General Keith Kerr IS a general! Our purpose here at Newsbusters is to chronicle and expose the leftist media bias that infests their coverage of the news, that is true. But, I feel compelled to also urge that our efforts be as true and guided by integrity as possible. I want to take a case that many on "our side" are taking up, claiming that it is an example of media bias and leftist "lies." Unfortunately, it is not a good hook upon which to hang our hat because, while it may be a confusing issue, it is not an example of any bias and if we insist on making this an issue it will make us look petty and uninformed. This is the case where people are claiming that the "gay CNN general" is not really a general. In fact, if his rank is that of general in the State forces, he is and can properly be called a general.
General Keith Kerr was the Hillary Clinton campaign operative that CNN planted in the GOP debates last month. There has been raised some confusion on his "real" rank. Yes it is true that his official U.S. Army rank was never higher than Colonel. It is also true that he held the rank of General in the Army of the State of California and it is also true that he has no battlefield experience.
Here is part of his bio on SDLN:
Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr entered the U. S. Army as a Private at Fort Ord, California, on 21 September 1953. After completing basic and advanced training, he served with the 513th Military Intelligence Group in Germany during the Cold War. Upon release from active duty, he continued to serve in the U. S. Army Reserve and was commissioned a First Lieutenant in June 1960.
He retired from the U. S. Army Reserve in 1986 with the rank of Colonel and was commissioned in the California State Military Reserve (California National Guard) on 15 March 1986, where his assignments were Inspector General and later, Chief of Staff. He was appointed Commanding General, Northern Area Command, CSMR, with headquarters at Alameda Naval Supply Depot, Alameda, CA and promoted to Brigadier General on 21 February 1991. He held this position until reassigned to State Headquarters on 31 July 1995. General Kerr retired on 1 June 1996 after 43 years of service to the United States and the State of California.
Now, here is the thing folks. Kerr is rightfully called a general despite that his official Federal rank was never higher than a Colonel. It is true that he was not a General in the U.S. Army, it is true that his rank of general is only a State rank, and it might be true that he cannot officially wear his state rank of general outside the state of California. But, again, he is still a general.
There are at least two examples that everyone will be familiar with that will explain this fact. One from history, and one from current practice.
General George Armstrong Custer -- example #1
George Custer was addressed as General from the time he became one of the youngest generals of the civil war until his rather untimely death at the battle of Little Bighorn. But, he was never officially more than a Lt. Colonel in the US Army. His rank of general was what they then called a "breveted" rank. That meant, he had the title, the duties and the respect of the position, but he never had the actual, official rank. The rank of general for George A. Custer was honorary and temporary. He attained it because of the need for someone to fill the role in a time of war and it was also bestowed for his exemplary work on the battlefield. But it was never made permanent.
Still, Custer was galled general for the rest of his life.
William Jefferson Clinton (and all ex-presidents) -- example #2
Have you ever heard an interviewer address Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton as "Mr. president"? It might rankle you -- but then the very fact they ever were a president should rankle any true American -- but it is proper to call these men "Mr. president." They were presidents, after all.
Highest position attained
Now, here is the reason Custer was always a general, even as his rank was never official, and why Clinton is still addressed as "Mr. president." It is the practice of respect that a person should always be addressed by the rank and/or title of his highest station attained in life, even if he no longer holds that position. It's just a matter of respect of the position, if not the person in question.
Conclusion
So, this means that calling Keith Kerr a general is a proper way to address the man, even if it isn't an official U.S. Army rank. We don't have to respect the person to respect the position. That is why we still call the ex-rapist in chief "Mr. president" and why Lt. Colonel George Armstrong Custer was called general until that fateful day on the plains. It might be an ages old practice, but it isn’t one we should break just to make political points.
Now, outrage is a good and necessary thing. It helps us direct and marshal our forces to resist an enemy. But when we use our outrage it must be for real and legitimate reasons lest we become like our enemy. So, I would like to warn everyone that calling Keith Kerr a colonel only makes us look small and not very informed. There is no conspiracy here. Let this one go.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
-
December 4, 2007 - 23:07 ET by dahliatraversIt is the practice of respect that a person should always be addressed by the rank and/or title of his highest station attained in life, even if he no longer holds that position.
Oh! Thank you, Warner. I've wondered about that.
No problem. I know it is an
December 4, 2007 - 23:11 ET by Warner Todd HustonNo problem. I know it is an ages old practice, but it is one we should not break just to make political points.
Point well taken
December 4, 2007 - 23:33 ET by iveseenitallPoint well taken,Warner. It never does any good to sink as low as SOME people we know do all the time...
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Well, Warner, if it is all
December 4, 2007 - 23:28 ET by jdhawkWell, Warner, if it is all the same to you, I'll just call him a REMF.
By the way, "General" Kerr conveniently waited until he retired to be "an openly gay man." Other wise, he would be just another queer with a bad conduct discharge.
I certainly agree that his
December 4, 2007 - 23:30 ET by Warner Todd HustonI certainly agree that his conduct isn't befitting an officer. But, an officer he still is regardless.
He's just an officer who
December 4, 2007 - 23:49 ET by MrShyHe's just an officer who had a bit of a wide stance, that's all.
:p
"I still love NewsBusters." - Mr. Shy
General Kerr
December 5, 2007 - 00:16 ET by River CityI will not quibble about the rank he earned while in the CANG. I pointed out the evening of the debate that he was not retired from the regular Army as a general. I also pointed out it was a minor issue. I didn't make the point to slight him. I just didn't want people to think he was retired from active duty as a general and everyone new he was gay WHILE he was on active duty. I never referred to him as anything other than General Kerr.
I do wonder why it was perfectly fine for him to serve his whole career as a gay man in an institution that he didn't have any respect for. When he began to feel contempt for the organization he should have left and then tried to work to change things through the political process. To me it appears he took advantage of everything the organization had to offer until he retired. All the while he resented everything the organization stood for because he felt he wasn't treated the way he preferred to be treated. He doesn't seem to be very honorable. "Don't ask don't tell" is one rule that would be difficult to change from the inside.
"We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Hillary Clinton, 6-28-04 San Francisco
Excellent point....
December 5, 2007 - 02:58 ET by doug1950You are exactly right and one has to wonder did he ever play a role in discharging others who were gay in his capacity as a Commanding Officer. Where I come from that is called a Hypocrite.
Great point, RC. Here's
December 5, 2007 - 09:13 ET by Senior ChiefGreat point, RC. Here's why...Almost all leftoids like welfare. Kerr is an example of a leftoid on a welfare program. He(his family) enjoyed the benefits and received it wholeheartedly without rocking the boat or else he would have been gone long time ago. Secondly, as reported in this article that he never served in a combat zone, Kerr would never fully understood what our men and women feel in foxholes with gays/lesbians staring at them. If it was me, I might aim my M16 and bayonet someone next to me and not to the enemy...Well, it's just me.
should rankle any true
December 5, 2007 - 00:40 ET by balboashould rankle any true American
That's nice...
Major General George Armstrong Custer
December 5, 2007 - 00:55 ET by Lame CherryMr. Huston, I have the greatest respect for your presentations, but this one hits a bit close to home in General Custer for personal reasons I will not disclose. Utilizing him as an example though, linked to a sodomite military person in trying to make a point in using General Custer is incorrect and not linked to the facts.
George Custer after graduating from school in Michigan earned a job as Principal of a school. He intended to either at that point in his life at 16 years old was either to gain an appointment to West Point or to enter an eastern university to become a teacher.
After a Republican Congressman granted Armstrong an appointment after a year's wait, (Armstrong was a Democrat then as his beloved dad was), he graduated a year early due to the Civil War a Lt.
General Scott immediately gave him the choice of serving on his staff or riding dispatch. Lt. Custer chose to ride dispatch whereupon he found himself the next day in the middle of the first major battle of the Civil War in Bull Run which was a defeat for the Union.
Lt. Custer though in battle showed remarkable courage in the retreat in holding the men he was put in charge of in an orderly retreat.
He was promoted to Capt. and served with General McClelland's staff. He had a profound gift for battle tactics and by instinct knew where enemy weakness was and where Union lines needed to be shored up.
General McClelland was so impressed that soon Capt. Custer spoke for the General in the line and if Capt. Custer gave an order to Colonels and Generals no one questioned him, because they knew he spoke for the Chief of the Army of the Potomac.
It was this knack and countless battlefield brushes with death in horses killed under him, his being wounded and his leading cavalry charges where his immediate commanding officers always thought he would be killed that Capt. Custer was promoted after rallying General Kirkpatrick's faultering lines upon the recommendation of the leading generals of the Union.
His promotion was recommended to his chief of state who was the Governor of Michigan as even Robert E. Lee understood the US Constitution that his state was his nation and that is why he chose the Confederacy as he would not draw arms against his nation of nativity.
It was at this point that Capt. Custer became Brig. General Custer head of the 3rd Division of the United States Army.
In later valour as General Sheridan's best cavalry field officer whose gallantry literally is the reason the Confederacy's cavalry was routed as Custer's 3rd Division was always chosen to turn the enemies flank, he was appointed by Sec. of War Stanton as Major General George Armstrong Custer.
These ranks are not what you termed them as he received full Major General pay, was in complete position in rank in giving orders in the "regular" army and no one questioned those 2 stars on his uniform as he was a real Major General.
The Brevet is a misnomer of the times when the United States ARE became the United States IS as a singular nation where "old officers" passed over wanted a pecking order over the state militias and their officers.
Major General Custer was indeed Major General Custer of the United States Army, he was though only Lt. Custer in the United States Military.
Another incorrect statement was General Custer was "only" a Lt. Colonel. If one reads the personal letters of General Sheridan to General Custer, he assures General Custer that he will do everything he can to move the powers that were in the federal government to promote him after the fantastic winter battle at the Washita, victory outnumbered and subsequent non military action which brought the southern tribes onto the reservations and stopping their rapine.
If President Andrew Johnson were still President whom General Custer toured with after the war to promote unity were in power, he would have made regular army rank.........but instead General Grant of the old army was in power like the officers and through spite and envy they kept him as Lt. Colonel.
General Custer would testify before Congress for national unity. He would also testify before Congress exposing President Grant's administration as corrupt in selling arms to Indians for profit which was fomenting a war on the plains that the same money cartels of today would profit from.
For this Grant retaliated and took Custer's command from him on the upper Dakota. At St. Paul, General Alfred Terry countermanded the President and placed General Custer in command of the 7th Cavalry which he had built as the finest fighting force in the nation.
It was Grant putting General Terry who had no experience in Indian fighting along with the arming of Indians which started the fateful march which left General Custer and the main core of the 7th to be slaughtered while by coincidence, immediately to the consternation of General Sheridan and General Terry, President Grant came out and blamed Custer to cover up what was done........and who should join Grant, but the 2 officers who disobeyed orders and allowed the slaughter to happen by Maj. Reno and Capt. Benteen.
So with all due respect Mr. Huston even putting Major General Custer in the same posting with this sodomite is distasteful to just make a point.
Major General Custer was wounded numerous times for the defense of the United States. He earned his promotions not in Cold War nor Californication, but from battlefield victories.
Major General Custer was kept from promotion by the same Democrats and liberals who promoted someone in Kerr who was not carrying out conduct becoming of an officer and gentleman.
Major General George Armstrong Custer is a man who was faithful every day to his wife, Elizabeth, no matter what rags like the Chicago Times printed. He never drank. He never smoked and he gave up gambling. He was a Christian who commended himself and those he loved to the heavenly Father before every battle trusting if he fell God would care for them all.
So while I agree with your military rank point, my stomach is sickened that Major General Custer is being used in any association with Kerr.
For it is comparing God's Christian Soldier to a sodomite opportunist promoted for political purpose of BOHICA.
I apologize if the above came out wrong sir, but this cuts deep and home with me and for the old lady's sake I will champion the Boy General to my last breath as he gave his life for America and his wife lost all in a husband, 3 brother in laws and a nephew with all friends in the 7th that day. They have had typing assassins trying to ruin them for years in covering up what really happened and it is just too much to placing an American hero with the likes of a Kerr.
Major General George Armstrong Custer, youngest battlefield general of the Civil War, earned promotions.
Colonel Thomas Custer, twice awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for Bravery.
In closing, if one would never want their brother linked to someone like Kerr, then George Custer deserves the same respect. There are dozens of "generals" one could have used who are curs. The Clinton years are filled with now flushed ranks of these paper generals.
Thank you for your time.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
"...but this one hits a bit
December 5, 2007 - 01:19 ET by balboa"...but this one hits a bit close to home in General Custer for personal reasons I will not disclose."
It's these little details that I love.
huh Bal?
December 5, 2007 - 01:22 ET by candanceYou mean you read that?
Custer's book
December 5, 2007 - 01:36 ET by Cool ArrowYou mean you didn't read "The Audacity of Arrogance"?
no no
December 5, 2007 - 01:39 ET by candanceI meant he read the above post.
}}---> candace
December 5, 2007 - 01:42 ET by Cool ArrowGoes without saying nobody can read thru a Lame Cherry post.
Kidding LC. I do read them . . . sometimes
My dear Lady,
December 5, 2007 - 01:29 ET by Warner Todd HustonLame Cherry,
I did not liken Custer to a sodomite. You did. YOU are the one that brought it up, not I. All I did was make an example of the most courteous and respectful way to address a person of rank, whether social or military and whether you like the person in question or not.
I am not a fan of Custer's it is true. But my personal disdain for the man has nothing to do with this situation at all. I did not "link" him, nor liken him to "the gay general" Kerr. I used his historical example because he is the only breveted general that most people would know. There were many breveted generals I could have used, it is true, but not many people save military buffs would have any clue who I was talking about. And, without that familiarity the point I was making would be muddied and is diminished... not to mention it would have taken far longer to explain the point by having to go into the life of a man few would have heard of thereby making the piece too long and possibly confusing the issue instead of clarifying it.
You are manufacturing disrespect on my part in this piece leveled at Custer where none exists. But, your example serves a perfect one to illustrate my point that we must be careful not to create faux outrage where it is absurd and inappropriate to display such.
Thanks for your reply, but no offense was meant and Custer's legacy was in no way a focus of this piece. Consequently, I have nothing to apologize for.
Yours,
WTH
don't feel bad
December 5, 2007 - 01:32 ET by candanceI wasn't even connecting the dots anyway. Sad to say, I see Lame Cherry and I zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Brevet: A rank that
December 5, 2007 - 01:42 ET by NL207Brevet: A rank that has been Brevetted is and often has limited privileges. Brevetting was often used in the Civil War as an award for valor.
GA Custer's actual rank and pay grade was that of Lt. Col. at the time of his death. he never held any higher rank.
Was Custer the Union's top Cavalry Officer? I doubt it. He was eclipsed in every way by Brevet MGEN Eugene A. Carr. Carr defeated his Indians, the Apaches, kept his hair, and retired a Brigadier General. And it was Carr whom all the John Wayne Calvary movies were patterned on, not Custer, mostly I reason because of the aforementioned haircut. Both were rebels and both were court martialed. Carr was awarded the MH, something Custer did not receive though I must grant that I can see little difference in bravery between the two. Carr managed to get shot three times by the Confederates in the same battle, the principle reason he was awarded the MH, as he refused to quit the battlefield after each successive wound. The man was absolutely stubborn. He was also wounded once by the Apaches.
I wonder what Lame Cherry
December 5, 2007 - 09:01 ET by KillgraveI wonder what Lame Cherry thinks about "Custer's Last Stand", that Atari 2600 classic?
Jed Babin ( a former
December 5, 2007 - 06:47 ET by Jack BauerJed Babin ( a former militaryman who knows a few things about the military) said, in passing, on KSFO yesterday, that as far as he knows, the rank of Brig. General simply DOES NOT exist in the California National Guard Reserve.
I think this is a way for the Clintons to introduce "courtesy" titles so that Bill can say next year.
My remarks are...
December 5, 2007 - 07:17 ET by Warner Todd Huston...definitely predicated on the fact that the rank of general does exist in the Calif. NG, of course. If that rank does not exist, well, we have another question there now don't we?
Still, I'd think we'd have heard this long before now if it didn't. I am inclined to imagine that Jed is wrong about his claim. And I am shocked that he'd even make the charge if he didn't know for sure. I had a bit more respect for him than that.
Update: Jed Babin's charge against Kerr's rank
December 5, 2007 - 08:07 ET by Jack BauerWTH -- I was being slightly circumspect without having the transcript.
But as I heard Mr Babin he did conclusively say Kerr's rank was Colonel and that he couldn't be a Brig. General because the rank didn't exist in the reserve.
He wasn't on the show for talking primarily about Kerr, it came up regarding the CNN debate. He wasn't making a huge thing about it, but he did think it should be investigated and reported. Maybe he's doing that for Human Events, because if you'd read Kerr's self written bio, he comes across like Rambo.
The reference to Special Forces seems rather stretched. If you want to hear the podcast you can download from www.ksfo.com
UPDATE:
I just transcribed Jed's comments
Wait, Jed didn't say that
December 5, 2007 - 08:21 ET by Warner Todd HustonWait, Jed didn't say that there is no such thing as the rank of general in the CNG. He just said the guy wasn't a Federally recognized general!
It looks to me that Jed Babbin is violating the very point I am making about observing the proper etiquette of addressing a man by his highest attained rank.
I agree with your etiquette
December 5, 2007 - 08:38 ET by Jack BauerI agree with your etiquette point absolutely.
You don't denigrate a man's service because you don't agree with his views. Apart from lacking any civility and grace, it's a dumb political move anyway.
But I'm never been in the military, and Jed has. Clearly he feels very strongly about this, and he's pretty upfront with his charge here.
Though let's not get too starry eyed. Read memoirs by military men and you'll find them full of very raw language and views about contemporaries and fellow officers who also served.
It's not unknown for former Colonels, Generals and the like to look upon their former rivals as imbeciles, puffed up buffoons, Charlie Foxtrots, CYAmen, et al.
Mr Ambassador
December 5, 2007 - 09:53 ET by Full MonteWTH-
So maybe you can explain to us the reasoning behind calling Joe Wilson "Ambassador" Joe Wilson.
Great points, Mr. Houston.
December 5, 2007 - 09:56 ET by Roger the ShrubberGreat points, Mr. Houston. This is why Leo DiCaprio should always be referred to as "The King of the World"...
Honorary Rank
December 5, 2007 - 10:14 ET by TigerSo all of those Kentucky Colonels should be addressed as Colonel?
WTH
December 5, 2007 - 10:26 ET by LeonGreat post (for the most part)
It's good to see someone pulling back on the reigns when it's appropriate.
It's just sad you had to ruin an anotherwise solid, just, rational post by calling Bill Clinton a rapist. It invalidates the genuineness of the rest of your post. It's a shame that you couldn't control yourself.
"It's a shame that you
December 5, 2007 - 10:37 ET by Roger the Shrubber"It's a shame that you couldn't control yourself."
That's what she said.
I'd have laughed
December 5, 2007 - 10:38 ET by sarcasmoBut I bit my lip instead...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
ARNG rank still requires Congressional approval
December 5, 2007 - 10:37 ET by CyberNorrisI must point out that a Brigidier General in the Army National Guard is still a Brigidier General in the eyes of the U.S. Army. The promotion requires the same Congressional approval as that of an officer serving on active duty in the U.S. Army. Rank achieved in the National Guard or Reserves is still considered upon retirement.
While a National Guardsman does not normally serve every day out of the year, he or she still receives the same training and is required to meet the same standards as any active duty soldier. Please do not belittle the service of those who a members of the Guard or the Reserves.
CyberNorris
December 5, 2007 - 15:05 ET by amberAMEN!! When they activate NG troops they do not reevaluate their rank. The 34th ID, 4,000 soldiers from the National Guard in MN just finished a tour in Iraq that was longer than any unit had served in combat since WW2, that includes all of the active duty units. They served longer in Iraq than the current limits imposed on the Active duty which is 15 months. The MN National guard served 16 months in country with 2 weeks of leave. Total, they were away from their homes and families for 22 months, some even longer.
The idiot who Jack said knew a thing or 2 about the military obviously did not know jack about what he was talking about. A state would not have a COL leading all of their NG guys if they had a division in their state, the federal government would not structure the division that way. MN has a Maj General, 2 star (it goes Be My Little General: 1 star Brigadier, 2 star Major, 3 stars Leiutenant, and 4 stars General).
This guy may not have served in combat, but he did serve and that deserves respect. There are many Generals who are idiots and political, that is nothing new.
All of that said, his oppinion, comming from never serving under difficult and dangerous situations and comming from California means nothing. To equate a gay person with a desk job, living in their own quarters, using their own showers and restrooms with someone out in the field is assinine. To equate the California mindset with that of the rest of the country is doubly insane. But, as noted, this man was a Clinton stooge and should not be taken seriously. I served my time and I would have been pissed if they allowed opennly gay women to shower with me, sleep in my room with me..... and I am not homophobic. I feel the same if they had said men could use the showers at the same time as I could.
The General
December 5, 2007 - 10:44 ET by WR JonasIt sounds like General Kerr is gathering honor and respect for himself by invoking his long, dedicated and tireless service on his countrys behalf.
That is a flim flam by the use of a title that normally infers greatly earned respect. The rank of General was conferred to all who belonged to The Confederate Air Force . An organization of all volunteers who restored , exhibited and flew vintage military aircraft in Texas for decades. Everyone was a General thereby conferring status through rank equally to everyone. The organization changed names after pressure from the public and media. They relocated to west Texas and still perform at airshows. Perhaps General Kerr is a wingman for General Clinton.
but it is proper to call these men "Mr. president."
December 5, 2007 - 10:50 ET by kg" but it is proper to call these men "Mr. president." They were presidents, after all."
You would think that Mister Olbermann would know this when he addresses President Bush as "Mister Bush".
Oh, Olbie DOES know the
December 5, 2007 - 10:57 ET by Warner Todd HustonOh, Olbie DOES know the proper etiquette. He just doesn't have the class to employ it.
WTH, I know you're right
December 5, 2007 - 12:44 ET by Chris NormanWTH, I know you're right about addressing the general and that this isn't a matter media bias. Knowing you're not a mind reader, still. wouldn't you guess that the media just loves the fact that they can legitimately call him a "Brigadier General" as a kind of poster boy?
Yes, I am sure they do.
December 5, 2007 - 12:51 ET by Warner Todd HustonYes, I am sure they do.
Brigadoon General
December 5, 2007 - 15:00 ET by Cool ArrowOr Cabaret General
Speaking of Custer, today is
December 5, 2007 - 14:56 ET by Roger the ShrubberSpeaking of Custer, today is his birthday.
How anyone can become a
December 5, 2007 - 15:10 ET by dabalHow anyone can become a General and never engage in battle is beyond my comprehension.
Generals, like most of the upper echelon of any military, should be combat experienced.
We don't have a military devoid of combat. This man is a fraud, or was promoted by one.
Respect is earned, not granted by title. Never has been, never will be. Political correctness has finally come home to roost in the military, and I blame the Clintons and their lackeys for all of it.
If you're retired, you aren't in the loop and you have no more say on any subject than anyone else. Only a fascist uses such techniques to sway public opinion.
General
December 5, 2007 - 15:14 ET by Airforce_5_OThat's because he was bringing up the rear.
What? What did I say? What do mean go to the corner?
I have a fish named Mohammad, and my son has a stuffed toy named Jesus. The Muslims want my head and Kieth says I'm going to Hell.