Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith had more than fulfilled his dream. He had served 15 of his 33 years in the U.S. Army, including three tours of duty in harm's way - in the Persian Gulf, Bosnia and Kosovo.
Now all his training, all his experience, all the instincts that had made him a model soldier, were about to be put to the test. With 16 men from his 1st Platoon, B Co., 11th Engineer Battalion, Sgt. Smith was under attack by about 100 troops of the Iraqi Republican Guard.
"We're in a world of hurt," he muttered.
That "world" was a dusty triangular, walled compound about half the size of a football field, near the Saddam Hussein International Airport, 11 miles from Baghdad. Sgt. Smith's engineers or "sappers" had broken through the 10-foot high concrete block southern wall with a military bulldozer and begun turning the compound into a temporary "pen" for Iraqi prisoners as U.S. forces pressed their attack on the airport.
While they were working, guards posted at a small aluminum gate in the north corner of the triangle had spotted the large Iraqi force approaching the compound from the north and west. Sgt. Smith had just run up to join the guards when all hell broke loose. They came under furious fire from machine guns, rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) and mortars.
The lightly armed work detail needed fire support. Sgt. Smith called for a Bradley fighting vehicle. Within minutes the tank-like Bradley roared through the breached wall and broke through the aluminum gate, taking a position just beyond it and opening up on the attackers with its rapid-fire 25-mm Bushmaster cannon.
Sgt. Smith's men took positions around the Bradley. He could see Iraqi soldiers north, east and west of him, streaming out along his flanks. He called for a nearby M-133 armored personnel carrier (APC), to give additional fire support with its M2 .50-caliber heavy machine gun.
As the APC passed through the breached wall, its commander, Sgt.Louis Berwald, realized that flanking Iraqi troops had occupied a roofed guard tower to his left, just outside the southwest corner of the compound and were firing from it. He raked the tower with his M2, then moved on through the compound to a point just outside the north gate behind the Bradley.
By now the Iraqis were concentrating their fire against Sgt. Smith's small force by the gate. An RPG round hit the Bradley and at almost the same moment a mortar round hit the APC, wounding its three occupants.
Several additional RPG rounds hit the Bradley, which by now had run low on ammunition. The Bradley retreated through the compound, exiting south through the breached wall. With one armored vehicle gone and the other out of action, Sgt. Smith's men had lost any firepower advantage they might have had.
Sgt. Smith could have withdrawn as well back south through the compound. But beyond it was a lightly defended aid station crowded with 100 combat casualties and medical personnel. To protect it from being overrun, Sgt. Smith chose to fight no matter what the odds.
Under intense fire, Sgt. Smith's men heroically extracted all three wounded crewmen from the APC. Sgt. Smith then entered the vehicle, ordering Specialist Michael Seaman to join him as driver and "keep me loaded" with ammo belts. Sgt. Smith popped up out of the turret hatch and grabbed the grips of the .50 caliber machine-gun mounted on top.
The Iraqis were practically on top of him. Coolly grasping the situation, Sgt. Smith ordered Spec. Seaman to back the APC south into the compound to a position half way down the eastern wall. There he could arc the big machine gun back and forth, from the gate entrance to the north, all along the western wall of the triangle, to the Iraqi occupied tower in the southwest corner to his left.
To fire the machine gun, Sgt. Smith had to stand in the APC's main hatch, his body exposed from the waist up to a withering fire coming at him from three directions. On the ground through the blur of combat, Sgt. Matthew Keller saw Sgt. Smith grimly firing measured bursts from atop the APC even as a hail of bullets hit around him.
Keller yelled at him to get out. Sgt. Smith looked back at him and with a slight shake of his head, made a cutting motion across his throat with his right hand. Keller would always remember the look in his eyes. "There was no fear in him whatsoever."
As Spec. Seaman, crouching in the adjoining hatch, fed him ammunition belts, Sgt. Smith directed an expert and murderous fire with the long-barreled M2, hitting Iraqis who tried to enter the compound through the gate or over the wall. He tried also to suppress renewed fire coming from the Iraqis in the guard tower to his left.
Finally, one of his fellow sappers, First Sgt. Timothy Campbell, led a small fire team which stole up to the tower and killed all Iraqis inside. But by this time, Sgt. Smith's machine gun had fallen silent. The attack had been broken. Nearly 50 Iraqi dead lay all over the area. Others were in retreat. But Sgt. Smith was now slumped in the turret hatch, blood soaking the front of his uniform.
Spec. Seaman jumped out of the vehicle in tears. "I told him we should just leave," he said. Pvt. Gary Evans drove the APC out of the compound at high speed to the nearby aid station.
But it was too late. When Medic Michelle Chavez tried to remove Sgt. Smith's helmet, she realized that it was holding his head together. A bullet - one of the last fired from the tower - had entered through Sgt. Smith's neck and traveled up into his brain, shattering his skull from the inside. There were 13 bullet holes peppered over his armored vest - the impact from any one of them enough to knock a man down. The vest's ceramic armor inserts, back and front, had been cracked in numerous places.
"Sapper Seven," the wiry, hollow cheeked guy who had been so hard on his men in training, so exacting, so insistent on "doing it right;" the guy who had led them into battle on the first day of the war with a rock 'n roll tape blaring from his Humvee; the guy who had personally got down on his knees in front of their convoy to patiently, carefully extract the deadly mines when they ran into a minefield near the Karbala Gap, was dead.
A chaplain and a sergeant in dress uniforms came to Birgit Smith's home near Fort Stewart, Ga., late on the night of April 4 to break the terrible news. The German girl Paul had met and married during his tour of duty in Western Europe in 1992, listened numbly to her visitors. She fought the growing dread and pain by grasping at a desperate hope:
"Our name is so common," she said, tears welling up in her eyes. "Maybe it's a mistake."
There was no mistake. Paul Ray Smith had given his life protecting his men and his position. He had almost singlehandedly blunted an overwhelming attack which might well have overrun the nearby aid station.
"There are two ways to come home, stepping off the plane and being carried off the plane," Sgt. Smith had written in an unsent e-mail to his parents. "It doesn't matter how I come home, because I am prepared to give all that I am to insure that all my boys make it home." He had been the only American killed in the courtyard fight.
On April 4, 2005, exactly two years after his selfless action, his wife and their children David and Jessica stood in the White House as President George Bush presented them the nation's highest decoration for bravery, the Medal of Honor.
It was the first awarded in the Iraq War. Paul Ray Smith had indelibly marked his "common name" on history's small bright roll of those forever remembered for their uncommon valor.
"Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:7-8 TNIV). |
posted by Joe Napalm @ 4:29 PM   |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, March 29, 2006 |
| You Say It's Your Birthday! |
 Happy Birthday, BK! |
| posted by Joe Napalm @ 12:00 AM |
|
|
|
| Tuesday, March 21, 2006 |
| You're My Boy, Blue! |
President Bush's press conference yesterday in Cleveland, Ohio, was the bomb! Where has this man been? I mean, this was night and day from the usual Prez. Read the important parts of the transcript here (click here). If anyone can find the video, let me know. I'd like to watch.
Maybe BK will put his "W: The President" sticker back on the rear window of the Accord. |
| posted by Joe Napalm @ 4:37 PM |
|
|
|
| Friday, March 17, 2006 |
| Breaking News |
This just in: Upon hearing that he was played by Kiefer Sutherland, Jack Bauer killed Sutherland. Jack Bauer gets played by no man.
- When Google can't find something, it asks Jack Bauer.
- Superman wears Jack Bauer underwear.
- Jack Bauer can get McDonald's breakfast after 10:30.
- If Jack Bauer shot you while quail hunting, it wouldn't be an accident.
|
| posted by Joe Napalm @ 5:15 PM |
|
|
|
|
| Wise Words from BK |
Many of you know how frustrated I've been at work the past two weeks because of, well, idiots. So, yesterday, I had my weekly therapy session with Dr. BK. He said what quite possibly could be the wisest thing I've heard in weeks.*
I told him that I think my frustrations at work are due to the fact that I feel like it's a baseball game and no one is playing their position.** I'm playing first base -- or any other position -- and when the ball's hit to me, I field it to the best of my ability. I know it's my ball and I'll get it. Someone can "back me up," but I know that this grounder is mine. I field it and come up to throw it to a bag and no one's there. They're standing beside me telling me how I could've fielded the ball better while the runners are rounding the bases. Fair analogy, right? Well, BK said, "The problem is that you think that you're playing baseball when everyone else is running a race."
Brilliant.
_____________
* M, if he stole this from you, I apologize for not giving credit where credit is due. I know he's terrible for stealing brilliant ideas from you and using them as his own. ;P
** Hair, I don't want to hear anything out of you about me using an analogy. Life really is like a box of chocolates. |
| posted by Joe Napalm @ 9:14 AM |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, March 15, 2006 |
| Just So We're All Clear |
 Joe is extremely competitive. But Joe likes to play by the rules. Joe will be looking for rules violations on Saturday. Specifically, I'll look for Rules #9 and #10, regarding wheels and axles. Joe will also be looking for loopholes.
With that said, "Boogity, boogity, boogity!" |
| posted by Joe Napalm @ 6:09 PM |
|
|
|
| Monday, March 13, 2006 |
| Poor Attitude |
Overheard at work today: "OK. Are you saying that you want me to go in there and explain the intricacies of this problem to someone who can't even work a copier?"
Alright, I admit it was I. The plant manager needed an explanation on a parts ordering procedure so my supervisor fingered me for the task. |
| posted by Joe Napalm @ 8:17 PM |
|
|
|
| Thursday, March 09, 2006 |
| The House Tries to Make Illegal Immigration, Well, Illegal |
Today, I called a supplier in Elk Grove Village, Illinois. The company is a metal stamping workshop that is located next door to Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. I called to arrange an expedite shipment. I know that is horribly boring information, but here's what's interesting: I was told that the truck should pick up as early as possible because 75 of the approximate 99 employees will be absent tomorrow afternoon in order to attend a rally in Chicago. The supplier will hold paychecks until 12:30 PM to make certain that the 75 employees will at least work a few hours.
You see, tomorrow, thousands of marchers are expected to gather in Chicago to protest a bill recently passed in the House of Representatives that is intended to penalize people who knowingly "assist" or "encourage" illegal immigrants to stay in the country. The Senate is working its own bill that will amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to include a penalty of $20,000 for companies that knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Nearly 12 million illegal immigrants live in the US, with 500,000 entering every year.
Too little too late? For national security purposes we need to plug the holes. But more importantly, at least for me, is that hiring illegal immigrants will do nothing more than create a second class community where the lines between it and slavery are awful blurry. |
| posted by Joe Napalm @ 9:59 PM |
|
|
|
| Tuesday, March 07, 2006 |
| SD Bans Abortion |
Like Rush Limbaugh's radio show, my posts seem to be on the cutting edge of societal evolution. The bird flu posts were bit early and I have a feeling that the Liberty 101 series is too far advanced. You see, I was listening to the news on the way home today and heard the following: "The ink is now dry on the bill in South Dakota that will ban most abortions. Governor Mike Rounds signed the bill into law today." And then the newscaster ended with: "Most people in the U.S. disagree with the law according to a poll taken today."
I say, "Who cares what most American's think?" Set aside the abortion moral and anti-choice arguments for a second and look at it with the United States' legal and legislative process in mind. The United States Supreme Court got it wrong in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. And South Dakota got it right.
In 1973, building on a false premise that there is a Right to Privacy in the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled that there is a Right to Abort and, therefore, legislated law (or amended the Constitution if you want to go that far) from the bench. I could go on and explain in more detail; but the gist is that Roe was put on our books without due process from Congress and was neither signed nor vetoed by the Executive. On the other hand, the citizens of South Dakota used the ballot box to elect representatives who, in turn, used the State's charters and legislative processes to put the law into writing. Today, the Governor had the perogative to sign or veto. And now, we'll watch the Judiciary do its job.
Notice that no one from Virginia, or Wyoming, or any other state for that matter had any say in the decision. Also notice that the law was not put on the books by referendum. There is no hint of democracy in the writing of this law -- only a republic at work.
In Tennessee we have no state income tax. Our interstate speed limit is 70 in rural areas and 55 in the city. We have a seatbelt law and a helmet law. We also have legalized abortion. Our representative, who used due process and approval from state courts, put all these into place.
But don't get me started on the lottery. Sheesh. In fact, don't ever mention "referendum" around me ever again... |
| posted by Joe Napalm @ 7:28 PM |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, March 01, 2006 |
| Democracy versus Republic - Part 2 of 2 |
OK, back to the much-anticipated Liberty 101 series. You can find part one below or here. In part one of the two-part series I defined "democracy". In part two, I hope to focus on what defines a republic and how the difference between it and a democracy is important today.
Again, democracy literally means the ruling of the majority. In a country with kind and compassionate citizens, democracy could be a good thing. But anyone can read the history of human nature and find it filled with evil deeds. Alexander Hamilton wrote the following concerning democracy: It has been observed that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny: Their figure deformity. The United States has been called the "Great Experiment in self-government." The experiment is to answer the question, "Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?" In a democracy, the sovereignty lies in the whole body of the free citizens. But in our republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves -- one or many. We can act on our own or elect representatives to solve a problem. However, our representatives (who we "hire" and work for us) perform tasks under the rule of law, specifically, the Constitution. The Preamble of the Constitution gives our representatives specific directions. They are to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
Because of the rule of law, lawmaking in a republic is a slow and deliberate process. There is no mob laying down the law of the day. Our republic rests balanced on a three-branch system, with each branch designed to keep the others in check. The legislators make the laws. The executive officers enforce and administer those laws. And the judiciary decides whether the imposition of these laws are proper, and in agreement with the “contract” between the people and government known as the Constitution.
How does the difference between a democracy and republic affect us today? John Adams writes, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution comes close to suggesting that government grants rights. In fact, the Constitution recognizes that Congress is the greatest threat to our rights. It uses negative phrases against Congress like: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. Instead, government is a protector of rights.
For a very recent debate about an undemocratic mechanism, look at the criticism of the Electoral College. Our founding fathers gave us the Electoral College so large, heavily populated states could not run over small, slightly populated ones.
Dr. Walter E. Williams, Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA, writes this: Here's my question: Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do? I fear it's the latter. Next in the Liberty 101 series: Rule of Man versus Rule of Law. |
| posted by Joe Napalm @ 9:01 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
