Thursday, August 15, 2013

George Washington Warns America


IN THE CONSTITUTION
Political Parties—George Washington Warns America

After sixteen years and a summer in America’s leadership role, George Washington knew about politics and conflict. He counseled succeeding generations on the survival of representative government in his famous Farewell Address. One of the topics he dwelt on was the emergence of the political party in the United States. His counsel is as true today as it was 225 years ago.

Washington had led the Revolutionary War against the British. He was selected in 1775 to lead an unorganized army to fight an undeclared war for a country that did not yet exist--American independence was declared a year later. While the Declaration of Independence gave us liberty, Washington’s war leadership made it “stick”. Without his dominance our bid for freedom would have been snuffed out under British fire.

During the summer of 1787 Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention which created a new system of government.  The process was daunting. Washington held the convention together during its heated debates until it could bring forth an original, highly successful governing system.

As our first president, Washington transformed a one-dimensional document into a living, workable government; fleshing the skeleton with policies, procedures and positions. Thereafter, he knew, uniquely, what would both preserve and destroy representative government. Thus, his views are invaluable.

As his tenure expired, Washington pled with future Americans to shun destructive politics. His Farewell Address, printed in the newspapers, offered wise, almost paternal, counsel.

Washington warned about the emergence of political parties in the United States, counseling that they divide the country, rather than unify. He said one of the “expedients” of political parties is that they misrepresent the opinions and aims of other parties. He admonished, “[I wish to] warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party.” He counseled that the “alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by a spirit of revenge natural to party dissention…has perpetrated the most horrid enormities”--what he called a “frightful despotism”.  He advised that the party system “agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms…(their) common and continual mischiefs…are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it [ the party system].”

Today we understand what he meant, largely because Americans have ignored his counsel and now live with the results he described. We watch a government paralyzed by partisan factions. We see destructive programs and policies inflicted on us by power hungry politicians determined to upstage each other. We flinch at the absurdities of political correctness. Careful observers understand that the political scene is a game—a play with assigned parts, an obscure plot, and rotating main characters. Infighting, outfighting—it all sounds the same after awhile. It has become obvious that the objective of most politicians is not truth, good government, or the welfare of America’s citizens. Our two major political parties want power above all else. Americans are being sold down the river, wholesale.

Washington was right. We are now the recipients of “frightful despotism”, delivered at the hands of those responsible to protect our liberties. How do we fix it? We can begin by protesting in no uncertain terms to those we elected. We can study the Constitution so we know what government should do. We can elect wise, good individuals. We can get involved at the local and state levels. That would be a good start.

If you wish to study Washington’s Farewell Address, please read a pre-1950 edition; later versions have “sanitized” his comments about God’s influence on our nation.


Monday, August 12, 2013

Trayvon, Racism, and the Recall of Justice


Trayvon, Racism, and the Recall of Justice

 Welcome to Mob Justice, media style—pre-determined, politically correct, conditional “truth”. Truth used to be the knowledge of what was real. It is now fiction contrived by the demands of a media-seduced public.

Worldwide media makes instant celebrities of the unsuspecting; individuals such as George Zimmerman and, posthumously, Trayvon Martin, neither of which invited the notoriety that found them. Trayvon’s story is lost to us; we have only Zimmerman’s side of the story and pieced together evidence. Based on those, we are required to do our best to find justice for both men.

Each side accuses the other of foolish, provocative, regrettable actions. Zimmerman is accused of “stalking” Trayvon and his bloody head testifies of Trayvon’s attack. In the aftermath, Zimmerman is a villain and Trayvon an undeserving victim. A tangent question arises: Is following an individual, even if unfairly suspected and even if his race contributed to your suspicions, worse than beating someone till he bleeds because he’s following you? 

Nonetheless, the gun was fired, and a funeral procession ensued.  Trayvon didn’t deserve what he got—he deserved another 50 or 60 years to live. Neither does Zimmerman—he should be publicly accorded the right to self protection, once his head was being slammed on the pavement, The shot that followed changed the world for both men and their families forever. 

The authorities found insufficient cause to charge Zimmerman but a vociferous public segment demanded a trial. Legal teams were assembled, charges filed, trial dates set, according to protocol and state law. A jury was chosen from among locals, its members approved by both sides in the issue, according to state law. Both sides presented their best evidence, as required by professional ethics and state law. The proper proceedings were followed in summation, sequestration and deliberation, in accordance with state law. And finally, the verdict was rendered, also according to state law: not guilty of murder.

And then the rumpus began. It was unfair; justice failed! The law was derelict, the victim demeaned. Let the perpetrator fear for his life because “we’re gonna give him justice for Trayvon”!

So where is the miscarriage of justice? Did the officers of the law fail in not calling originally for a trial? If so, that mistake was corrected. Were the charges inappropriate? Why didn’t Trayvon’s side of the courtroom say so? Was the jury selection unfair? Why did both sides approve the jurors? Did the attorneys fail? Was the evidence improperly presented? Were lawful proceedings not followed?  Both sides had every possible opportunity to demand correction of any inconsistencies they saw. Neither did.

So, again, where did justice fail? It didn’t. Justice prevailed, but the crowds don’t like it. Those who have demanded freedom from justice-by-skin-color in past now demand a verdict based on skin color, and they marched in the streets in protest. Few who watched the proceedings on TV realize how their opinions were manipulated by media coverage of the trial. Zimmerman “stalked”, rather than followed Trayvon. The rash of local crimes by young black men that aroused Zimmerman’s suspicions was underplayed. The unconstitutional and unethical intrusion of the federal Justice Department in Florida’s affairs was exhonerated. The presence of prominent race-baiting celebrities was extolled and the racial frenzy they created was encouraged.

It’s true that justice was denied in the Trayvon/Zimmerman case, but it wasn’t the injustice blared on the national news. The real injustice was in creating discrimination that wasn’t part of the court case.  The real injustice came from the media, the public, federal authorities, and race-baiting celebrities that demanded discrimination into existence.


Thursday, August 8, 2013

Never Leave a Man Behind: the Shame of Benghazi


 
America’s honor code—“Never leave a man behind” was violated at Bengazi when the Obama administration abandoned four men to die.. Lt. Col “Gene” Hambleton’s rescue from the Viet Cong in 1972 highlights America’s rescue tradition.

Blog Post
America’s proud fighting force lives by an honor code that cherishes every soldier engaged in conflict. That code, known as the Warrior Ethos, says, “Never leave a man behind”. Steeled to the chaos of battle, part of the glue that binds troops together in any military objective is the knowledge that, if they fall, all attempts will be made to rescue them. Honor among comrades is a time tested virtue on the battlefield.

In light of this code of honor, please explain Benghazi. Emerging details show that our commander in chief and Secretary of State ignored an embassy under attack, leaving four men to die. It now appears that no attempt has been made to bring the perpetrators to justice..  Excuses and false “facts” abound in the media. The evidence remains: no action was taken to protect or rescue Americans under fire.  What happened to the soldier’s creed: “Never leave a man behind”?

Dramatic rescue stories ignite our war history. Nineteen year old Jessica Lynch became an Iraqi war prisoner when she was captured March 23, 2003 near Nasiriyah, Iraq, on the Euphrates River. Eight days later, on April 1, US Marines and Navy SEALs staged a diversion as Army special forces, including paratroopers, retrieved Jessica, and the bodies of eleven Americans killed in the ambush. Extensive manpower, weaponry, military resources, and immense human effort brought Jessica and her fallen comrades home and honored the Warrior Ethos, “I will never leave a fallen comrade.”

American troops searched for Army Specialist Matt Maupin for three years in the Iraqi desert after his capture in mid-2005. Repeatedly acting on tips, military units went into the searing Iraqi desert with heavy equipment to dig for Maupin’s body—combing, digging, searching. Operation Trojan Horse finally ended on March 20, 2008 when Maupin’s remains were found; they now rest near his family in his Ohio home town. Again, vast resources were applied to return a comrade’s remains to a place of peace.

The recovery of Lt Col. Iceal “Gene” Hambleton, of the 42nd Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron (TEWS), based at Korat, Thailand, showcases America’s commitment to her fighting troops. Six men were aboard the EB-66C aircraft, tail number 466 with call sign Bat 21, that Easter Sunday morning in 1972. A surface to air missile (SAM) hit the mid-section of the plane and Hambleton ejected, the only man to survive.  His parachute landed him behind enemy lines in the midst of a Viet Cong offensive. For 12 days, stranded in a jungle crawling with enemy troops, he evaded the North Vietnamese. A concerted Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard and South Vietnamese effort peppered the jungle to bring him to safety—the most extensive recovery operation in US military history. (This story has personal meaning for the author: my husband, Bob, also as a member of the 42 TEWS, flew 117 combat missions over North Vietnam from Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base, a good share of which were in EB66C, tail number 466. He returned home in August 1971, seven months before that same plane, bearing Lt. Col Hambleton, was shot down.) These are the efforts Americans expend to reclaim their own.

So, again, what happened in Benghazi?  The possibility of attack was known beforehand. Repeated requests for additional security were ignored. Reinforcements—well trained, well equipped special forces were preparing to board a plan in Tripoli to offer assistance, but were told to “stand down”. A lie was pandered to the public about the reasons for the attack and the nature of its perpetrators. Investigators were not dispatched to the scene to gather evidence until a month after the deaths—far too late for any evidence to be found. Those assigned to apprehend the assailants claim they are unable to locate the instigators, yet reporters from CNN easily found the alleged terrorists living openly in Libya. These reputed assailants say no one from the Obama administration has attempted to speak to them. Our then Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, has been given a “pass” by the media for her failure in this state security matter. Now, nearly a year later, the Obama administration dismisses the topic because “it happened a long time ago”, and they declare the entire matter a “phony scandal”.

Justice has fled; the Warrior Ethos prevails no more.  “Never leave a man behind” has become “Abandon your men and bury them with lies”.

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Legal Discrimination, American Style


IN THE CONSTITUTION:
Legal Discrimination, American Style:
 
America discriminates on the basis of income. 
If you are successful, you have fewer rights than other citizens.

If you ask most Americans, they will tell you it is against United States law to discriminate. Historically and technically, they are right, or they were a hundred years ago. Our Declaration of Independence, written in 1776, declares the self-evident truth that all of us are created equal. It says we have the inalienable, God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, a phrase meaning “retention of property” two centuries ago. Our document of freedom further states this is a major reason for government to exist—to demand equality before God, before the law and the courts, and in the justice received (note: this does not mean equality of goods). In 1787, our unique Constitution set in stone this belief in man’s God-given right to his life, liberty and property.

This is no longer true. Government now demands, instigates, and enforces inequality. It acts as the agent of inequality by taking your goods, if it decides you have too many, and will put you in jail if you don’t comply with its discrimination. You have no representation that will protect you and no viable advocate against government policies.

What is this discrimination? The graduated income tax, enshrined in United States law through the 16th Amendment. Who is discriminated against? Those who “own things”—who are successful, lucky, frugal, work very hard, or are the posterity of those who did the aforementioned. 

Constitutionally, government funds came from tariffs and indirect taxes on purchased goods. This provided adequate income for the “limited and close” governing system of the Founders. During the Civil War, however, Lincoln needed war funds and a graduated income tax was imposed temporarily. When it was extended after the war, the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. They declared it violated Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution, which requires direct taxation collected only through the states and assigned by population.

Nonetheless, public sentiment embraced a plan to “soak the rich” and the 16th Amendment passed in 1913—not because it was good for the country, or based on sound political principles, or verified by historical wisdom; none of the above. It passed because of political chicanery, as both parties of Congress jockeyed for power and played political games to defeat each other in the public eye. Their mischief installed a devastating amendment as federal law. At the last moment, even the congressman who proposed the amendment, S. E. Payne of New York, pleaded with his colleagues to reject it. He said, “I am utterly opposed…I believe…it tends to make a nation of liars…it is the most easily concealed of any tax that can be laid, the most difficult of enforcement, and the hardest to collect; that it is…a tax upon…honest men and an exemption…(for) the income of rascals.”

Did it soak the rich? Hardly! The excessively rich shelter their income through tax-exempt foundations; the moderately rich have their many tax breaks. Graduated income tax “soaks”, all right—it soaks the middle class.

So, for now we are “stuck” with this amendment that allows a government charged with protecting its citizens from abuse to become the agent of abuse by confiscating personal income. The undereducated believe it is only fair to take from those who have more. The inappropriately compassionate believe it is only fair that the well off “give” more because they have more. They miss the point: tax money is frivolously spent, wasted on outrageous schemes, and used to reward political cronies. Its ready availability attracts scoundrels and the mischievous, bureaucratic gorging, and appalling government excess that pours our hard earned money down the proverbial drain. Its easy availability promotes greed and dishonesty, inviting the worst in those with access to its bounty.

Finally, they miss this point: a government that discriminates against one group will certainly have the “chutz”
to discriminate against all, in the end.

Welcome to discrimination, economic style!

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Threats to the Rule of Law - When a country remains Stable

How can we create Stability in our Nation?

A country remains stable and protects its citizens only when the law is obeyed by all. A recent trend has government officials ignoring laws they don't like. This will take us into tyranny--a state where no law protects us. This very serious situation is described in the article below from the Deseret News, 18 July, 2013

 
CLICK ON PICTURE TO GO TO ARTICLE >
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765634833/Threats-to-the-rule-of-law.html

SUMMARY

"The rule of law requires all parties to submit to a process, respecting outcomes with which they disagree and acknowledging that change can come only through an orderly set of actions. In the United States, those actions are established by state and federal constitutions and laws designed to preserve fairness through democratic representation, with built-in protections for the rights of minorities."