Update from the Heartland
No.276
19.3.07 – 25.3.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.276
19.3.07 – 25.3.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
My Blog – Update from the Heartland – has been available on-line for three months now. The time has come to offer alternatives. Several subscribers have already asked for just the announcement of a new posting rather than the full text of each edition in an eMail. I finally worked out my distribution list management, and it seems to function properly with my primary eMail application. Thus, a simple note with your druthers will do the trick.
This quote from the daily Patriot seems quite apropos.
“Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.”
(A sword is never a killer; it is a tool in the killer’s hands.)
Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD
Interesting how true wisdom lasts for an eternity. We should learn the lessons of the past.
A Sunday New York Times editorial titled "The President's Prison" stated, "The Guantánamo Bay detention camp has profoundly damaged the nation’s credibility as a champion of justice and human rights." What! My incredulity can hardly be contained. What on God's little green earth do the 'experts' at the Times think we should do with battlefield captives? Is this one of those occasions that if the uber-Left says anything enough times it becomes reality or even worse the truth? Does the uber-Left truly believe we are not at war? Or, do they believe that enemy combatants captured on the battlefield are all just simple criminals who should each be tried in a civilian court? I would truly like to hear the arguments rather than the rhetorical incantations.
Fifteen Royal Marines and sailors were taken prisoner by Revolutionary Guard agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran, after the Marines boarded a ship in contested waters in the Northern Persian Gulf to search for contraband. One of our British brothers-in-arms notified me quite promptly. I responded that I hoped the British government would be far more adept at a prompt diplomatic solution than us colonialists. To which he responded, "Our diplomats might be but I doubt our government is. Of course, this is a diversion as we come up to debate nuclear fuel enrichment at the UN. However, if our boys come to any harm, which I sincerely hope not, there would be nothing preventing British support, including public opinion, for any plan Mr. Bush might employ in the region." As our British brothers say, spot on! Now, we work for the return of our brothers. The IRI wants to raise the ante of their confrontation with the World, so be it.
We seem to have a fair amount of confusion here in Kansas regarding the relationship between morality and the law, intertwined amongst our most fundamental rights derived from the framework of the Declaration and the bedrock foundation of the Constitution. A series of citizen opinions seem to illuminate the confusion.
Wichita Eagle, Opinion Page, Reader Views, Friday, 8.December.2006, page 10A:
“Essential morality” by Scott E. Blades, Wichita
Wichita Eagle, Opinion Page, Reader Views, Friday, 10.March.2007, page 6A:
“Morality as law” by Grayce Abel, Winfield.
Abel closed her opinion with, “No society or nation has long survived that has not legislated and sought to enforce moral laws. Rome fell when the moral decay in the political and personal lives of its citizens reached its zenith.”
I could quibble with Abel’s rendition of history – the popular notion of moral depravity; the decline of the Roman Empire was far more complex and not the point of this discussion. At the general, broad level, I believe none of us can or would argue – many of our laws are based on basic morality – respect your neighbor, cause no harm, et cetera. This debate sprouts from the demarcation between public and private, and the authority of the State to cross that boundary.
I use the term ‘moral projection’ to describe the penchant of some citizens to use the instruments of State to impose their moral values upon the private lives and conduct of ALL citizens – as the laws must not be selective or discriminatory. Such activity seems quite reasonable as long as the values being projected are consistent with our values; after all, morality laws are just reinforcing what we already believe. What is so often missed in such debates is the reality that using the law for moral projection is truly a double edged sword – it cuts both ways, i.e., today’s majority may be tomorrow’s minority.
To preserve our foundation freedoms, we must guard diligently the boundary between public and private, and resist all attempts to penetrate the private domain – for our rights, and the freedom of our children and their children. Projecting our moral values into the homes of other citizens is a very slippery slope leading to the abyss. Liberty and freedom depends upon the sanctity of a man’s “castle,” and the protection of a citizen’s rights from government incursion.
Yes, indeed, moral values are deeply woven into the fabric of our laws – local, state and federal. We must maintain high moral standards in the public domain, in our public conduct, and the expectations of others around us. That is the basis of civilized society. As the Good Book says, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Sound counsel! Thus, I shall respect your privacy and hope that you respect mine. Let us all keep the public and private domains in their proper place, and the boundary between the two as clear and crisp as possible. We must find the strength to resist dictating how other citizens should live their lives, and concentrate on public conduct and living our lives the best we can.
I offer to the discerning reader a fine example of moral projection -- the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 [HR 4328; PL 105-277]. How is this broad, obscure piece of appropriations legislation significant to any relevant public debate? Well, buried in this massive bill was the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA). The intent of this fine sample of legislative activism made criminal Internet service providers who allow access to material deemed "harmful to minor children." What a great idea! Who could possibly object to such a well-intentioned law? Me, for one, and a Federal judge, for another. Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., Eastern Pennsylvania District Court, issued his ruling on Thursday, in the case of ACLU v. Gonzales [no. 98-5591], and found that COPA violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Judge Reed's well-written decision seems destined for the U.S. Supreme Court, so we are likely to hear more from the Judiciary on this case. Not that my opinion matters, but COPA represents a classic example of moral projection. To protect the innocence of our children, we pass a law that affects every single citizen -- young, old, big, small, rich, poor, important and insignificant. The list of questions and issues associated with such a broad, enveloping law appears endless. First, who defines "harmful?" COPA certainly does not. Where are the parents of these children? Why do we have this blind desire to abdicate our parental responsibilities to the government, any government, and especially the Federal government? These well-intentioned, expansive, intrusive laws are quite like using a howitzer to kill a gnat. And, furthermore, laws like COPA are an indictment of American parents – let’s hack up freedom of speech because more than a few of our number refuse to be proper parents. When will we ever learn?
Another thought . . . being anti-war is quite like being anti-abortion, anti-guns or anti-crime; the political position requires no expenditure of intellectual energy, kinda like being pro-clean-air or pro-clean-water. No one likes war, abortion, crime, or contaminated air or water. Unfortunately, life is rarely contrasted in such a distinct binary manner. Life is an infinite spectrum of colors including a broad array of gray shades, and whether we like it, that is the very nature of freedom. The political questions of our day demand concerted thinking and debate if we have any hope of finding a stable compromise state for our society. The existence of these questions makes political non-partisanship and moderation a comfortable condition, although not a very successful one in our dominant two-party, polarized environment.
I think we have a new, best example of political correctness and multi-culturalism gone absolutely bonkers mad. German Judge Christa Datz-Winter issued a ruling denying the petition of a woman seeking a rapid divorce from her husband based on domestic violence. The subject woman in this case is a German citizen of Moroccan descent, who married a Moroccan man in Morocco. The bizarre aspects of this civil case came in the citation of the Koran in Judge Winter’s ruling – not German law. I have not yet found the specific passage in the Koran, but Judge Winter states that the Koran sanctions a husband beating his wife for disobedience, thus so goes her rational, such beatings were not sufficient justification for a speedy divorce. I am not an expert in German law, but what is wrong with this picture. Citing the Koran is quite like quoting Leviticus for Jews and Christians who kill their wives for straying. It seems Judge Winter was trying to acknowledge the diversity of culture in German society. She touched off a firestorm, got herself relieved as the presiding judge in this case, and energized the debate regarding the place of religion in secular societies. I am all in favor of recognition of our cultural diversity. However, when that diversity crosses the boundary between public and private, or causes harm to another citizen, religious mores are subservient to the law, as it should be. The Germans appear to be moving swiftly to remedy this travesty. We can only hope the woman gains her freedom and protection from an abuser, and the husband receives the punishment he deserves.
The Public Policy Intelligence Report 03.22.2007 “Evangelicals and the GOP: A Clean Divorce Coming” by Bart Mongoven predicts fragmentation of the support by the Christian Evangelical Right for the Republican Party, largely due to a paucity of candidates who exhibit sufficient social conservatism. If the report is correct, we could experience quite an entertaining silly season along with an interesting result.
The number of votes in Congress regarding war funding, battle timelines, and other related resolutions and bills continues to mount faster than I can keep track. As of this writing, no clear image is emerging from the odd array of dots being presented to us. The process playing out before us seems to be taking on an air of desperation -- sad and disgusting at a time of war.
Another of Saddam Hussein’s henchmen met his end at the hangman’s noose this week. The Iraqi government executed Taha Yassin Ramadan, former vice president under Saddam, for his complicity in Saddam’s crimes against humanity.
Comments and contributions from Update no.275:
“I have to agree with your comments and thoughts concerning General Pace. Much as I admire and respect him and his position, I think he was wrong to say the things he did.
“The VA hospital thing? I agree with your assessment of Kiley (note I hesitate to even acknowledge that he is a general officer). I think the firing of General Weightman was a knee-jerk reaction though. And unfair.
“MY treatment at all 3 of the VA hospitals I've been to was very good. But – I could tell they were, as you have said, understaffed and under-funded. And THAT is the bottom line for me.
“Our Vets deserve care. Rate care. We owe them care. If that care is to be thru the VA hospital system then that system has to be supported by our Congress with enough $$$$ to do the job. I totally believe they want to – but not always do they do what should be done. Politics and the fact that there just aren’t enough $$$ to go around to fund all the things which should be.
“The VA hospital system also needs to be led by the best qualified senior general officer doctors, with every individual VA hospital having a top rate colonel/general doctor in command.”
My reply:
I absolutely agree with you on General Weightman – the designated fall guy. I watched their congressional testimony . . . quite a truth teller when Weightman turned around to face the families, while Kiley remained stone-faced and straight ahead. We can hope this president is serious and can get the job done with the VA hospital system. Congress has a very short attention span, so it will take a concerted effort by the Executive to make sure the VA gets and keeps the proper funding.
Another contribution:
“The email below is from a Cuban refugee who lives in Miami now. He's a close friend of mine and sent it to several of us. I'm certain he won't mind you seeing the email. I saw the show too, and it is a perfect example of the interviewer making himself the point of the story instead of the truth being the guide so people can make their own minds up. Looked like the Marine [sergeant] was on trial. I could barely stand to watch. Horrible.”
-- the message noted above:
“Tonight, 60 minutes showed a biased and politically motivated story that was, at best, a horrible set up for our country. What they did should be considered a crime of treason. Instead of "assuming" that our fine soldiers did the right thing and the enemy the wrong thing, they went the other way. They used propaganda techniques and dramatic body language to try to incriminate our soldiers.
“Here's a link to the story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/15/60minutes/main2574973.shtml
“We've got to stand behind our soldiers and our country. This is a horrible conflict that will be around us for a long time (we didn't start it).”
My response:
I saw the show straight through. My wife kept telling me to calm down. I was angry. Although I suspect there is much more to the story that we know, I hold considerable compassion for what those Marines endured. War is hell! The attempts by the Press and the uber-Left to make war all warm and cushy are almost as revolting as war itself. I was angry at the entire show, and I must confess I was shouting at the TV. I can only pray the Marine Corps has the strength and courage to do the right thing for those young Marines.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“You and I did the same thing during the show with our wives also doing the same thing. The interviewer was judge and jury. The USMC best stand tall with them.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
Here, here! Sometimes, especially in politically charged events, a court martial can become a method to formally and officially clear good names. We shall know the truth . . . as best we can ever know the truth from the chaos of combat.
Semper Fidelis.
Another comment:
“We would be happy to send a javelina to your writer. We have way too many that like to visit whatever [my wife] plants and hopes to grow.”
Another contribution:
"I do not care if the guy next to me in my foxhole, or flying on my wing is Homosexual. I do care that he is a good 'soldier' and will do his best to fight, and to protect Me when he can. That goes for 'She' too. All that with NO concern about race, sex, background, religion, ethnicity, etc, etc.
"I have been in a couple fairly small and short-lived actual firefights on the ground. And had my radio operator wounded right beside me. The LAST thing I was thinking of was anyone's differences from me. In combat none of that matters. Also been in a couple sapper attacks on our perimeters. Not fun either. Plus innumerable rocket and mortar attacks.
"So why does it matter when we get back home? It shouldn't!!!"
My reply:
Well said. The point is performance and public conduct . . . not what someone does in private or in bed.
And, this contribution:
“This documentary has received very little play but if people who don’t think that this is a religious war would watch it, a few, might change their minds. Many, however, will refuse to admit we are at war and that it will last for generations. We can only hope that this country is in existence in 10 years. I feel that some parts of Europe are within 5 years from being taken over by radical Islamic politicals. The U.S. is not far behind when a school changes the ‘three little pigs’ to ‘three little puppies’ because they are afraid of offending Muslims.
“Politics aside….This is the most important video of the decade. It explains plainly why terrorism and violence in the Middle East is a direct threat to us and the world.”
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6331994107023396223&q=obsession&pr=goog-sl
Another related video link offers a similar perspective:
“That is really scary!!”
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/islamic-mein-kampf/
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
My Blog – Update from the Heartland – has been available on-line for three months now. The time has come to offer alternatives. Several subscribers have already asked for just the announcement of a new posting rather than the full text of each edition in an eMail. I finally worked out my distribution list management, and it seems to function properly with my primary eMail application. Thus, a simple note with your druthers will do the trick.
This quote from the daily Patriot seems quite apropos.
“Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.”
(A sword is never a killer; it is a tool in the killer’s hands.)
Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD
Interesting how true wisdom lasts for an eternity. We should learn the lessons of the past.
A Sunday New York Times editorial titled "The President's Prison" stated, "The Guantánamo Bay detention camp has profoundly damaged the nation’s credibility as a champion of justice and human rights." What! My incredulity can hardly be contained. What on God's little green earth do the 'experts' at the Times think we should do with battlefield captives? Is this one of those occasions that if the uber-Left says anything enough times it becomes reality or even worse the truth? Does the uber-Left truly believe we are not at war? Or, do they believe that enemy combatants captured on the battlefield are all just simple criminals who should each be tried in a civilian court? I would truly like to hear the arguments rather than the rhetorical incantations.
Fifteen Royal Marines and sailors were taken prisoner by Revolutionary Guard agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran, after the Marines boarded a ship in contested waters in the Northern Persian Gulf to search for contraband. One of our British brothers-in-arms notified me quite promptly. I responded that I hoped the British government would be far more adept at a prompt diplomatic solution than us colonialists. To which he responded, "Our diplomats might be but I doubt our government is. Of course, this is a diversion as we come up to debate nuclear fuel enrichment at the UN. However, if our boys come to any harm, which I sincerely hope not, there would be nothing preventing British support, including public opinion, for any plan Mr. Bush might employ in the region." As our British brothers say, spot on! Now, we work for the return of our brothers. The IRI wants to raise the ante of their confrontation with the World, so be it.
We seem to have a fair amount of confusion here in Kansas regarding the relationship between morality and the law, intertwined amongst our most fundamental rights derived from the framework of the Declaration and the bedrock foundation of the Constitution. A series of citizen opinions seem to illuminate the confusion.
Wichita Eagle, Opinion Page, Reader Views, Friday, 8.December.2006, page 10A:
“Essential morality” by Scott E. Blades, Wichita
Wichita Eagle, Opinion Page, Reader Views, Friday, 10.March.2007, page 6A:
“Morality as law” by Grayce Abel, Winfield.
Abel closed her opinion with, “No society or nation has long survived that has not legislated and sought to enforce moral laws. Rome fell when the moral decay in the political and personal lives of its citizens reached its zenith.”
I could quibble with Abel’s rendition of history – the popular notion of moral depravity; the decline of the Roman Empire was far more complex and not the point of this discussion. At the general, broad level, I believe none of us can or would argue – many of our laws are based on basic morality – respect your neighbor, cause no harm, et cetera. This debate sprouts from the demarcation between public and private, and the authority of the State to cross that boundary.
I use the term ‘moral projection’ to describe the penchant of some citizens to use the instruments of State to impose their moral values upon the private lives and conduct of ALL citizens – as the laws must not be selective or discriminatory. Such activity seems quite reasonable as long as the values being projected are consistent with our values; after all, morality laws are just reinforcing what we already believe. What is so often missed in such debates is the reality that using the law for moral projection is truly a double edged sword – it cuts both ways, i.e., today’s majority may be tomorrow’s minority.
To preserve our foundation freedoms, we must guard diligently the boundary between public and private, and resist all attempts to penetrate the private domain – for our rights, and the freedom of our children and their children. Projecting our moral values into the homes of other citizens is a very slippery slope leading to the abyss. Liberty and freedom depends upon the sanctity of a man’s “castle,” and the protection of a citizen’s rights from government incursion.
Yes, indeed, moral values are deeply woven into the fabric of our laws – local, state and federal. We must maintain high moral standards in the public domain, in our public conduct, and the expectations of others around us. That is the basis of civilized society. As the Good Book says, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Sound counsel! Thus, I shall respect your privacy and hope that you respect mine. Let us all keep the public and private domains in their proper place, and the boundary between the two as clear and crisp as possible. We must find the strength to resist dictating how other citizens should live their lives, and concentrate on public conduct and living our lives the best we can.
I offer to the discerning reader a fine example of moral projection -- the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 [HR 4328; PL 105-277]. How is this broad, obscure piece of appropriations legislation significant to any relevant public debate? Well, buried in this massive bill was the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA). The intent of this fine sample of legislative activism made criminal Internet service providers who allow access to material deemed "harmful to minor children." What a great idea! Who could possibly object to such a well-intentioned law? Me, for one, and a Federal judge, for another. Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., Eastern Pennsylvania District Court, issued his ruling on Thursday, in the case of ACLU v. Gonzales [no. 98-5591], and found that COPA violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Judge Reed's well-written decision seems destined for the U.S. Supreme Court, so we are likely to hear more from the Judiciary on this case. Not that my opinion matters, but COPA represents a classic example of moral projection. To protect the innocence of our children, we pass a law that affects every single citizen -- young, old, big, small, rich, poor, important and insignificant. The list of questions and issues associated with such a broad, enveloping law appears endless. First, who defines "harmful?" COPA certainly does not. Where are the parents of these children? Why do we have this blind desire to abdicate our parental responsibilities to the government, any government, and especially the Federal government? These well-intentioned, expansive, intrusive laws are quite like using a howitzer to kill a gnat. And, furthermore, laws like COPA are an indictment of American parents – let’s hack up freedom of speech because more than a few of our number refuse to be proper parents. When will we ever learn?
Another thought . . . being anti-war is quite like being anti-abortion, anti-guns or anti-crime; the political position requires no expenditure of intellectual energy, kinda like being pro-clean-air or pro-clean-water. No one likes war, abortion, crime, or contaminated air or water. Unfortunately, life is rarely contrasted in such a distinct binary manner. Life is an infinite spectrum of colors including a broad array of gray shades, and whether we like it, that is the very nature of freedom. The political questions of our day demand concerted thinking and debate if we have any hope of finding a stable compromise state for our society. The existence of these questions makes political non-partisanship and moderation a comfortable condition, although not a very successful one in our dominant two-party, polarized environment.
I think we have a new, best example of political correctness and multi-culturalism gone absolutely bonkers mad. German Judge Christa Datz-Winter issued a ruling denying the petition of a woman seeking a rapid divorce from her husband based on domestic violence. The subject woman in this case is a German citizen of Moroccan descent, who married a Moroccan man in Morocco. The bizarre aspects of this civil case came in the citation of the Koran in Judge Winter’s ruling – not German law. I have not yet found the specific passage in the Koran, but Judge Winter states that the Koran sanctions a husband beating his wife for disobedience, thus so goes her rational, such beatings were not sufficient justification for a speedy divorce. I am not an expert in German law, but what is wrong with this picture. Citing the Koran is quite like quoting Leviticus for Jews and Christians who kill their wives for straying. It seems Judge Winter was trying to acknowledge the diversity of culture in German society. She touched off a firestorm, got herself relieved as the presiding judge in this case, and energized the debate regarding the place of religion in secular societies. I am all in favor of recognition of our cultural diversity. However, when that diversity crosses the boundary between public and private, or causes harm to another citizen, religious mores are subservient to the law, as it should be. The Germans appear to be moving swiftly to remedy this travesty. We can only hope the woman gains her freedom and protection from an abuser, and the husband receives the punishment he deserves.
The Public Policy Intelligence Report 03.22.2007 “Evangelicals and the GOP: A Clean Divorce Coming” by Bart Mongoven predicts fragmentation of the support by the Christian Evangelical Right for the Republican Party, largely due to a paucity of candidates who exhibit sufficient social conservatism. If the report is correct, we could experience quite an entertaining silly season along with an interesting result.
The number of votes in Congress regarding war funding, battle timelines, and other related resolutions and bills continues to mount faster than I can keep track. As of this writing, no clear image is emerging from the odd array of dots being presented to us. The process playing out before us seems to be taking on an air of desperation -- sad and disgusting at a time of war.
Another of Saddam Hussein’s henchmen met his end at the hangman’s noose this week. The Iraqi government executed Taha Yassin Ramadan, former vice president under Saddam, for his complicity in Saddam’s crimes against humanity.
Comments and contributions from Update no.275:
“I have to agree with your comments and thoughts concerning General Pace. Much as I admire and respect him and his position, I think he was wrong to say the things he did.
“The VA hospital thing? I agree with your assessment of Kiley (note I hesitate to even acknowledge that he is a general officer). I think the firing of General Weightman was a knee-jerk reaction though. And unfair.
“MY treatment at all 3 of the VA hospitals I've been to was very good. But – I could tell they were, as you have said, understaffed and under-funded. And THAT is the bottom line for me.
“Our Vets deserve care. Rate care. We owe them care. If that care is to be thru the VA hospital system then that system has to be supported by our Congress with enough $$$$ to do the job. I totally believe they want to – but not always do they do what should be done. Politics and the fact that there just aren’t enough $$$ to go around to fund all the things which should be.
“The VA hospital system also needs to be led by the best qualified senior general officer doctors, with every individual VA hospital having a top rate colonel/general doctor in command.”
My reply:
I absolutely agree with you on General Weightman – the designated fall guy. I watched their congressional testimony . . . quite a truth teller when Weightman turned around to face the families, while Kiley remained stone-faced and straight ahead. We can hope this president is serious and can get the job done with the VA hospital system. Congress has a very short attention span, so it will take a concerted effort by the Executive to make sure the VA gets and keeps the proper funding.
Another contribution:
“The email below is from a Cuban refugee who lives in Miami now. He's a close friend of mine and sent it to several of us. I'm certain he won't mind you seeing the email. I saw the show too, and it is a perfect example of the interviewer making himself the point of the story instead of the truth being the guide so people can make their own minds up. Looked like the Marine [sergeant] was on trial. I could barely stand to watch. Horrible.”
-- the message noted above:
“Tonight, 60 minutes showed a biased and politically motivated story that was, at best, a horrible set up for our country. What they did should be considered a crime of treason. Instead of "assuming" that our fine soldiers did the right thing and the enemy the wrong thing, they went the other way. They used propaganda techniques and dramatic body language to try to incriminate our soldiers.
“Here's a link to the story:
“We've got to stand behind our soldiers and our country. This is a horrible conflict that will be around us for a long time (we didn't start it).”
My response:
I saw the show straight through. My wife kept telling me to calm down. I was angry. Although I suspect there is much more to the story that we know, I hold considerable compassion for what those Marines endured. War is hell! The attempts by the Press and the uber-Left to make war all warm and cushy are almost as revolting as war itself. I was angry at the entire show, and I must confess I was shouting at the TV. I can only pray the Marine Corps has the strength and courage to do the right thing for those young Marines.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“You and I did the same thing during the show with our wives also doing the same thing. The interviewer was judge and jury. The USMC best stand tall with them.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
Here, here! Sometimes, especially in politically charged events, a court martial can become a method to formally and officially clear good names. We shall know the truth . . . as best we can ever know the truth from the chaos of combat.
Semper Fidelis.
Another comment:
“We would be happy to send a javelina to your writer. We have way too many that like to visit whatever [my wife] plants and hopes to grow.”
Another contribution:
"I do not care if the guy next to me in my foxhole, or flying on my wing is Homosexual. I do care that he is a good 'soldier' and will do his best to fight, and to protect Me when he can. That goes for 'She' too. All that with NO concern about race, sex, background, religion, ethnicity, etc, etc.
"I have been in a couple fairly small and short-lived actual firefights on the ground. And had my radio operator wounded right beside me. The LAST thing I was thinking of was anyone's differences from me. In combat none of that matters. Also been in a couple sapper attacks on our perimeters. Not fun either. Plus innumerable rocket and mortar attacks.
"So why does it matter when we get back home? It shouldn't!!!"
My reply:
Well said. The point is performance and public conduct . . . not what someone does in private or in bed.
And, this contribution:
“This documentary has received very little play but if people who don’t think that this is a religious war would watch it, a few, might change their minds. Many, however, will refuse to admit we are at war and that it will last for generations. We can only hope that this country is in existence in 10 years. I feel that some parts of Europe are within 5 years from being taken over by radical Islamic politicals. The U.S. is not far behind when a school changes the ‘three little pigs’ to ‘three little puppies’ because they are afraid of offending Muslims.
“Politics aside….This is the most important video of the decade. It explains plainly why terrorism and violence in the Middle East is a direct threat to us and the world.”
Another related video link offers a similar perspective:
“That is really scary!!”
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
