Update from the Heartland
No.309
5.11.07 – 11.11.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.309
5.11.07 – 11.11.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Please join me in celebrating the 232nd anniversary of our glorious Corps of Marines – 10.November.1775. Semper Fidelis, Marines!
On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, we remember all our veterans who have served the United Kingdom, the Republic of France, and the United States of America. May God bless and comfortable all those who have served the purpose of freedom and especially those who stand in harm’s way in the current war.
The follow-up news items:
-- The chief of MI5 – the British domestic intelligence agency – offered a sobering assessment of the challenges we face in the War on Islamic Fascism. Director-General Jonathan Evans reported that al-Qaeda’s recruiting efforts in Great Britain have doubled the number of terrorist watch targets, which compounds the difficulty and complexity of MI5’s efforts to thwart the radicals. I suspect Evans’ candor can be easily translated into the threat faced by the United States and stands in stark contrast to the activities of the uber-Left as they continue their efforts to blunt the sword. [307]
-- The Navy/Notre Dame football game a week ago [307] sparked quite a few comments. NPR commentator John Feinstein captured the essence of what to most folks was an obscure little sports event.
“Power of Ending a Streak”
by John Feinstein
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, November 5, 2007; 11:43 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/05/AR2007110500481.html
-- Well, I’ll be . . . Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, one time presidential candidate [267] announced his endorsement of Senator John McCain of Arizona. And, evangelical Christian activist Pat Robertson endorsed former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. I would have never guessed either one.
-- The U.S. Senate confirmed Judge Michael Bernard Mukasey [302] to be the Attorney General of the United States, replacing Alberto Gonzales [vote no.407: 53-40-7].
-- With W. finding his latent courage so late in his presidency to veto [201] a few of this continuous stream of obscene spending bills coming from Congress, we find another historic event in the same vein. The President vetoed a US$23B water resources bill. For the first time in the tenure of the Bush (43) administration, Congress voted to override the President’s veto and the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 [H.R.1495; PL no: 110-114] became law. [override vote: House: 361-54-0-17, Senate: 79–14-7] If W. had been vetoing these pork bills over the course of his administration, I would give him more credit; now, it is just partisan politics rather than fiscal discipline, and makes this whole sordid process all the more disgusting.
We all need feel-good stories amid the tragedy of war and the turmoil of modern politics. Here is a link to a video of an HBO Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel report – the story of 5-year-old Kyle Lograsso. Please take the time to watch this video story.
http://www.sonnyradio.com/kylelograsso.html
You will not be disappointed.
Pakistan’s President General Pervez Musharraf declared a national state of emergency this week, suspended the constitution, dismissed the supreme court, and aggressively arrested thousands of lawyers in an action he claims will aid his contributions to the War on Islamic Fascism. I find the argument quite shallow and hard to swallow. The move, given his recent, futile efforts to maintain some modicum of legitimacy, smacks of desperation rather than patriotism. However, there is a sliver of reality that offers pause to see how this plays out. My rationale . . . remember all the baying by the naysayers late last year into early this year about the President’s surge effort; well, General Petraeus delivered. Perhaps we should keep our powder dry to see how this plays out, before we throw the baby out with the bath water. Before we jump too fast, please read:
“Pakistan and its Army”
by George Friedman
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: November 06, 2007; 14:08 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/gir.php?utm_source=071106-GIR&utm_medium=email-strat-html&utm_content=071106-GIR-header-read&utm_campaign=GIR
Two Wall Street Journal opinion columns challenge us to reconsider bombing cities or other civilian targets, torture (a term I continue to debate), and the politics of war. For your consideration:
“Waterboarding and Hiroshima – Did the Allies in World War II ‘lower themselves to the level of their enemies’?”
by Bret Stephens
Wall Street Journal
Published: Tuesday, November 6, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010827
and,
"Democrats and Waterboarding"
by Alan Dershowitz
Wall Street Journal
Published: November 7, 2007; Page A23
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119439827396084663.html
I shall offer a contrarian opinion. I want war to be as nasty, ugly, violent, and revolting as possible, to ensure such human actions remain the choice of last resort for conflict resolution. As I have written many times, I have no interest in making nice with our enemies, who seek to harm our citizens or contaminate our society. If our enemies mobilize civilians for their purposes, then civilians become proper targets. The same argument applies to what the Press and politicians have label as torture. Inducing an enemy combatant to relinquish information regarding his actions and other related activities is just another element of war and “waging war successfully.” So, please read the opinions of Stephens and Dershowitz, and then, let us engage in a vigorous debate.
The growing rumble from evangelical Christian talking heads conveys dissatisfaction with the available candidates and their attempts at moderation. They rattle the saber for a third-party, anti-choice, candidate who will promote their socially conservative agenda. I doubt they truly seek a third party candidate, as that potential would most likely be a guarantee of failure. The current public dissonance reflects their perceived failure to move the leading candidates far enough to the right, so they have chosen to take their discontent public.
In Update no.308, I shared a comment I submitted to the Patriot Post. I received this response:
"We have never advocated denying rights to homosexuals. We do believe, however, that as thousands of years of human history attest, marriage is ONLY between one man and one woman. A homosexual man may still marry, just not as he may choose to redefine it."
. . . to which I replied:
What is missing from your argument is the historic denial of “equal protection” to non-heterosexual citizens, i.e., there is no need to advocate for denial since discrimination has existed longer than this Grand Republic. While we cannot and should not cavalierly set aside historical precedent, we must view all societal decisions in a logical, reasonable context of our time.
I find no qualifiers to such foundational phrases as “all men are created equal,” “We, the People,” and “nor deny to any person.”
All of us can and should respect your beliefs; I most assuredly do. After all, you are entitled by our heritage to your freedom to seek your path toward “Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness,” without intrusion by anyone else including the government. How is it that we can expect society to respect our freedom of choice, and in the same breath, constrain another citizen’s freedom of choice?
I suspect you misspoke in your last sentence. A homosexual citizen (man or woman) cannot marry or enjoy the “rights and privileges” of marriage.
As with most freedoms, each of us chooses our friends and decides with whom we seek common assembly. That is our right. And concomitantly, I respectfully submit, we do not have the right to impose our beliefs upon other citizens. The government should be a neutral, un-biased, protector of the public good as well as the rights of each and every citizen, not just those with whom the majority agrees . . . except where the interests of the State demand intrusion upon our fundamental right to privacy. The State’s interest in private, relationship contracts has not been demonstrated.
Thank you for the courtesy of your reply.
Respectfully,
Cap Parlier
From my open letter to my Federal representatives regarding the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 [306], I received only one reply to date, from Senator Pat Roberts.
November 2, 2007
"Dear Mr. Parlier:
"Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding federal hate crimes. I appreciate your insight into this complex legal issue.
"In April, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) introduced S. 1105, the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This legislation imposes criminal penalties for willful bodily harm motived by race, religion, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. It also authorizes the U.S. Attorney General to provide assistance to state and local governments for the prosecution of crimes motivated by race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. S. 1105 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it awaits consideration.
"Recently, the Senate passed H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act. During consideration of this bill, Senator Kennedy introduced an amendment similar to S. 1105. I voted against the amendment. However, it was approved by the Senate. I had several concerns with this amendment. We must be cautious in giving preferential treatment to select classes of victims. Every American is entitled to equal justice regardless of personal characteristics.
"However, I voted for an amendment offered by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to authorize $5 million in funding to assist states and local governments in prosecuting hate crimes. The amendment also requires a federal study of the prevalence of hate crimes. At this point the Senate bill will be referred to a conference committee where conferees will resolve the differences between the Senate and House versions of the Defense Authorization Act.
"Again thank you for taking the time to contact me."
With every best wish,
Sincerely,
Pat Roberts
. . . to which I submitted this follow-up query:
Senator Roberts,
Thank you for your prompt reply.
In your reply, you stated, "Every American is entitled to equal justice regardless of personal characteristics." Indeed! That is the essence of the current struggle. Not all Americans enjoy "equal protection under the law." I do agree that establishing special protection for a segment of our society should be approached with caution. However, discrimination and in some cases persecution of a segment of our society simply because of the perception of their private conduct or their chosen Pursuit of Happiness is wrong in the worst, most corrosive way.
I have been unable to locate the specific, employment, non-discrimination language to which you refer in H.R. 1585. Would you be so kind to give me a clue? Until then and once again, I strongly urge you to vote for language equivalent to that contained in H.R. 2015.
Until ALL citizens in good standing enjoy the same "rights and privileges" as other citizens, they deserve the protection of the State. Please do your part to protect ALL citizens, not just the popular majority.
Respectfully,
Cap Parlier
Representative John Shadegg of Arizona has introduced the same bill in each Congress since 1995 -- the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 1359). The text of HR 1359 is enlightening. "Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The availability of this point of order does not affect any other available relief." What a refreshing notion! They might have to actually reference their authority to propose every bill, and every earmark to every bill. Sad part, such logical legislation has about as much chance of passage with our clearly self-serving, politically ego-centric, senators and representatives as hell freezing over. Nonetheless, it is nice to dream.
Widely variant sources and media often trigger my curiosity. A fraction of those adventures make it to this humble journal. Occasionally, I am presented with a challenge on one of these quests of curiosity satiation that becomes a test of will. Herein lies one of tests. American Family Association founder Reverend David Wildmon recently protested reports that the Department of Defense was ignoring the law regarding the sale or distribution of sexually explicit material. With soldiers enduring the rigors of combat against an honor-less enemy, I wondered how such a law came into existence; thus began a rare and frustrating journey. At this juncture, I must confess that the research for this issue became the most difficult such exercise in my life to date; and yet, I was spurred on by that specific difficulty, and so I begin. On 24.April.1996, Representative Christopher Henry Smith of New Jersey introduced a bill onto the floor of the House of Representatives; the bill was designated H.R.3300 and provisionally titled, the Military Honor and Decency Act of 1996 (MHDA). The bill stalled in committee. Undeterred, as the Defense appropriations bill began to solidify late in the 104th Congress, the language of the MHDA made its way into the joint conference committee text intended to reconcile the disparate provisions of the versions from the two chambers. Congress passed the bill with the late inserted MHDA text. President Clinton signed the National Defense Appropriations Act of 1997 [H.R.3230; PL no. 104-201] into law, and by that law, the MHDA became effective 90 days later (22.December.1996). The sequence of events regarding how the MHDA made it into the final text of the massive Defense Department appropriations bill is beyond my reach, and my guess is, it is probably not part of the public record. The MHDA was immediately challenged in court. U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York found the MHDA unconstitutional. The government’s appeal was heard by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals {General Media Communications, Inc. v Cohen [CCA NYSD docket no. 97-6029 (1997)]}, which reversed Judge Scheindlin’s decision, ruling that, despite the Supreme Court’s statement that constitutional protections do not cease at the gates of a military base, the military is a unique subset within American society and the government had the right to regulate private conduct within that subset. The Supreme Court chose not to hear the subsequent appeal, thus validating the 2nd Circuit’s ruling. It is the alleged violation of the MHDA that Wildmon protests today. Why do I bring up all this legislative and judicial trivial minutiae? Well, as might be imagined from my political writings, I am personally and deeply offended by the imposition by the so-called moral majority of a more restrictive standard upon those who stand in harm’s way for our freedom. My rule is quite simple . . . if a citizen is old enough to die for his country, then he is old enough to enjoy the full “rights and privileges” of the citizenship he defends, however immoral some among us may feel about some activities. In fact, my socially liberal opinion goes far beyond that point. Yet, with all that said, I am compelled to acknowledge the authority of the Congress to impose such restrictions upon the military; the military is indeed a unique subset of American society; the 2nd Circuit and the Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion. In closing, I must say that I am disappointed that such restrictions upon our soldiers exist at all, and I am truly disgusted that some Members of Congress resort to such deceptive means to impose their will upon our honorable military service personnel – moral projection at its worst.
Comments and contributions from Update no.308:
“I saw a short memorial on TV about Gen Tibbets, including some interviews with him. I’m with you.
“I watched a good part of the Navy/Notre Dame Game. Great game. It was about time!!
“Not familiar with the Snyder case.
“I agree with your thoughts on the Wilson case as far as how intrusion by the state into private matters which should be left to families/parents to work out. The State has no business legislating in the area of consensual sex, period.
“Good old Teddy Roosevelt. He hit the nail squarely on the head.”
My reply:
The Snyder case was actually the first major suit against the Phelps clan – the fanatics who protest at military funerals. Very bad people. Snyder’s victory was well deserved.
Unfortunately, there are far too many people who think it is their right, responsibility, mission, and divine commandment to dictate how everybody else should live their lives. The Wilson case is a prime example of how good intentions can go so terribly wrong when we try to live other people’s lives.
Teddy got it right . . . on that and many other things.
Another contribution:
"The death of BG Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr was reported this side too. He must have suffered emotions far beyond any we can have experienced and yet remained stoical to the end. I wondered if he and his crew were ever given 'counselling'?
"Your case Snyder v. Phelps, $10.9M damages... isn't that an extraordinary amount can anyone manage to pay that sort of money? Is Phelps that religious individual I've heard you talk of before? De-crying the efforts of the military and interrupting military funerals."
My response:
Tibbets never even hinted at any psychological consequence of commanding the first atomic strike; to him, it was just another bombing mission, albeit with a special weapon. Some of his crew did suffer psychological effects, and to my knowledge, they did not have counseling services like we do today.
Re: the Snyder v. Phelps case. Yes, the Phelps clan, of which Fred Phelps is the patriarch, is the group I’ve discussed many times before; they protest against homosexuality at military funerals with the most disgusting signs and shouts. Yes, it is an extraordinary compensatory judgment, but it is also against the Phelps church – the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. Synder’s intention is to dissolve the church and seek all available assets including personal assets of those family members involved. I hope he is successful, but alas, as our ponderous legal system works, undoubtedly, there will be appeals upon appeals, and I suspect Synder may not see a dime of the damages. However, I think he would feel satisfied if the Phelps clan disappeared into the sludge from whence they came.
. . . with this follow-up:
"Keep up your work. We run into our remembrance tide here in U/K. The media have been very kind this year. It's the government that don't give two hoots for the boys and girls coming home. But we will keep on at them.
We have a campaign called the 'broken covenant' I'll give you a briefing on it during the week.
"Our Poppy Appeal is underway and we hope to raise £26,000,000 this year from the public. We spend £75M."
. . . to which I responded:
We can only hope the government soon realizes its obligation to those citizens who freely choose to stand in harm’s way to protect our freedom. Good luck for bountiful success on your annual Poppy Appeal. May God bless all our veterans.
A different contribution:
"I actually had the honor of meeting and interviewing Col. Tibbets a few years ago when he gave a talk at xxxxx. Quite frankly I was in awe that a lowly little reporter from Jersey was standing next to a man who was part of one of the biggest events in the history of the world. Yet he remained rather humble about his role in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Basically, he seemed to regard it as 'just another mission.' The people who rail against the atomic bombings of Japan make me roll my eyes. First, I believe a two-night firebombing of Tokyo in Feb. of '45 killed just as many people, perhaps even more than were killed when we nuked both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And, judging from a very good documentary I saw on how the invasion of Japan would have gone down, way, way, way more people (Both Japanese and Allies) would have died if we had gone ahead with Operations: Olympic & Cornet. While he may never have called himself one, Tibbetts is a hero and it was my distinct privilege to talk with him even for just a few minutes.
"Thanks for including the quote from Teddy Roosevelt. He is one of my all-time favorite historical figures. God, but we need someone like him today . . . of course our 'esteemed' mainstream press would probably rip him apart, but frankly TR would have the big swinging brass ones to tell them to go to hell before slamming down a shot of whiskey in front of them all."
My response:
Fantastic . . . that you got to interview Paul Tibbets; great man. What that generation did -- the scientists of the Manhattan Project along with the flight crews of the “Enola Gay” and “Bockscar,” and all the support personnel including the ill-fated crew of the U.S.S. Indianapolis -- saved vastly more lives, both Japanese and Allied, than they took, on those two days in August 1945.
Teddy was a flawed man, as we all are, but he was an amazing leader.
And yet another contribution:
"Although not a Naval Academy grad, but a former Navy Midshipman, my accolades as well to good ol' Annapolis. I cringe every year with my sister whose kids are ND grads but, as a Husker myself, I do not gloat in other's mire. But it was nice to see the Midshipmen persevere. As for the Huskers....not much to say other than the game???? Was in Lawrence and it was nice to see that their stadium was a significant blue vs. red after all of these years.
"A side note:
"Why is it that we continue to either ignore or fail to recognize what history has taught us? Do we always have to go back centuries to learn that the demise or fall of most great entities comes from within. President Theodore Roosevelt was truly ahead of his time for this generation, but was quite succinct and accurate. How do we get the public, as well as the politicians, to see the forest from the trees (immigrants from the foreigners) and take action to re-enforce what has been known and very well documented by our forefathers? Let's not re-invent the wheel, let's just go to the tire store and do a little maintenance."
My reply:
The best I can say on repeating history is to keep reminding our families, our friends, or anyone who will listen. We will find a way.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
Please join me in celebrating the 232nd anniversary of our glorious Corps of Marines – 10.November.1775. Semper Fidelis, Marines!
On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, we remember all our veterans who have served the United Kingdom, the Republic of France, and the United States of America. May God bless and comfortable all those who have served the purpose of freedom and especially those who stand in harm’s way in the current war.
The follow-up news items:
-- The chief of MI5 – the British domestic intelligence agency – offered a sobering assessment of the challenges we face in the War on Islamic Fascism. Director-General Jonathan Evans reported that al-Qaeda’s recruiting efforts in Great Britain have doubled the number of terrorist watch targets, which compounds the difficulty and complexity of MI5’s efforts to thwart the radicals. I suspect Evans’ candor can be easily translated into the threat faced by the United States and stands in stark contrast to the activities of the uber-Left as they continue their efforts to blunt the sword. [307]
-- The Navy/Notre Dame football game a week ago [307] sparked quite a few comments. NPR commentator John Feinstein captured the essence of what to most folks was an obscure little sports event.
“Power of Ending a Streak”
by John Feinstein
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, November 5, 2007; 11:43 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/05/AR2007110500481.html
-- Well, I’ll be . . . Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, one time presidential candidate [267] announced his endorsement of Senator John McCain of Arizona. And, evangelical Christian activist Pat Robertson endorsed former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. I would have never guessed either one.
-- The U.S. Senate confirmed Judge Michael Bernard Mukasey [302] to be the Attorney General of the United States, replacing Alberto Gonzales [vote no.407: 53-40-7].
-- With W. finding his latent courage so late in his presidency to veto [201] a few of this continuous stream of obscene spending bills coming from Congress, we find another historic event in the same vein. The President vetoed a US$23B water resources bill. For the first time in the tenure of the Bush (43) administration, Congress voted to override the President’s veto and the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 [H.R.1495; PL no: 110-114] became law. [override vote: House: 361-54-0-17, Senate: 79–14-7] If W. had been vetoing these pork bills over the course of his administration, I would give him more credit; now, it is just partisan politics rather than fiscal discipline, and makes this whole sordid process all the more disgusting.
We all need feel-good stories amid the tragedy of war and the turmoil of modern politics. Here is a link to a video of an HBO Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel report – the story of 5-year-old Kyle Lograsso. Please take the time to watch this video story.
http://www.sonnyradio.com/kylelograsso.html
You will not be disappointed.
Pakistan’s President General Pervez Musharraf declared a national state of emergency this week, suspended the constitution, dismissed the supreme court, and aggressively arrested thousands of lawyers in an action he claims will aid his contributions to the War on Islamic Fascism. I find the argument quite shallow and hard to swallow. The move, given his recent, futile efforts to maintain some modicum of legitimacy, smacks of desperation rather than patriotism. However, there is a sliver of reality that offers pause to see how this plays out. My rationale . . . remember all the baying by the naysayers late last year into early this year about the President’s surge effort; well, General Petraeus delivered. Perhaps we should keep our powder dry to see how this plays out, before we throw the baby out with the bath water. Before we jump too fast, please read:
“Pakistan and its Army”
by George Friedman
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: November 06, 2007; 14:08 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/gir.php?utm_source=071106-GIR&utm_medium=email-strat-html&utm_content=071106-GIR-header-read&utm_campaign=GIR
Two Wall Street Journal opinion columns challenge us to reconsider bombing cities or other civilian targets, torture (a term I continue to debate), and the politics of war. For your consideration:
“Waterboarding and Hiroshima – Did the Allies in World War II ‘lower themselves to the level of their enemies’?”
by Bret Stephens
Wall Street Journal
Published: Tuesday, November 6, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010827
and,
"Democrats and Waterboarding"
by Alan Dershowitz
Wall Street Journal
Published: November 7, 2007; Page A23
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119439827396084663.html
I shall offer a contrarian opinion. I want war to be as nasty, ugly, violent, and revolting as possible, to ensure such human actions remain the choice of last resort for conflict resolution. As I have written many times, I have no interest in making nice with our enemies, who seek to harm our citizens or contaminate our society. If our enemies mobilize civilians for their purposes, then civilians become proper targets. The same argument applies to what the Press and politicians have label as torture. Inducing an enemy combatant to relinquish information regarding his actions and other related activities is just another element of war and “waging war successfully.” So, please read the opinions of Stephens and Dershowitz, and then, let us engage in a vigorous debate.
The growing rumble from evangelical Christian talking heads conveys dissatisfaction with the available candidates and their attempts at moderation. They rattle the saber for a third-party, anti-choice, candidate who will promote their socially conservative agenda. I doubt they truly seek a third party candidate, as that potential would most likely be a guarantee of failure. The current public dissonance reflects their perceived failure to move the leading candidates far enough to the right, so they have chosen to take their discontent public.
In Update no.308, I shared a comment I submitted to the Patriot Post. I received this response:
"We have never advocated denying rights to homosexuals. We do believe, however, that as thousands of years of human history attest, marriage is ONLY between one man and one woman. A homosexual man may still marry, just not as he may choose to redefine it."
. . . to which I replied:
What is missing from your argument is the historic denial of “equal protection” to non-heterosexual citizens, i.e., there is no need to advocate for denial since discrimination has existed longer than this Grand Republic. While we cannot and should not cavalierly set aside historical precedent, we must view all societal decisions in a logical, reasonable context of our time.
I find no qualifiers to such foundational phrases as “all men are created equal,” “We, the People,” and “nor deny to any person.”
All of us can and should respect your beliefs; I most assuredly do. After all, you are entitled by our heritage to your freedom to seek your path toward “Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness,” without intrusion by anyone else including the government. How is it that we can expect society to respect our freedom of choice, and in the same breath, constrain another citizen’s freedom of choice?
I suspect you misspoke in your last sentence. A homosexual citizen (man or woman) cannot marry or enjoy the “rights and privileges” of marriage.
As with most freedoms, each of us chooses our friends and decides with whom we seek common assembly. That is our right. And concomitantly, I respectfully submit, we do not have the right to impose our beliefs upon other citizens. The government should be a neutral, un-biased, protector of the public good as well as the rights of each and every citizen, not just those with whom the majority agrees . . . except where the interests of the State demand intrusion upon our fundamental right to privacy. The State’s interest in private, relationship contracts has not been demonstrated.
Thank you for the courtesy of your reply.
Respectfully,
Cap Parlier
From my open letter to my Federal representatives regarding the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 [306], I received only one reply to date, from Senator Pat Roberts.
November 2, 2007
"Dear Mr. Parlier:
"Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding federal hate crimes. I appreciate your insight into this complex legal issue.
"In April, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) introduced S. 1105, the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This legislation imposes criminal penalties for willful bodily harm motived by race, religion, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. It also authorizes the U.S. Attorney General to provide assistance to state and local governments for the prosecution of crimes motivated by race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. S. 1105 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it awaits consideration.
"Recently, the Senate passed H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act. During consideration of this bill, Senator Kennedy introduced an amendment similar to S. 1105. I voted against the amendment. However, it was approved by the Senate. I had several concerns with this amendment. We must be cautious in giving preferential treatment to select classes of victims. Every American is entitled to equal justice regardless of personal characteristics.
"However, I voted for an amendment offered by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to authorize $5 million in funding to assist states and local governments in prosecuting hate crimes. The amendment also requires a federal study of the prevalence of hate crimes. At this point the Senate bill will be referred to a conference committee where conferees will resolve the differences between the Senate and House versions of the Defense Authorization Act.
"Again thank you for taking the time to contact me."
With every best wish,
Sincerely,
Pat Roberts
. . . to which I submitted this follow-up query:
Senator Roberts,
Thank you for your prompt reply.
In your reply, you stated, "Every American is entitled to equal justice regardless of personal characteristics." Indeed! That is the essence of the current struggle. Not all Americans enjoy "equal protection under the law." I do agree that establishing special protection for a segment of our society should be approached with caution. However, discrimination and in some cases persecution of a segment of our society simply because of the perception of their private conduct or their chosen Pursuit of Happiness is wrong in the worst, most corrosive way.
I have been unable to locate the specific, employment, non-discrimination language to which you refer in H.R. 1585. Would you be so kind to give me a clue? Until then and once again, I strongly urge you to vote for language equivalent to that contained in H.R. 2015.
Until ALL citizens in good standing enjoy the same "rights and privileges" as other citizens, they deserve the protection of the State. Please do your part to protect ALL citizens, not just the popular majority.
Respectfully,
Cap Parlier
Representative John Shadegg of Arizona has introduced the same bill in each Congress since 1995 -- the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 1359). The text of HR 1359 is enlightening. "Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The availability of this point of order does not affect any other available relief." What a refreshing notion! They might have to actually reference their authority to propose every bill, and every earmark to every bill. Sad part, such logical legislation has about as much chance of passage with our clearly self-serving, politically ego-centric, senators and representatives as hell freezing over. Nonetheless, it is nice to dream.
Widely variant sources and media often trigger my curiosity. A fraction of those adventures make it to this humble journal. Occasionally, I am presented with a challenge on one of these quests of curiosity satiation that becomes a test of will. Herein lies one of tests. American Family Association founder Reverend David Wildmon recently protested reports that the Department of Defense was ignoring the law regarding the sale or distribution of sexually explicit material. With soldiers enduring the rigors of combat against an honor-less enemy, I wondered how such a law came into existence; thus began a rare and frustrating journey. At this juncture, I must confess that the research for this issue became the most difficult such exercise in my life to date; and yet, I was spurred on by that specific difficulty, and so I begin. On 24.April.1996, Representative Christopher Henry Smith of New Jersey introduced a bill onto the floor of the House of Representatives; the bill was designated H.R.3300 and provisionally titled, the Military Honor and Decency Act of 1996 (MHDA). The bill stalled in committee. Undeterred, as the Defense appropriations bill began to solidify late in the 104th Congress, the language of the MHDA made its way into the joint conference committee text intended to reconcile the disparate provisions of the versions from the two chambers. Congress passed the bill with the late inserted MHDA text. President Clinton signed the National Defense Appropriations Act of 1997 [H.R.3230; PL no. 104-201] into law, and by that law, the MHDA became effective 90 days later (22.December.1996). The sequence of events regarding how the MHDA made it into the final text of the massive Defense Department appropriations bill is beyond my reach, and my guess is, it is probably not part of the public record. The MHDA was immediately challenged in court. U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York found the MHDA unconstitutional. The government’s appeal was heard by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals {General Media Communications, Inc. v Cohen [CCA NYSD docket no. 97-6029 (1997)]}, which reversed Judge Scheindlin’s decision, ruling that, despite the Supreme Court’s statement that constitutional protections do not cease at the gates of a military base, the military is a unique subset within American society and the government had the right to regulate private conduct within that subset. The Supreme Court chose not to hear the subsequent appeal, thus validating the 2nd Circuit’s ruling. It is the alleged violation of the MHDA that Wildmon protests today. Why do I bring up all this legislative and judicial trivial minutiae? Well, as might be imagined from my political writings, I am personally and deeply offended by the imposition by the so-called moral majority of a more restrictive standard upon those who stand in harm’s way for our freedom. My rule is quite simple . . . if a citizen is old enough to die for his country, then he is old enough to enjoy the full “rights and privileges” of the citizenship he defends, however immoral some among us may feel about some activities. In fact, my socially liberal opinion goes far beyond that point. Yet, with all that said, I am compelled to acknowledge the authority of the Congress to impose such restrictions upon the military; the military is indeed a unique subset of American society; the 2nd Circuit and the Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion. In closing, I must say that I am disappointed that such restrictions upon our soldiers exist at all, and I am truly disgusted that some Members of Congress resort to such deceptive means to impose their will upon our honorable military service personnel – moral projection at its worst.
Comments and contributions from Update no.308:
“I saw a short memorial on TV about Gen Tibbets, including some interviews with him. I’m with you.
“I watched a good part of the Navy/Notre Dame Game. Great game. It was about time!!
“Not familiar with the Snyder case.
“I agree with your thoughts on the Wilson case as far as how intrusion by the state into private matters which should be left to families/parents to work out. The State has no business legislating in the area of consensual sex, period.
“Good old Teddy Roosevelt. He hit the nail squarely on the head.”
My reply:
The Snyder case was actually the first major suit against the Phelps clan – the fanatics who protest at military funerals. Very bad people. Snyder’s victory was well deserved.
Unfortunately, there are far too many people who think it is their right, responsibility, mission, and divine commandment to dictate how everybody else should live their lives. The Wilson case is a prime example of how good intentions can go so terribly wrong when we try to live other people’s lives.
Teddy got it right . . . on that and many other things.
Another contribution:
"The death of BG Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr was reported this side too. He must have suffered emotions far beyond any we can have experienced and yet remained stoical to the end. I wondered if he and his crew were ever given 'counselling'?
"Your case Snyder v. Phelps, $10.9M damages... isn't that an extraordinary amount can anyone manage to pay that sort of money? Is Phelps that religious individual I've heard you talk of before? De-crying the efforts of the military and interrupting military funerals."
My response:
Tibbets never even hinted at any psychological consequence of commanding the first atomic strike; to him, it was just another bombing mission, albeit with a special weapon. Some of his crew did suffer psychological effects, and to my knowledge, they did not have counseling services like we do today.
Re: the Snyder v. Phelps case. Yes, the Phelps clan, of which Fred Phelps is the patriarch, is the group I’ve discussed many times before; they protest against homosexuality at military funerals with the most disgusting signs and shouts. Yes, it is an extraordinary compensatory judgment, but it is also against the Phelps church – the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. Synder’s intention is to dissolve the church and seek all available assets including personal assets of those family members involved. I hope he is successful, but alas, as our ponderous legal system works, undoubtedly, there will be appeals upon appeals, and I suspect Synder may not see a dime of the damages. However, I think he would feel satisfied if the Phelps clan disappeared into the sludge from whence they came.
. . . with this follow-up:
"Keep up your work. We run into our remembrance tide here in U/K. The media have been very kind this year. It's the government that don't give two hoots for the boys and girls coming home. But we will keep on at them.
We have a campaign called the 'broken covenant' I'll give you a briefing on it during the week.
"Our Poppy Appeal is underway and we hope to raise £26,000,000 this year from the public. We spend £75M."
. . . to which I responded:
We can only hope the government soon realizes its obligation to those citizens who freely choose to stand in harm’s way to protect our freedom. Good luck for bountiful success on your annual Poppy Appeal. May God bless all our veterans.
A different contribution:
"I actually had the honor of meeting and interviewing Col. Tibbets a few years ago when he gave a talk at xxxxx. Quite frankly I was in awe that a lowly little reporter from Jersey was standing next to a man who was part of one of the biggest events in the history of the world. Yet he remained rather humble about his role in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Basically, he seemed to regard it as 'just another mission.' The people who rail against the atomic bombings of Japan make me roll my eyes. First, I believe a two-night firebombing of Tokyo in Feb. of '45 killed just as many people, perhaps even more than were killed when we nuked both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And, judging from a very good documentary I saw on how the invasion of Japan would have gone down, way, way, way more people (Both Japanese and Allies) would have died if we had gone ahead with Operations: Olympic & Cornet. While he may never have called himself one, Tibbetts is a hero and it was my distinct privilege to talk with him even for just a few minutes.
"Thanks for including the quote from Teddy Roosevelt. He is one of my all-time favorite historical figures. God, but we need someone like him today . . . of course our 'esteemed' mainstream press would probably rip him apart, but frankly TR would have the big swinging brass ones to tell them to go to hell before slamming down a shot of whiskey in front of them all."
My response:
Fantastic . . . that you got to interview Paul Tibbets; great man. What that generation did -- the scientists of the Manhattan Project along with the flight crews of the “Enola Gay” and “Bockscar,” and all the support personnel including the ill-fated crew of the U.S.S. Indianapolis -- saved vastly more lives, both Japanese and Allied, than they took, on those two days in August 1945.
Teddy was a flawed man, as we all are, but he was an amazing leader.
And yet another contribution:
"Although not a Naval Academy grad, but a former Navy Midshipman, my accolades as well to good ol' Annapolis. I cringe every year with my sister whose kids are ND grads but, as a Husker myself, I do not gloat in other's mire. But it was nice to see the Midshipmen persevere. As for the Huskers....not much to say other than the game???? Was in Lawrence and it was nice to see that their stadium was a significant blue vs. red after all of these years.
"A side note:
"Why is it that we continue to either ignore or fail to recognize what history has taught us? Do we always have to go back centuries to learn that the demise or fall of most great entities comes from within. President Theodore Roosevelt was truly ahead of his time for this generation, but was quite succinct and accurate. How do we get the public, as well as the politicians, to see the forest from the trees (immigrants from the foreigners) and take action to re-enforce what has been known and very well documented by our forefathers? Let's not re-invent the wheel, let's just go to the tire store and do a little maintenance."
My reply:
The best I can say on repeating history is to keep reminding our families, our friends, or anyone who will listen. We will find a way.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment