Thursday, June 22, 2006
What a strange world we live in!
During the Clinton presidency, our country agreed to supply North Korea with energy-producing materials and nuclear energy technology if they would stop pursuing nuclear weapons technology. We did,they lied.
As part of this deal, the Clinton administration appeasers genuflected to the South Korean anti-American elements and agreed to let South Korea supply food and materials to their Northern “brothers and sisters.” Never mind that the North Korean people still continued to starve while the ruling elite and the military ate well; it was a “humanitarian” gesture that was politically more important than results.
Instead, the North Koreans developed the technology and production of nuclear weapons. Then they demanded that we negotiate unilaterally with them. The Bush administration has held to the position that we will only negotiate in concert with China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea.
There’s actually a historical reason for the administration’s position. Although it began more than 56 years ago with the North’s invasion of the South, the Korean War -- oops, not war, but United Nations Police Action -- involved all of these nations. We, as the leader and primary participant of the UN forces composed of South Korea, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Turkey, and others, with basing in and staging from Japan, were opposed by North Korea, China, and the Soviet Union. Therefore, any negotiations must involve all participants, not just us.
Although major conflict ended in a truce, we have maintained a military presence in South Korea ever since. Even though the Cold War has ended, and China seems more interested in economic warfare than military hostility toward us (make no mistake -- their intentions are still not friendly), we have military forces concentrated along the south side of the Demilitarized Zone splitting North from South Korea, and North Korea still has aimed at South Korea the world’s largest concentration of artillery anywhere, capable of flattening the South Korean capitol of Seoul in hours.
Despite most of the world’s attempts to isolate and coerce North Korea into peaceful relations with the rest of the world, their leadership is content to starve their population as long as they can remain in a position to irrationally threaten the rest of the world. When their duplicity was exposed, they boasted about it. When they were told they must negotiate with all the regional powers, they defiantly insisted on unilateral negotiations with the US. After all, now that North Korea had developed nuclear weapons, they had no need to listen to Japan or South Korea. What could those non-nuclear nations do?
Now, on the eve of their latest pronouncement that the agreement they signed to not develop or test missiles isn’t binding (why, then, did they sign it?), and their announced intention to test-fire a nuclear-capable missile, we find ourselves faced with few alternatives. Once again, the appeasers triumphed long enough to ineffectually sputter, “But . . ., but . . . !” less than a decade later. Despite the lessons of history as recent as the last century, they act shocked that the dictators and thugs with whom they did business would keep their word only as long as it serves their purposes.
Interestingly, tonight’s news reports that some of the former appeasers, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense Richard Perry and Assistant Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, have become so outraged by this turn of events that they have written a militant piece for the Washington Post strongly exhorting the Bush administration to engage in pre-emptive action by destroying North Korea’s test missile on its launch pad! How uncharacteristically aggressive!
Apparently, they’re willing to gamble with the lives of 45,000 American troops stationed in South Korea -- now that they’re not in charge -- in a way they weren’t willing to do when they were in power and appeasing North Korea. The likely outcome of such an attack would be another massive and destructive assault on South Korea, whose economic success the North has always envied, and which they have continuously attempted to damage out of jealousy ever since the end of overt hostilities.
But there actually may be common ground for averting this potential disaster, obliquely and unwittingly pronounced by none other than Congressman John Murtha (D-Pa).
Having failed to convince the administration, or his fellow Congressmen, or sane citizens, that the immediate and unilteral withdrawal of American troops from Iraq would be a victory for us (it’s too reminiscent of the Leftist proposals during the Vietnam War to “just declare victory and leave”), he is now saying that we should “reposition” our troops from Iraq to Okinawa! It’s a mere four thousand miles away! Apparently, he’s failed to consider that Okinawan authorities have been pressing us to remove our American troops from there due to the friction and animosity between them and the population that has developed over the last 61 years.
Congressman Murtha is also apparently unaware of, or has forgotten, history. After WWII, we didn’t remove troops from Germany or Japan after they were defeated by the Allies. We’ve had military forces there since 1945. Even after the Cold War, we still have a military presence in both nations. After the cease-fire in Korea, we still have a sizeable military presence in South Korea. After Clinton sent troops to Bosnia, we still have a military presence in Central Europe.
Since 1945, we have only twice withdrawn our military forces from an area of conflict before it was concluded -- Lebanon and Vietnam. In both cases, our opponents moved in to occupy the power vacuum we left behind.
What makes Congressman Murtha think the outcome would be different in Iraq? Why does he think a failure of nerve here would produce victory there? Why on earth does he think that Okinawa would be receptive to 130,000 more troops stationed there? Why does he ignore the sixty-year presence of our troops elsewhere, yet condemn the 3 years they have been in Iraq as a failure of policy?
Let’s modify his position slighty to our true advantage and give the poor old fool credit for it.
Let’s “reposition” 45,000 of our troops from Iraq to Taiwan, which we abandoned to appease China, and which China still covets and threatens with 800 missiles. When we do that, we’ll tell China that they really need to resolve the problem of North Korea before we can discuss anything regarding the defense of Taiwan. And since China has been making hostile and aggressive moves toward Taiwan, it would put them on notice that they need to start cooperating with us when we ask for it.
Simultaneously, let’s “reposition” all of our troops in Korea to Iraq. This would put South Korea on notice that after 53 years, they need to decide for themselves how to deal with North Korea and their own defense. After all their economic success at our expense, they need to shoulder their own burden, and end the sniping of us by their fringe Leftist elements. It would also free up our Reserve and National Guard units from their second or third deployments to Iraq. We, and they, can no longer afford it.
Finally, as a tribute to the WWII generation and the Cold War generation, let’s bring our troops home from Japan and Europe, secure in the knowledge that we won both conflicts and left those places better and more free than we found them.
If Congressman Murtha and his cohorts really believe that pulling out of Iraq after only three years is a victory, especially in light of results in Lebanon and Vietnam, and “repositioning” 4,000 miles away is a measure of our success, how could they oppose the “repositioning” of forces from Europe and Korea after 50 or 60 some years?
During the Clinton presidency, our country agreed to supply North Korea with energy-producing materials and nuclear energy technology if they would stop pursuing nuclear weapons technology. We did,they lied.
As part of this deal, the Clinton administration appeasers genuflected to the South Korean anti-American elements and agreed to let South Korea supply food and materials to their Northern “brothers and sisters.” Never mind that the North Korean people still continued to starve while the ruling elite and the military ate well; it was a “humanitarian” gesture that was politically more important than results.
Instead, the North Koreans developed the technology and production of nuclear weapons. Then they demanded that we negotiate unilaterally with them. The Bush administration has held to the position that we will only negotiate in concert with China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea.
There’s actually a historical reason for the administration’s position. Although it began more than 56 years ago with the North’s invasion of the South, the Korean War -- oops, not war, but United Nations Police Action -- involved all of these nations. We, as the leader and primary participant of the UN forces composed of South Korea, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Turkey, and others, with basing in and staging from Japan, were opposed by North Korea, China, and the Soviet Union. Therefore, any negotiations must involve all participants, not just us.
Although major conflict ended in a truce, we have maintained a military presence in South Korea ever since. Even though the Cold War has ended, and China seems more interested in economic warfare than military hostility toward us (make no mistake -- their intentions are still not friendly), we have military forces concentrated along the south side of the Demilitarized Zone splitting North from South Korea, and North Korea still has aimed at South Korea the world’s largest concentration of artillery anywhere, capable of flattening the South Korean capitol of Seoul in hours.
Despite most of the world’s attempts to isolate and coerce North Korea into peaceful relations with the rest of the world, their leadership is content to starve their population as long as they can remain in a position to irrationally threaten the rest of the world. When their duplicity was exposed, they boasted about it. When they were told they must negotiate with all the regional powers, they defiantly insisted on unilateral negotiations with the US. After all, now that North Korea had developed nuclear weapons, they had no need to listen to Japan or South Korea. What could those non-nuclear nations do?
Now, on the eve of their latest pronouncement that the agreement they signed to not develop or test missiles isn’t binding (why, then, did they sign it?), and their announced intention to test-fire a nuclear-capable missile, we find ourselves faced with few alternatives. Once again, the appeasers triumphed long enough to ineffectually sputter, “But . . ., but . . . !” less than a decade later. Despite the lessons of history as recent as the last century, they act shocked that the dictators and thugs with whom they did business would keep their word only as long as it serves their purposes.
Interestingly, tonight’s news reports that some of the former appeasers, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense Richard Perry and Assistant Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, have become so outraged by this turn of events that they have written a militant piece for the Washington Post strongly exhorting the Bush administration to engage in pre-emptive action by destroying North Korea’s test missile on its launch pad! How uncharacteristically aggressive!
Apparently, they’re willing to gamble with the lives of 45,000 American troops stationed in South Korea -- now that they’re not in charge -- in a way they weren’t willing to do when they were in power and appeasing North Korea. The likely outcome of such an attack would be another massive and destructive assault on South Korea, whose economic success the North has always envied, and which they have continuously attempted to damage out of jealousy ever since the end of overt hostilities.
But there actually may be common ground for averting this potential disaster, obliquely and unwittingly pronounced by none other than Congressman John Murtha (D-Pa).
Having failed to convince the administration, or his fellow Congressmen, or sane citizens, that the immediate and unilteral withdrawal of American troops from Iraq would be a victory for us (it’s too reminiscent of the Leftist proposals during the Vietnam War to “just declare victory and leave”), he is now saying that we should “reposition” our troops from Iraq to Okinawa! It’s a mere four thousand miles away! Apparently, he’s failed to consider that Okinawan authorities have been pressing us to remove our American troops from there due to the friction and animosity between them and the population that has developed over the last 61 years.
Congressman Murtha is also apparently unaware of, or has forgotten, history. After WWII, we didn’t remove troops from Germany or Japan after they were defeated by the Allies. We’ve had military forces there since 1945. Even after the Cold War, we still have a military presence in both nations. After the cease-fire in Korea, we still have a sizeable military presence in South Korea. After Clinton sent troops to Bosnia, we still have a military presence in Central Europe.
Since 1945, we have only twice withdrawn our military forces from an area of conflict before it was concluded -- Lebanon and Vietnam. In both cases, our opponents moved in to occupy the power vacuum we left behind.
What makes Congressman Murtha think the outcome would be different in Iraq? Why does he think a failure of nerve here would produce victory there? Why on earth does he think that Okinawa would be receptive to 130,000 more troops stationed there? Why does he ignore the sixty-year presence of our troops elsewhere, yet condemn the 3 years they have been in Iraq as a failure of policy?
Let’s modify his position slighty to our true advantage and give the poor old fool credit for it.
Let’s “reposition” 45,000 of our troops from Iraq to Taiwan, which we abandoned to appease China, and which China still covets and threatens with 800 missiles. When we do that, we’ll tell China that they really need to resolve the problem of North Korea before we can discuss anything regarding the defense of Taiwan. And since China has been making hostile and aggressive moves toward Taiwan, it would put them on notice that they need to start cooperating with us when we ask for it.
Simultaneously, let’s “reposition” all of our troops in Korea to Iraq. This would put South Korea on notice that after 53 years, they need to decide for themselves how to deal with North Korea and their own defense. After all their economic success at our expense, they need to shoulder their own burden, and end the sniping of us by their fringe Leftist elements. It would also free up our Reserve and National Guard units from their second or third deployments to Iraq. We, and they, can no longer afford it.
Finally, as a tribute to the WWII generation and the Cold War generation, let’s bring our troops home from Japan and Europe, secure in the knowledge that we won both conflicts and left those places better and more free than we found them.
If Congressman Murtha and his cohorts really believe that pulling out of Iraq after only three years is a victory, especially in light of results in Lebanon and Vietnam, and “repositioning” 4,000 miles away is a measure of our success, how could they oppose the “repositioning” of forces from Europe and Korea after 50 or 60 some years?
George Carlin, the hippie libertarian comedian, used to do a comedic nightclub routine in the 1970’s which contained language that could not be broadcast on the airwaves due to its offensive nature.
“There are some people who would have you not use certain words. Yeah, there are 400,000 words in the English language, and there are seven of them that you can't say on television. What a ratio that is. 399,993 to seven. They must really be bad. They'd have to be outrageous, to be separated from a group that large. All of you over here, you seven. Bad words. That's what they told us they were, remember? 'That's a bad word.' 'Awwww.' There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad Intentions.
And words, you know the seven don't you? S**t, P**s, F**k, C**t, C**ksucker, Motherf**ker, and Tits, huh? Those are the heavy seven. Those are the ones that will infect your soul, curve your spine and keep the country from winning the war.”
Well, that was then, and this is now. Actually, there were more than seven words. “Damn”, “hell”, “bitch” and blasphemy were also not allowed on TV or radio. Neither was “ass,” which apparently has now become obligatory on NBC’s Tonight Show with Jay Leno. But thanks in some small part to Mr Carlin, these words plus the “seven” are now in routine usage in public and private discourse. Wherever one goes, one hears them being used at one end of a cellphone conversation, or in movie dialogs, or in airport terminals, or song lyrics, or even in the halls of power. The one place the seven still can’t be used is on network TV. Well, maybe tits.
But there’s one word that is even more taboo now than the seven words were then. Its power to offend is so profound that it even surpasses the “N-word.” That word is “G*d.”
In the space of one generation, the power of the “seven” to offend has been so diluted by political correctness masquerading as freedom of speech that they have become common usage. Yet to mention the name of the source of all our Rights, as referenced in the Declaration of Independence and others of our founding documents, has apparently become unacceptably offensive. When a class valedictorian exercises her freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to thank God for her class achieving graduation, it’s so offensive to some that it spawns lawsuits!
The PC police are on the lookout for miscreants who use the G-word in the tax-supported public schools and elsewhere. Thou shalt not offend. And they’ve been in the vanguard of the struggle for freedom to use the “seven,” regardless of who might be offended. Thou mayest not be offended. Prohibiting the saying of the “seven” words on public airwaves is censorship. Prohibiting the utterance of the name of the Creator in public places is defending our First Amendment freedoms!
Let me take the liberty to update Mr Carlin’s monologue to 21st century standards. “There are some people who would have you not use certain words. Yeah, there are 400,000 words in the English language, and there’s one of them that you can't say within 500 feet of a public school or a government building. What a ratio that is. 399,999 to 1. It must really be bad. It'd have to be outrageous, to be separated from a group that large. You over here, and only you. Bad word. That's what they’ve told us it is, remember? 'That's a bad word.' 'Awwww.' There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad Intentions.”
God?
“There are some people who would have you not use certain words. Yeah, there are 400,000 words in the English language, and there are seven of them that you can't say on television. What a ratio that is. 399,993 to seven. They must really be bad. They'd have to be outrageous, to be separated from a group that large. All of you over here, you seven. Bad words. That's what they told us they were, remember? 'That's a bad word.' 'Awwww.' There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad Intentions.
And words, you know the seven don't you? S**t, P**s, F**k, C**t, C**ksucker, Motherf**ker, and Tits, huh? Those are the heavy seven. Those are the ones that will infect your soul, curve your spine and keep the country from winning the war.”
Well, that was then, and this is now. Actually, there were more than seven words. “Damn”, “hell”, “bitch” and blasphemy were also not allowed on TV or radio. Neither was “ass,” which apparently has now become obligatory on NBC’s Tonight Show with Jay Leno. But thanks in some small part to Mr Carlin, these words plus the “seven” are now in routine usage in public and private discourse. Wherever one goes, one hears them being used at one end of a cellphone conversation, or in movie dialogs, or in airport terminals, or song lyrics, or even in the halls of power. The one place the seven still can’t be used is on network TV. Well, maybe tits.
But there’s one word that is even more taboo now than the seven words were then. Its power to offend is so profound that it even surpasses the “N-word.” That word is “G*d.”
In the space of one generation, the power of the “seven” to offend has been so diluted by political correctness masquerading as freedom of speech that they have become common usage. Yet to mention the name of the source of all our Rights, as referenced in the Declaration of Independence and others of our founding documents, has apparently become unacceptably offensive. When a class valedictorian exercises her freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to thank God for her class achieving graduation, it’s so offensive to some that it spawns lawsuits!
The PC police are on the lookout for miscreants who use the G-word in the tax-supported public schools and elsewhere. Thou shalt not offend. And they’ve been in the vanguard of the struggle for freedom to use the “seven,” regardless of who might be offended. Thou mayest not be offended. Prohibiting the saying of the “seven” words on public airwaves is censorship. Prohibiting the utterance of the name of the Creator in public places is defending our First Amendment freedoms!
Let me take the liberty to update Mr Carlin’s monologue to 21st century standards. “There are some people who would have you not use certain words. Yeah, there are 400,000 words in the English language, and there’s one of them that you can't say within 500 feet of a public school or a government building. What a ratio that is. 399,999 to 1. It must really be bad. It'd have to be outrageous, to be separated from a group that large. You over here, and only you. Bad word. That's what they’ve told us it is, remember? 'That's a bad word.' 'Awwww.' There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad Intentions.”
God?
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
The last time I looked at Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States, it said quite clearly, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several states, when called into actual Service of the United States; . . . .” In his role as Commander in Chief, President Bush has been consistent in his position that any decision regarding the force levels required to support the Iraqi government and security forces rests with what the generals on the ground in Iraq tell him they need.
Therefore, any further discussion of changing policy or setting timetables for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq is pointless and a waste of time.
But it appears that there are about 535 wanna-be Commanders in Chief who think that their plan, whatever it happens to be at the time, ought to be our new policy, despite what the Commander in Chief decides. It seems that they’re in a contest to one-up each other in who can provide the stupidest course of action.
One of them came very close to being elected Commander in Chief. That was after he voted for the current policy, then voted against it. That was before he decided he was wrong to support the current policy, and now wants a complete pullout by the end of the year. Or halfway through next year. Or at the end of next year. Or something. Anything other than whatever it was that he was for at one time, whatever that might have been.
As a body, Congress has few options to influence the conduct of the war they approved several years ago. Since they were too timid to actually declare war, they can’t undeclare it. Besides, there's no Constitutional provision for undeclaring a war.
They can choose to exercise the "power of the purse" and defund the forces, as the Left often threatened to do during the waning days of the Vietnam War (which was also not declared). Unfortunately for them, that would rightly be seen as blatant betrayal of the loyal and dedicated servicemen whom Congress allowed to be sent in harm's way, and who have paid for it with their lives, limbs, and wounds. That’s a perception the Senators and Representatives won’t risk in an election year, unless they’re in one of those “safe” seats they engineered for themselves.
There is one, and only one, Commander in Chief. He was elected by the American people for a second term of four years. It’s his decision on how to conduct the war that Congress approved, but was afraid to declare, for the remainder of his elected term. Until then, the armchair commanders need to shut up and stop trying to demoralize our troops and our citizens.
Therefore, any further discussion of changing policy or setting timetables for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq is pointless and a waste of time.
But it appears that there are about 535 wanna-be Commanders in Chief who think that their plan, whatever it happens to be at the time, ought to be our new policy, despite what the Commander in Chief decides. It seems that they’re in a contest to one-up each other in who can provide the stupidest course of action.
One of them came very close to being elected Commander in Chief. That was after he voted for the current policy, then voted against it. That was before he decided he was wrong to support the current policy, and now wants a complete pullout by the end of the year. Or halfway through next year. Or at the end of next year. Or something. Anything other than whatever it was that he was for at one time, whatever that might have been.
As a body, Congress has few options to influence the conduct of the war they approved several years ago. Since they were too timid to actually declare war, they can’t undeclare it. Besides, there's no Constitutional provision for undeclaring a war.
They can choose to exercise the "power of the purse" and defund the forces, as the Left often threatened to do during the waning days of the Vietnam War (which was also not declared). Unfortunately for them, that would rightly be seen as blatant betrayal of the loyal and dedicated servicemen whom Congress allowed to be sent in harm's way, and who have paid for it with their lives, limbs, and wounds. That’s a perception the Senators and Representatives won’t risk in an election year, unless they’re in one of those “safe” seats they engineered for themselves.
There is one, and only one, Commander in Chief. He was elected by the American people for a second term of four years. It’s his decision on how to conduct the war that Congress approved, but was afraid to declare, for the remainder of his elected term. Until then, the armchair commanders need to shut up and stop trying to demoralize our troops and our citizens.
Once again, I watch with amazement and amusement, one more shortsighted and expensive government approach to a perceived problem. Once again, the Senate is considering a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit desecration of our national flag.
On May 1st, 2006, as I watch illegal immigrants marching in our streets demanding our rights and our citizenship, while carrying American and Mexican flags, I must wonder “which one?”.
I’ve written before (1-8-2004) expressing my view that the flag should be defended and protected, but not by means of a Constitutional Amendment. Without restating all of the arguments I presented then, I offered, as an alternative, legislation holding harmless anybody who was provoked or offended by flag desecrators, and who acted to stop it or mitigate it, short of killing the offenders.
The courts have decided that flag desecration is freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment. To pass the proposed Amendment, then, would be to restrict the First Amendment rights of our citizens in order to bestow a Constitutional right upon a symbol!
This comes as debate rages and false accusations fly worldwide about our treatment of non-state aggressors being incarcerated in Guantanamo, Cuba. The Anti-American Causes Litigation Unit (ACLU), for instance, is pressing for anti-American Islamofascists, whose expressed desire is to kill Americans or die trying, to be accorded all the Constitutional rights of our citizens.
Yet as I write this, I’m watching TV coverage of anti-American protesters in Europe and elsewhere burning the American flag! Does this mean that, if the Amendment is passed, and the flag’s rights are violated by foreigners who must be accorded our rights, we can arrest them and have them incarcerated at Guantanamo?
Or are we only concerned with limiting Americans’ freedom of expression?
The supporters of the flag Amendment have obviously forgotten that the Constitution was created to charter a very limited central government. The Bill of Rights was devised to ensure that the rights of a free people would always be honored and respected by that government. The amendment process has nearly always been used to expand the rights of people, and states, not already specified in our founding documents. It was never intended to expand the power or jurisdiction of the federal government.
But a Constitutional Amendment only guarantees an outcome as long as the government and the courts respect it. All of our enumerated Rights in the first ten Amendments have been diluted by legislation or court interpretation.
For instance, the McCain-Feingold bill, upheld by the Supreme Court, ignores the First Amendment’s wording that “Congress shall make no law. . .abridging the freedom of speech. . . .” More than 20,000 laws have been passed that infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The courts are upholding warrantless searches despite the Fourth Amendment guarantees. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Fifth Amendment allows government to take private property for private use. Ask Jose Padilla about his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy and public trial. I could go on and on.
If the supporters of this proposed Amendment think that it will be the final word on flag desecration, and will render the courts powerless to evade it, then they haven’t been paying attention. After all the time, effort, energy, and expense of getting passed by two-thirds of both chambers and getting it signed by the President, and then passed by the legislatures of two-thirds of the states, what will this Amendment finally have achieved? And what might our legislators -- our representatives -- have accomplished with that lost time, effort, and cost if they devoted it to addressing the real and serious problems that our country faces?
On the other hand, if pursuing this process distracts them from yet more legislation that dilutes our rights and picks our pockets, then maybe we should encourage them to pursue it!
On May 1st, 2006, as I watch illegal immigrants marching in our streets demanding our rights and our citizenship, while carrying American and Mexican flags, I must wonder “which one?”.
I’ve written before (1-8-2004) expressing my view that the flag should be defended and protected, but not by means of a Constitutional Amendment. Without restating all of the arguments I presented then, I offered, as an alternative, legislation holding harmless anybody who was provoked or offended by flag desecrators, and who acted to stop it or mitigate it, short of killing the offenders.
The courts have decided that flag desecration is freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment. To pass the proposed Amendment, then, would be to restrict the First Amendment rights of our citizens in order to bestow a Constitutional right upon a symbol!
This comes as debate rages and false accusations fly worldwide about our treatment of non-state aggressors being incarcerated in Guantanamo, Cuba. The Anti-American Causes Litigation Unit (ACLU), for instance, is pressing for anti-American Islamofascists, whose expressed desire is to kill Americans or die trying, to be accorded all the Constitutional rights of our citizens.
Yet as I write this, I’m watching TV coverage of anti-American protesters in Europe and elsewhere burning the American flag! Does this mean that, if the Amendment is passed, and the flag’s rights are violated by foreigners who must be accorded our rights, we can arrest them and have them incarcerated at Guantanamo?
Or are we only concerned with limiting Americans’ freedom of expression?
The supporters of the flag Amendment have obviously forgotten that the Constitution was created to charter a very limited central government. The Bill of Rights was devised to ensure that the rights of a free people would always be honored and respected by that government. The amendment process has nearly always been used to expand the rights of people, and states, not already specified in our founding documents. It was never intended to expand the power or jurisdiction of the federal government.
But a Constitutional Amendment only guarantees an outcome as long as the government and the courts respect it. All of our enumerated Rights in the first ten Amendments have been diluted by legislation or court interpretation.
For instance, the McCain-Feingold bill, upheld by the Supreme Court, ignores the First Amendment’s wording that “Congress shall make no law. . .abridging the freedom of speech. . . .” More than 20,000 laws have been passed that infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The courts are upholding warrantless searches despite the Fourth Amendment guarantees. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Fifth Amendment allows government to take private property for private use. Ask Jose Padilla about his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy and public trial. I could go on and on.
If the supporters of this proposed Amendment think that it will be the final word on flag desecration, and will render the courts powerless to evade it, then they haven’t been paying attention. After all the time, effort, energy, and expense of getting passed by two-thirds of both chambers and getting it signed by the President, and then passed by the legislatures of two-thirds of the states, what will this Amendment finally have achieved? And what might our legislators -- our representatives -- have accomplished with that lost time, effort, and cost if they devoted it to addressing the real and serious problems that our country faces?
On the other hand, if pursuing this process distracts them from yet more legislation that dilutes our rights and picks our pockets, then maybe we should encourage them to pursue it!
Thursday, June 08, 2006
“WE GOT HIM!”
That was the initial announcement of the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi by American forces in Iraq. It reminded me of what I had written at the time his name suddenly came to prominence in the news a few years ago, in a blog I had decided not to publish, since I had written part of it in a rage and intemperately. This, in part, is what I wrote:
“It was during the drive home from Colorado that we first heard it. We had spent Mothers’ Day with our daughter and the following day celebrating our grandson’s first birthday. As we drove across Kansas feeling high winds and watching darkening skies, we turned on the radio for a weather report. What we got instead was the description of the murder of Nick Berg by [Zarqawi] in Iraq.
“After having turned off the radio in disgust, sadness, fury, and outrage, I reflected silently on whether this would be the future for my innocent, beautiful grandson. I wondered about Nick Berg, and what he was like at age one. I wondered whether a horrendous tragedy occurred the day after his first birthday that might have given his parents pause and concern for his future.
“President Bush stated that there is no justification for such a barbaric act. He incorrectly used the term ‘execution’ in describing the ghastly killing of an American idealist who in another context returned from a foreign country emaciated and penniless after giving away all he had, including his food, to people in need. ‘Execution’ is performed by the state for crimes against its citizens. Mr. Bush is right that there is no possible justification for such an atrocity, especially against an innocent like Mr. Berg.
“The term ‘execution’ has been perverted by the American press in particular wherein it uses the term ‘execution-style’ killings by gangs and thugs to describe murders. It’s because the method resembles the killing styles used by fascist and communist regimes against their populations. Unless our goal is to legitimize al-Qaeda as a sovereign entity, this atrocity was ‘murder,’ and needs to be referred to as such.
“A number of politicians and pundits have decried this act as barbaric, horrendous, and any number of condemning adjectives in describing this murder for those like myself who will not watch the al-Qaeda video. Some, like one of the two Senators from Massachusetts, said Nick Berg’s horrible death was the fault of America. As a reminder, for the 51% of his voting constituents who keep this pathetic idiot in office, you’re included with the rest of us. His outrageous and despicable remarks won’t protect you. When an al-Qaeda thug grabs you for retribution for whatever the most recent ‘American outrage’ they have dreamt up, don’t expect favorable treatment for your ‘enlightened’ vote.
“All of this comes during a time that we, as a nation, struggle with the fact that a handful of our servicemen and servicewomen abused some Iraqi prisoners [Abu Ghraib], with or without permission of their superiors. Most, not all (and I include myself in the ‘most’ category), Americans are repelled and disgusted by the revelations of the abuses (not torture from what I have seen to date, although that can change as things continue to unfold) from a few American soldiers against Iraqi prisoners. That isn’t reflective of the standards we wish to uphold and broadcast.
“On the other hand, those who hate us will be eager to exploit the horrible fictional Hollywood productions of, for instance, what life in our prisons must be like (such as the HBO production of ‘Oz,’ depicting life in an ineffectual -- read liberal -- institution controlled by homosexual rapist inmates and centered around racial and religious conflict of black Muslims against white supremacists). Although this garbage is produced and exported indiscriminately worldwide as ‘entertainment,’ our enemies claim this as representative of us and exploit that against us.
“But none of the above even remotely ‘justifies’ in any possible way Mr. Berg’s sadistic murder, and it doesn’t come close to being an ‘eye for an eye’ retribution for the to-date alleged (not [at the time] proven) abuses (not torture) of unspecified Iraqi prisoners. Sad, unfortunate, wrong, condemned by civilized people. That is the basic difference between us and them. Civilized versus barbaric.
“There is a historic basis for the term ‘barbaric’ in our language, and its roots come from the conflict between Americans and Islamic Mediterranean nations that occurred 200 years ago. The Barbary Pirates, the Islamic Mediterranean slavers who sold their own people into captivity and who grabbed Americans and placed them in bondage, and who took American property in the Mediterranean to hold for ransom, finally had to face US Marines ‘. . .To the shores of Tri-po-li!. . . .’ and Navy in order to be persuaded that this was neither profitable nor healthy. Of course, there was no Geneva Convention in effect to impede our means of persuasion at the time.
“But since we have become so adept at parsing words and phrases, why shouldn't we 'parse' conventions as well? Those who attack our citizens in any part of the world for terrorist purposes need to be 'parsed' separately from the routine international criminal element. Those stateless persons need not be accorded the rights of our citizens, nor the humane treatment we accord our own common criminals. They are outside the pale by their own choice, and should be treated as such.
“I propose that if and when the self-anointed and self-proclaimed worker of the will of his Creator upon the helpless person of Nick Berg, the human being who happened to be an American trying to help Iraqis, is finally cornered and caught, he be subjected to the barbaric treatment that he inflicted. He needs no trial since he has boasted of his complicity. On video, burn the brand ‘USA’ across his forehead to represent the will of Americans--Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, Hindi, sun worshippers, animists--that barbaric crimes against a free people by terrorists will be answered in kind. [I then proposed my own imaginative means of his execution, but I’m satisfied with the two 500lb bombs that reportedly hastened his demise today.] Caption the videotape with phrases praising the greatness of the Supreme Being and how He must likely revel in discarding this inhumane soul to the depths of Hell for eternity. Send videotape copies of the event for broadcast on the Arab web sites.
“We have tried to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. We have freed them from tyranny and asked them to follow our lead to democracy and freedom. Those who would rather rule by terror will reap what they sow. We must do unto them as they have done unto us. Do it to them soon and do it often!
Perhaps then my grandson will have a brighter future.”
Although I did not provide any direct hand in the death of the monster al-Zarqawi today, I unapologetically applaud those who were finally able to bring it about. I rejoice in the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi! I look forward to the swift destruction of Osama bin Laden in a similar manner and his henchmen and followers as well. Their deaths are the only justice they should expect from civilized peoples. May their Creator consign them swiftly to Hell.
When I meet my Creator, I’ll cheerfully confess my glee at al-Zarqawi’s death, and ask His forgiveness. In light of all the innocent lives that will be spared as a result of the destruction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, I ask a merciful Creator to agree.
That was the initial announcement of the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi by American forces in Iraq. It reminded me of what I had written at the time his name suddenly came to prominence in the news a few years ago, in a blog I had decided not to publish, since I had written part of it in a rage and intemperately. This, in part, is what I wrote:
“It was during the drive home from Colorado that we first heard it. We had spent Mothers’ Day with our daughter and the following day celebrating our grandson’s first birthday. As we drove across Kansas feeling high winds and watching darkening skies, we turned on the radio for a weather report. What we got instead was the description of the murder of Nick Berg by [Zarqawi] in Iraq.
“After having turned off the radio in disgust, sadness, fury, and outrage, I reflected silently on whether this would be the future for my innocent, beautiful grandson. I wondered about Nick Berg, and what he was like at age one. I wondered whether a horrendous tragedy occurred the day after his first birthday that might have given his parents pause and concern for his future.
“President Bush stated that there is no justification for such a barbaric act. He incorrectly used the term ‘execution’ in describing the ghastly killing of an American idealist who in another context returned from a foreign country emaciated and penniless after giving away all he had, including his food, to people in need. ‘Execution’ is performed by the state for crimes against its citizens. Mr. Bush is right that there is no possible justification for such an atrocity, especially against an innocent like Mr. Berg.
“The term ‘execution’ has been perverted by the American press in particular wherein it uses the term ‘execution-style’ killings by gangs and thugs to describe murders. It’s because the method resembles the killing styles used by fascist and communist regimes against their populations. Unless our goal is to legitimize al-Qaeda as a sovereign entity, this atrocity was ‘murder,’ and needs to be referred to as such.
“A number of politicians and pundits have decried this act as barbaric, horrendous, and any number of condemning adjectives in describing this murder for those like myself who will not watch the al-Qaeda video. Some, like one of the two Senators from Massachusetts, said Nick Berg’s horrible death was the fault of America. As a reminder, for the 51% of his voting constituents who keep this pathetic idiot in office, you’re included with the rest of us. His outrageous and despicable remarks won’t protect you. When an al-Qaeda thug grabs you for retribution for whatever the most recent ‘American outrage’ they have dreamt up, don’t expect favorable treatment for your ‘enlightened’ vote.
“All of this comes during a time that we, as a nation, struggle with the fact that a handful of our servicemen and servicewomen abused some Iraqi prisoners [Abu Ghraib], with or without permission of their superiors. Most, not all (and I include myself in the ‘most’ category), Americans are repelled and disgusted by the revelations of the abuses (not torture from what I have seen to date, although that can change as things continue to unfold) from a few American soldiers against Iraqi prisoners. That isn’t reflective of the standards we wish to uphold and broadcast.
“On the other hand, those who hate us will be eager to exploit the horrible fictional Hollywood productions of, for instance, what life in our prisons must be like (such as the HBO production of ‘Oz,’ depicting life in an ineffectual -- read liberal -- institution controlled by homosexual rapist inmates and centered around racial and religious conflict of black Muslims against white supremacists). Although this garbage is produced and exported indiscriminately worldwide as ‘entertainment,’ our enemies claim this as representative of us and exploit that against us.
“But none of the above even remotely ‘justifies’ in any possible way Mr. Berg’s sadistic murder, and it doesn’t come close to being an ‘eye for an eye’ retribution for the to-date alleged (not [at the time] proven) abuses (not torture) of unspecified Iraqi prisoners. Sad, unfortunate, wrong, condemned by civilized people. That is the basic difference between us and them. Civilized versus barbaric.
“There is a historic basis for the term ‘barbaric’ in our language, and its roots come from the conflict between Americans and Islamic Mediterranean nations that occurred 200 years ago. The Barbary Pirates, the Islamic Mediterranean slavers who sold their own people into captivity and who grabbed Americans and placed them in bondage, and who took American property in the Mediterranean to hold for ransom, finally had to face US Marines ‘. . .To the shores of Tri-po-li!. . . .’ and Navy in order to be persuaded that this was neither profitable nor healthy. Of course, there was no Geneva Convention in effect to impede our means of persuasion at the time.
“But since we have become so adept at parsing words and phrases, why shouldn't we 'parse' conventions as well? Those who attack our citizens in any part of the world for terrorist purposes need to be 'parsed' separately from the routine international criminal element. Those stateless persons need not be accorded the rights of our citizens, nor the humane treatment we accord our own common criminals. They are outside the pale by their own choice, and should be treated as such.
“I propose that if and when the self-anointed and self-proclaimed worker of the will of his Creator upon the helpless person of Nick Berg, the human being who happened to be an American trying to help Iraqis, is finally cornered and caught, he be subjected to the barbaric treatment that he inflicted. He needs no trial since he has boasted of his complicity. On video, burn the brand ‘USA’ across his forehead to represent the will of Americans--Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, Hindi, sun worshippers, animists--that barbaric crimes against a free people by terrorists will be answered in kind. [I then proposed my own imaginative means of his execution, but I’m satisfied with the two 500lb bombs that reportedly hastened his demise today.] Caption the videotape with phrases praising the greatness of the Supreme Being and how He must likely revel in discarding this inhumane soul to the depths of Hell for eternity. Send videotape copies of the event for broadcast on the Arab web sites.
“We have tried to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. We have freed them from tyranny and asked them to follow our lead to democracy and freedom. Those who would rather rule by terror will reap what they sow. We must do unto them as they have done unto us. Do it to them soon and do it often!
Perhaps then my grandson will have a brighter future.”
Although I did not provide any direct hand in the death of the monster al-Zarqawi today, I unapologetically applaud those who were finally able to bring it about. I rejoice in the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi! I look forward to the swift destruction of Osama bin Laden in a similar manner and his henchmen and followers as well. Their deaths are the only justice they should expect from civilized peoples. May their Creator consign them swiftly to Hell.
When I meet my Creator, I’ll cheerfully confess my glee at al-Zarqawi’s death, and ask His forgiveness. In light of all the innocent lives that will be spared as a result of the destruction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, I ask a merciful Creator to agree.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Senator Wayne Allard (R-Colorado) has introduced a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. It’s reported that he actually introduced it in February, and it’s only now that it has come up for debate, but the timing is suspicious. It comes on the heels of Senate passage of the illegal immigration amnesty bill that was passed by the Senate and is opposed by a majority of the House and the people. Apparently, bringing up the marriage amendment now is supposed to assuage the anger of conservatives who are upset with amnesty for illegal immigrants.
The stated purpose of the marriage amendment is to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The actual purpose is to prevent liberal judges from overturning state constitutional amendments, and other expressions of popular will, which refuse to allow homosexuals to marry.
Marriage predates our nation.
It has been a cornerstone of religion since before Christ, and has not always been defined as between a man and a woman. In many societies, it was between a man and several women. Yet it was still considered marriage.
In every society, marriage has traditionally been ordained and performed by religious or spiritual functionaries, such as priests, mullahs, rabbis, and medicine men.
Only in the 19th century did government intrude. State governments devised several justifications to regulate marriage. They passed laws to prohibit incestuous relationships to avoid recessive genes. They kept records and issued licenses for purpose of census issues, tax issues, and with the increased recognition of women's’ rights, property distribution issues. They also passed laws to prohibit marriage between different races to preserve segregated societies.
Utah’s admission to the Union was even predicated on the requirement that the state no longer recognize polygamy, which was one of the chief tenets of the predominant religion within the territory. This was not exactly upholding the separation of church and state, which is the cornerstone of the Left's attacks on the values of the Right.
With that exception, the issue was largely the purview of the states, who regulated marriage from a secular position devoted to the evolving “Progressive” theories of social engineering that were gaining popularity. It was not until recently that marriage was “discovered” by Anti-Religious Secular Leftist (ARSL’s -- pronounce it) activists as a new right that should also be conferred upon homosexuals. It was less a right denied as it was an opportunity to attack Christian religion as being homophobic and hypocritical.
The Christian Right responded with initiatives, referenda, and amendments to state constitutions, most of which were approved by the voters, prohibiting homosexual marriages. In turn, these were countered by ARSL’s bringing suit before liberal judges twisting (not expanding) the definition of marriage to include homosexuals. And the liberal judges reflexively overturned the expressed will of the people in favor of minority rights, often cynically comparing the civil rights struggles of black people to that of homosexuals.
Congress passed and the president signed in to law the Defense of Marriage Act, which freed states from recognizing homosexual marriages approved in other states, but the “defenders” of traditional marriage are concerned that liberal judges will overturn that law. They’ve retaliated with Senator Allard’s Constitutional amendment to restrictively define marriage in hopes of preemptively trumping the ARSL’s and their liberal judge allies from forcing the nation to recognize homosexual marriage. However, it’s not expected to pass, but merely to give cover to Senators facing tough reelection battles.
But it bothers me that conservatives are so myopic in their strategic approach that, to counter this liberal attack on our traditional values, they would attempt to amend the Constitution. My personal inclination would be to vote against the political cynics who would use the Constitutional amendment process in an attempt to restrict anybody’s rights. As opposed as I am to homosexual marriage, I’m more uncomfortable with a Constitutional amendment that, in the words of Vice-President Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter, writes discrimination into the Constitution.
She’s right and her father’s boss, President George Bush, is wrong. Marriage may be the cornerstone of society in a perfect society, but the sanctity of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights must prevail. The Constitution defined and limited the power of the federal government, and the Bill of Rights defined those rights of individuals and states which the federal government could not transgress. Only once in our history has the Bill of Rights been amended to reflect popular prejudice and limit the freedom of a minority. That was Prohibition, and it was later repealed as an abject failure.
That’s not only a poor track record for using the Bill of Rights to limit individual freedom, it should be a lesson to all that attempting to subvert the Bill of Rights to discriminate or to accomplish social engineering is a losing proposition. The political pendulum swings, and when the liberals are in power, conservatives should not have given them a precedent .
There is an alternative, and that is to use the separation of church and state argument against the ARSL’s. Pass a federal law defining marriage as a non-secular institution, and civil union as a function of the state. By removing the institution of marriage from government control, but retaining the responsibility to regulate civil unions, the power of liberal judges to rule on marriage is also eliminated. After all, if they truly believe in the concept of separation of church and state, then they have no authority to rule on religious issues.
States would retain the power to define and limit civil unions, as determined by will of their citizens. Those states that wish to recognize homosexual or incestuous unions, or polygamy, could be free to amend their constitutions or laws, with the consent of their citizens. Since these unions would be no more than a function of state licensing, they need not be recognized by other states to any greater extent than drivers’ licenses, or right-to-carry permits. States could even make them periodically renewable, at the discretion of the participants, instead of tying up overburdened court systems with the task of dissolving relationships. The validity and sanctity of marriage is returned to its rightful religious origins, the regulatory functions of the states are preserved, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights remain unmolested.
But if the problem is resolved, it becomes one less issue for politicians to demagogue. It's my bet that they'll opt for demagoguery rather than resolution. It keeps them employed.
The stated purpose of the marriage amendment is to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The actual purpose is to prevent liberal judges from overturning state constitutional amendments, and other expressions of popular will, which refuse to allow homosexuals to marry.
Marriage predates our nation.
It has been a cornerstone of religion since before Christ, and has not always been defined as between a man and a woman. In many societies, it was between a man and several women. Yet it was still considered marriage.
In every society, marriage has traditionally been ordained and performed by religious or spiritual functionaries, such as priests, mullahs, rabbis, and medicine men.
Only in the 19th century did government intrude. State governments devised several justifications to regulate marriage. They passed laws to prohibit incestuous relationships to avoid recessive genes. They kept records and issued licenses for purpose of census issues, tax issues, and with the increased recognition of women's’ rights, property distribution issues. They also passed laws to prohibit marriage between different races to preserve segregated societies.
Utah’s admission to the Union was even predicated on the requirement that the state no longer recognize polygamy, which was one of the chief tenets of the predominant religion within the territory. This was not exactly upholding the separation of church and state, which is the cornerstone of the Left's attacks on the values of the Right.
With that exception, the issue was largely the purview of the states, who regulated marriage from a secular position devoted to the evolving “Progressive” theories of social engineering that were gaining popularity. It was not until recently that marriage was “discovered” by Anti-Religious Secular Leftist (ARSL’s -- pronounce it) activists as a new right that should also be conferred upon homosexuals. It was less a right denied as it was an opportunity to attack Christian religion as being homophobic and hypocritical.
The Christian Right responded with initiatives, referenda, and amendments to state constitutions, most of which were approved by the voters, prohibiting homosexual marriages. In turn, these were countered by ARSL’s bringing suit before liberal judges twisting (not expanding) the definition of marriage to include homosexuals. And the liberal judges reflexively overturned the expressed will of the people in favor of minority rights, often cynically comparing the civil rights struggles of black people to that of homosexuals.
Congress passed and the president signed in to law the Defense of Marriage Act, which freed states from recognizing homosexual marriages approved in other states, but the “defenders” of traditional marriage are concerned that liberal judges will overturn that law. They’ve retaliated with Senator Allard’s Constitutional amendment to restrictively define marriage in hopes of preemptively trumping the ARSL’s and their liberal judge allies from forcing the nation to recognize homosexual marriage. However, it’s not expected to pass, but merely to give cover to Senators facing tough reelection battles.
But it bothers me that conservatives are so myopic in their strategic approach that, to counter this liberal attack on our traditional values, they would attempt to amend the Constitution. My personal inclination would be to vote against the political cynics who would use the Constitutional amendment process in an attempt to restrict anybody’s rights. As opposed as I am to homosexual marriage, I’m more uncomfortable with a Constitutional amendment that, in the words of Vice-President Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter, writes discrimination into the Constitution.
She’s right and her father’s boss, President George Bush, is wrong. Marriage may be the cornerstone of society in a perfect society, but the sanctity of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights must prevail. The Constitution defined and limited the power of the federal government, and the Bill of Rights defined those rights of individuals and states which the federal government could not transgress. Only once in our history has the Bill of Rights been amended to reflect popular prejudice and limit the freedom of a minority. That was Prohibition, and it was later repealed as an abject failure.
That’s not only a poor track record for using the Bill of Rights to limit individual freedom, it should be a lesson to all that attempting to subvert the Bill of Rights to discriminate or to accomplish social engineering is a losing proposition. The political pendulum swings, and when the liberals are in power, conservatives should not have given them a precedent .
There is an alternative, and that is to use the separation of church and state argument against the ARSL’s. Pass a federal law defining marriage as a non-secular institution, and civil union as a function of the state. By removing the institution of marriage from government control, but retaining the responsibility to regulate civil unions, the power of liberal judges to rule on marriage is also eliminated. After all, if they truly believe in the concept of separation of church and state, then they have no authority to rule on religious issues.
States would retain the power to define and limit civil unions, as determined by will of their citizens. Those states that wish to recognize homosexual or incestuous unions, or polygamy, could be free to amend their constitutions or laws, with the consent of their citizens. Since these unions would be no more than a function of state licensing, they need not be recognized by other states to any greater extent than drivers’ licenses, or right-to-carry permits. States could even make them periodically renewable, at the discretion of the participants, instead of tying up overburdened court systems with the task of dissolving relationships. The validity and sanctity of marriage is returned to its rightful religious origins, the regulatory functions of the states are preserved, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights remain unmolested.
But if the problem is resolved, it becomes one less issue for politicians to demagogue. It's my bet that they'll opt for demagoguery rather than resolution. It keeps them employed.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Core Values.
All our troops in Iraq are being required to receive retraining on Core Values.
Apparently, it’s an intuitive phrase, because no attempt has been made in the media to define what is meant by Core Values (maybe it’s beyond their comprehension). I’m sure the military members assigned to teach it will come up with a definition. So far, military spokesmen, in response to media questions, have only defined what it isn’t. According to them, it’s not “touchy-feely” and it in no way conflicts with a duty of individual or unit self-defense.
It’s become a serious issue with the commanders in Iraq. That’s because some of our troops had allegedly taken a shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach to a situation when one of their members was blown in half by a terrorist. The incident is still under investigation, but some people are acting like all the facts are in and it’s just another example of the American “cowboy” mentality from the top on down.
“Some of our Marines shot women and children in cold blood.” Those are the words of Congressman John Murtha (D-Pa). But he didn’t say “allegedly.” He claims they did it. He hasn’t waited for the results of the investigation, or charges being brought, or the trial by court martial, or the jury verdict. He’s convicted them already.
One of my core values is the uniquely American concept of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes it’s difficult to abide by, because we are often only allowed to see one side of the issue. I have to remind myself to be patient. I must counsel myself to wait for the verdict and to see all the evidence before coming to a conclusion. It’s rooted my core value of observance of the Golden Rule -- doing unto others that which you would have them do unto you.
Obviously, Congressman Murtha doesn’t agree. I guess that’s not one of his core values. That’s scary, seeing he’s in a position to make law.
Another of my core values is that of not giving aid and comfort to an enemy in time of war. I’ve always taken that to mean that no action should be taken or word should be uttered that would give an enemy any advantage against our forces or our country. Jane Fonda’s visit to Hanoi during the Vietnam War, and the media’s coverage of it, damaged our country’s ability to conclude negotiations, and prolonged the war and cost more servicemen their lives. That’s a classic example of the damage that can be done. Even if she disagreed with the war, demonstrating moral support for the enemies of our troops was wrong.
Congressman Murtha’s intemperate remarks provide an opportunity for al-Qaida operatives and other terrorist thugs to point fingers at American soldiers for every single noncombatant death and injury in Iraq and Afghanistan, whether plausible or provable or not. The terrorists may well remorselessly kill innocent men, women, and children simply to provide a pretext for placing blame on our troops. As it is, they brutally and savagely kill innocents to further their goals and terrorize other innocents. Congressman Murtha will have become complicit in these fabrications. He just contributed to the goals of the terrorists by making hatred of American troops easier.
All these potential incidents will consume valuable time and resources for our investigators to determine the facts and absolve our troops where appropriate. They may even become overwhelmed with accusations to the point that they make errors or mistakes, which in turn will be used by Congressman Murtha and the terrorists for further exploitation.
The media will continue to headline these allegations, instead of the good works that so many of our fine troops are doing, often on their own time and at their own expense. The public will tire of hearing about all the headlined outrages, and hearing the relentless drumbeat of American troop actions being placed in a negative or derogatory context.
Congressman Murtha decided to demagogue the lives, freedoms, and careers of these Marines in order to further his political goals, whatever they may be. That doesn’t sound like the core values of a former Marine hero. For his sake, I hope that it’s due to the onset of dementia. If that were the case, at least his honor would remain intact.
Core Values?
Our entire military is a volunteer force. Their parents instilled core values in them. Because they have core values, they volunteered for military service after our country was attacked. They brought core values to the military when they volunteered. They carried core values to the war in Iraq when their Commander in Chief sent them there. It’s because they have core values that they’re serving there.
If anybody needs training in Core Values, it’s the self-serving politicians who grandstand against the efforts of our troops while they’re in harm’s way, and who work to demoralize our soldiers, their loved ones, and our citizens during a time of war. There are other ways to win the debate against the war -- for those who have core values.
If anybody needs training in Core Values, it’s the Senator who publicly calls the President a liar, but who never provided an explanation of how a young woman drowned in his car.
It’s the Senator who likened our troops to Nazis, Soviet gulag guards, and the extermination regime of Pol Pot.
It’s the friend of a Senator who daily plots and schemes to eliminate gun ownership, who publicly praised him as “willing to put a bullet between the eyes of the president -- if he could get away with it,” (a remarkable hypocrisy coupled with a distinct lack of conviction).
It’s the Senator who publicly questions the ethical standards of prospective jurists while his own office steals the social security number and credit records of an opposition candidate running in another state.
It’s the former US Attorney General and anti-(US) war activist who represented Slobodan Milosevich and Saddam Hussein at their trials for war crimes and mass murder (nobody in the entire world better qualified than he?).
It’s the Congressmen, and non-governmental organization agents who lobby them, and journalists who express more concern about the civil rights of captured terrorists than with the civil rights of our troops who guard them.
It’s the former Vice President who made a speech in Saudi Arabia, whose citizens have no civil rights, in which he falsely claims that our government is mistreating Arab Americans.
It’s the former President who vilifies our country internationally while extolling the democratic virtues of dictators like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, and terrorist groups like Hamas.
It’s Congressmen and Senators who betray their constituents and their oath of office when they accept handouts, gifts, money and favors from lobbyists, and can’t see the need for reform.
It’s the former President who accepted money from Dubai, an Arab nation with past ties to al-Qaida, in order to facilitate their purchase of strategic US assets.
Allegedly, a handful of our troops regrettably misplaced their core values for a tragic moment. Compare the percentage who may be guilty to the total number of troops. Then contrast that with the percentage of politicians who have consistently demonstrated their lack of Core Values to the total number of politicians.
As far as I’m concerned, the percentages overwhelmingly favor the troops!
All our troops in Iraq are being required to receive retraining on Core Values.
Apparently, it’s an intuitive phrase, because no attempt has been made in the media to define what is meant by Core Values (maybe it’s beyond their comprehension). I’m sure the military members assigned to teach it will come up with a definition. So far, military spokesmen, in response to media questions, have only defined what it isn’t. According to them, it’s not “touchy-feely” and it in no way conflicts with a duty of individual or unit self-defense.
It’s become a serious issue with the commanders in Iraq. That’s because some of our troops had allegedly taken a shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach to a situation when one of their members was blown in half by a terrorist. The incident is still under investigation, but some people are acting like all the facts are in and it’s just another example of the American “cowboy” mentality from the top on down.
“Some of our Marines shot women and children in cold blood.” Those are the words of Congressman John Murtha (D-Pa). But he didn’t say “allegedly.” He claims they did it. He hasn’t waited for the results of the investigation, or charges being brought, or the trial by court martial, or the jury verdict. He’s convicted them already.
One of my core values is the uniquely American concept of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes it’s difficult to abide by, because we are often only allowed to see one side of the issue. I have to remind myself to be patient. I must counsel myself to wait for the verdict and to see all the evidence before coming to a conclusion. It’s rooted my core value of observance of the Golden Rule -- doing unto others that which you would have them do unto you.
Obviously, Congressman Murtha doesn’t agree. I guess that’s not one of his core values. That’s scary, seeing he’s in a position to make law.
Another of my core values is that of not giving aid and comfort to an enemy in time of war. I’ve always taken that to mean that no action should be taken or word should be uttered that would give an enemy any advantage against our forces or our country. Jane Fonda’s visit to Hanoi during the Vietnam War, and the media’s coverage of it, damaged our country’s ability to conclude negotiations, and prolonged the war and cost more servicemen their lives. That’s a classic example of the damage that can be done. Even if she disagreed with the war, demonstrating moral support for the enemies of our troops was wrong.
Congressman Murtha’s intemperate remarks provide an opportunity for al-Qaida operatives and other terrorist thugs to point fingers at American soldiers for every single noncombatant death and injury in Iraq and Afghanistan, whether plausible or provable or not. The terrorists may well remorselessly kill innocent men, women, and children simply to provide a pretext for placing blame on our troops. As it is, they brutally and savagely kill innocents to further their goals and terrorize other innocents. Congressman Murtha will have become complicit in these fabrications. He just contributed to the goals of the terrorists by making hatred of American troops easier.
All these potential incidents will consume valuable time and resources for our investigators to determine the facts and absolve our troops where appropriate. They may even become overwhelmed with accusations to the point that they make errors or mistakes, which in turn will be used by Congressman Murtha and the terrorists for further exploitation.
The media will continue to headline these allegations, instead of the good works that so many of our fine troops are doing, often on their own time and at their own expense. The public will tire of hearing about all the headlined outrages, and hearing the relentless drumbeat of American troop actions being placed in a negative or derogatory context.
Congressman Murtha decided to demagogue the lives, freedoms, and careers of these Marines in order to further his political goals, whatever they may be. That doesn’t sound like the core values of a former Marine hero. For his sake, I hope that it’s due to the onset of dementia. If that were the case, at least his honor would remain intact.
Core Values?
Our entire military is a volunteer force. Their parents instilled core values in them. Because they have core values, they volunteered for military service after our country was attacked. They brought core values to the military when they volunteered. They carried core values to the war in Iraq when their Commander in Chief sent them there. It’s because they have core values that they’re serving there.
If anybody needs training in Core Values, it’s the self-serving politicians who grandstand against the efforts of our troops while they’re in harm’s way, and who work to demoralize our soldiers, their loved ones, and our citizens during a time of war. There are other ways to win the debate against the war -- for those who have core values.
If anybody needs training in Core Values, it’s the Senator who publicly calls the President a liar, but who never provided an explanation of how a young woman drowned in his car.
It’s the Senator who likened our troops to Nazis, Soviet gulag guards, and the extermination regime of Pol Pot.
It’s the friend of a Senator who daily plots and schemes to eliminate gun ownership, who publicly praised him as “willing to put a bullet between the eyes of the president -- if he could get away with it,” (a remarkable hypocrisy coupled with a distinct lack of conviction).
It’s the Senator who publicly questions the ethical standards of prospective jurists while his own office steals the social security number and credit records of an opposition candidate running in another state.
It’s the former US Attorney General and anti-(US) war activist who represented Slobodan Milosevich and Saddam Hussein at their trials for war crimes and mass murder (nobody in the entire world better qualified than he?).
It’s the Congressmen, and non-governmental organization agents who lobby them, and journalists who express more concern about the civil rights of captured terrorists than with the civil rights of our troops who guard them.
It’s the former Vice President who made a speech in Saudi Arabia, whose citizens have no civil rights, in which he falsely claims that our government is mistreating Arab Americans.
It’s the former President who vilifies our country internationally while extolling the democratic virtues of dictators like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, and terrorist groups like Hamas.
It’s Congressmen and Senators who betray their constituents and their oath of office when they accept handouts, gifts, money and favors from lobbyists, and can’t see the need for reform.
It’s the former President who accepted money from Dubai, an Arab nation with past ties to al-Qaida, in order to facilitate their purchase of strategic US assets.
Allegedly, a handful of our troops regrettably misplaced their core values for a tragic moment. Compare the percentage who may be guilty to the total number of troops. Then contrast that with the percentage of politicians who have consistently demonstrated their lack of Core Values to the total number of politicians.
As far as I’m concerned, the percentages overwhelmingly favor the troops!
Sunday, June 04, 2006
And there was in the Land of Goodness and Plenty a long road by which dwelt five neighbors. And the first neighbor was wealthy and powerful and dwelt in a great house with many amenities and rooms, and his neighbor dwelt also in a fine house. And the three other residents by the road lived in humble abodes and lived their lives modestly.
And it came to pass that the wealthiest among them suffered a calamity to his home, and several of the rooms were destroyed by fire and water, and the roof was damaged, and his wealthy neighbor did also suffer damage to a room in his house from the same fire. And the two wealthy neighbors did appeal to their humble neighbors to help them with repairs to their great dwellings and to improve the wiring and the plumbing so that such a calamity should not befall them again. And the humble neighbors did assist them with labor, and materials, and even gold from their own small savings, and the wealthy neighbors accepted their assistance and generosity, remarking that this was truly a Land of Goodness and Plenty.
And the humble neighbors looked upon the works they had done for their wealthy neighbors and were satisfied, and decided that their humble abodes should have improvements made to their wiring and plumbing, lest such a calamity should befall their humble homes.
Yet the wealthy neighbors cried aloud and rent their garments and tore their hair in anguish. “Thou art but hicks from the sticks!” they wailed. “Thou must continue to pay us tribute as we do not wish to shoulder the burden ourselves. Thou must ensure that we can live safely and grandly and without care. We must be secure in our grand homes, so that we may continue to be the centers of culture and envy and entertainment and importance and acccumulation. Thou livest in thine rude dwellings only when thou art not toiling in the fields or laboring in the factories and marketplaces of flyover country. Thou wouldst squander resources to improve thy safety, yet the loss of thy humble abode is but of little consequence.”
And the moral of this parable is that the giving unto New York and Washington in their time of crisis and woe by Louisville, Jacksonville, and Omaha, has made them neither more grateful nor better neighbors.
And it came to pass that the wealthiest among them suffered a calamity to his home, and several of the rooms were destroyed by fire and water, and the roof was damaged, and his wealthy neighbor did also suffer damage to a room in his house from the same fire. And the two wealthy neighbors did appeal to their humble neighbors to help them with repairs to their great dwellings and to improve the wiring and the plumbing so that such a calamity should not befall them again. And the humble neighbors did assist them with labor, and materials, and even gold from their own small savings, and the wealthy neighbors accepted their assistance and generosity, remarking that this was truly a Land of Goodness and Plenty.
And the humble neighbors looked upon the works they had done for their wealthy neighbors and were satisfied, and decided that their humble abodes should have improvements made to their wiring and plumbing, lest such a calamity should befall their humble homes.
Yet the wealthy neighbors cried aloud and rent their garments and tore their hair in anguish. “Thou art but hicks from the sticks!” they wailed. “Thou must continue to pay us tribute as we do not wish to shoulder the burden ourselves. Thou must ensure that we can live safely and grandly and without care. We must be secure in our grand homes, so that we may continue to be the centers of culture and envy and entertainment and importance and acccumulation. Thou livest in thine rude dwellings only when thou art not toiling in the fields or laboring in the factories and marketplaces of flyover country. Thou wouldst squander resources to improve thy safety, yet the loss of thy humble abode is but of little consequence.”
And the moral of this parable is that the giving unto New York and Washington in their time of crisis and woe by Louisville, Jacksonville, and Omaha, has made them neither more grateful nor better neighbors.
