About a year ago, I wrote a series of posts describing, from my point of view (from whence everything here is coming), a few of the words the Left use to hide their beliefs and goals from the ignorant masses. Most of them had to do with concepts like “Diversity” or “Tolerance,” the bastions of modern Leftist propaganda. Today, I will renew this series by defining what those on the Left mean when they “Support the Troops.”

Support

4. To sustain (a person, the mind, spirits, courage, etc.) under trial or affliction.

5. To maintain (a person, family, establishment, institution, etc.) by supplying with things necessary to existence; provide for. 

6. To uphold (a person, cause, policy, etc.) by aid, countenance, one's vote, etc.; back; second. 

(Dictionary.com Unabridged)

We see the words “We support the troops” coming from the Left on a very regular basis. The Left expresses their support for the troops far more often than the right does, as a matter of fact. It’s almost as though they are trying to convince someone that they do, in fact, actually support the troops.

Unfortunately, as in all cases, actions speak far louder than words. “We support the troops” nearly always appears in connection with some denigration of the troops or other. It may be claims that the Iraq war is some combination of unwinnable, immoral, a quagmire, for oil, for lining the pockets of defense contractors, hateful, racist, and/or imperialistic. It may be the detailed coverage of every allegation of wrongdoing by our troops, e.g.: Korans in the toilet, torture or humiliation of prisoners, killing civilians, etc. It may be in publishing body counts, or the unbridled glee with which the Press led up to the 2,000^th KIA in Iraq (I still remember the daily reports as the papers were counting up to that “milestone.) It may be universities who do not want to host ROTC or recruiters or whatever because the military’s “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” policy doesn’t allow gay soldiers to be gay first and soldiers second. It may be congressmen or senators that demand cuts in funding for the military while we are fighting a war. It may be John Kerry saying “do well in college or end up in Iraq,” implying that only dumb people go into the military. 

In the most recent egregious example, as most people know, the Berkeley, CA City Council sent a letter to the US Marine Corps stating that they -- their recruiting station, in particular -- were not welcome in the town. They also sent messages of support to the Communist-sympathizing, anti-war group Code Pink, encouraging them to protest in front of the recruiting station. The total lack of support for the troops by the city of Berkeley was obvious to all, and yet, after they received significant backlash (including the threat to cut Federal pork spending for the town) they claimed “We support the troops.” They did mitigate that support by saying they didn’t support the troops actually doing their jobs (fighting the war in Iraq) nor do they support recruitment. That last is particularly telling. The city council of Berkeley has gone on record by saying that young people shouldn’t be recruited into the military. Not mentioned in this belief is how the military is to sustain its numbers as people separate, retire, or, most unfortunately, die. Recruiting older people doesn’t work well because the physical demands of Military life (especially the Corps) don’t fit with older people, especially if they haven’t done much physical training before joining. Further, older people have a better shot at making more money than people just out of high school. They who want the military to focus on older recruits also don’t want the military to raise its budget to pay the higher salaries the older recruits would need to have the incentive to work for the military. Pride in service doesn’t pay the bills. 

HJG

In the case of baseball, the ceaseless drama that is the “Great Baseball Steroid Scandal” (GBSS) was on display for all to see. The funniest part of the story is how Congress, while making a concerted effort to proclaim that this week’s hearing was about the totality of the GBSS and not to persecute Roger Clemens, excused every single witness except Clemens and Brian McNamee, his personal trainer and steroid accuser. (In the interests of accuracy, the accusations were actually mainly about Human Growth Hormone (HGH), not artificial anabolic steroids, but since Congress in its infinite wisdom has lumped it all together, so will I for simplicity.) So Roger Clemens is put on trial based almost solely on hearsay for allegedly using “Performance Enhancing Drugs” during his otherwise legendary career. The hearings ended with both Clemens and McNamee making directly contradictory, mutually exclusive statements. McNamee says he injected Clemens with steroids 1, 2, 3 dozen times, and Clemens says he never touched the stuff, he doesn’t even drink. Various congressmen basically called both men liars and, so, in a colossal waste of time, effort, and money – the scale of which could only come from a Democrat controlled Congress – we found out that someone accused Roger Clemens of using steroids, and he denies it. Information the public knew months ago.

In the case of Football, the AFC Champion New England Patriots were accused of having made illegal (in the NFL) videotapes of opposing coaches during games to help with their own play calling. Everything about this allegation, from the amount of time it existed to the severity to the actual affect it has had on the integrity of the game (actual or perceived) has been debated ad infinitum this season, as the Patriots won every regular season game and missed winning the Super Bowl by one magnificent catch. The league fined the coach and the team a grand total of $750,000 and took away their own top two draft choices (that is, not the choices they traded for in the early rounds).   Senator Arlen Specter (RINO – PA) contacted NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and wanted to have a meeting with the Commissioner on what actually happened and why the league destroyed the evidence. Goodell and Specter spent Wednesday afternoon (yes, the same day as the GBSS hearing/Roger Clemens show trial) agreeing to disagree with the facts of the scandal known in the media as “Spy-gate.” While the waste of time, effort, and money wasn’t nearly to the scale of the GBSS hearing, it was still there.

I have no horse in either race. I am neither a great fan of Roger Clemens nor of the New England Patriots. I find both to have been among the best in their lines of work, certainly now, possibly ever. But I don’t really care that much about them. And so it probably goes with the vast majority of sports fans in this country (never mind the people who don’t care about sports.) 

The reason I’m even writing about this is the behavior of Congress in these affairs. When last I checked (and admittedly it’s been a couple of months, so I could be wrong) Congress’ function, according to the Constitution, is to make those laws necessary and proper for fulfilling their duties and powers. And, when last I checked (same caveat as before) their duties did not in any way, shape, or form, include ensuring that private organizations appropriately punish their employees when said employees break that organization’s rules. Congress does not have the authority to tell Major League Baseball, or any of the constituent teams, how to punish people who use illegal drugs of any kind, whether for pleasure or to enhance their performance.   Yes, Major League Baseball is behind the curve on internal drug enforcement.  Yes, they tolerated steroids and the like for years after the NFL got its act together. Yes, their punishments for any type of drug use are woefully inadequate, especially compared with the NFL and the other sports leagues (I remember one baseball player who shall remain nameless who was suspended and reinstated something like 7 times for drug use. In the NFL it’s 3 strikes and you’re out of the league.) But a business’s policy on drug use by its employees is its own concern, not that of Congress. Congress acting as a grand jury attempting to arraign and indict Roger Clemens is Congress usurping the Judicial power that was specifically denied them in the Constitution (last I checked.)

The same is even more true with the NFL and spying. Drugs are regulated by federal laws (rightly or wrongly, it’s still true).  Intra-company shenanigans are not. Senator Specter’s meeting with Commissioner Goodell is roughly the equivalent of the CEO of GM being called before congress because a couple of middle managers were involved in a Christmas party incident and were suspended and docked pay, but not fired. Senator Specter himself and Congress generally have no professional interest in how the NFL chose to discipline the Patriots and their employees. There’s no federal law about cheating in professional sports because each sport has its own rules as to what is cheating. Because the sports leagues make the rules, they have the right to mete out any punishment they see fit within those rules. The government has no say in the matter and Specter should never have even called Goodell for the meeting. 

Congress has specific, enumerated powers in the Constitution. In the simplest sense, they are to make the laws and hope the President will sign them and the courts enforce them. They have no mandate to investigate wrongdoing, and even less to pry into the internal affairs of any organization so long as it is not breaking Federal Law. In fact, if laws are broken it’s up to the executive (in the person of the US Attorneys’ Offices or the Attorney General) to prosecute and the Judiciary to settle the case.