Update from the Heartland
No.312
26.11.07 – 2.12.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.312
26.11.07 – 2.12.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Once again, I must offer my condolences to my cousins, Greg and Sandy -- Navy, 38 - Army, 3; and, for the first time in history, one of the two teams has won six (6) straight games. I could say, better luck next year; but instead, I shall say, Go Navy, Beat Army!
The follow-up news items:
-- Wow, the hits just keep coming for the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi announced his intention to resign his seat by the end of this year, which means a special election must be held to fill his seat for the remainder of his term (2012). I wonder how many more veteran Republican senators and representatives are going to bail?
-- Australia Prime Minister John Winston Howard, MP, lost the election, and the United States may have lost a consistent contributor to fighting the War on Islamic Fascism
-- The United States hosted a 50-nation, Middle East Peace conference at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. The conference did not accomplish much in a public sense, and history tells us optimism for Middle East peace is not appropriate, however we can always be surprised.
Just to keep some balance here, please read this essay about Hezbollah:
"Dissecting the 'Party of God'"
by Fred Burton and Reva Bhalla
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: November 28, 2007; 20:03 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/tir.php?utm_source=071128-TIR&utm_medium=email-strat-html&utm_content=071128-TIR-header-read&utm_campaign=TIR
Also, please do not forget that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been, is and will be the predominant financial and leadership sponsor of Hezbollah -- the connection is deep, expansive and durable. So, when you see or hear of Hezbollah, think Iran. The same can be said about Hamas, but not to the same extent as Hezbollah.
A few words of illumination and amplification regarding my opinion on individual rights, majority rule, and the relationship between the individual and government might be helpful. If every citizen could do whatever they wished, whenever and wherever they wanted, we would have anarchy. Society, and on its behalf government, should and must define acceptable public conduct . . . for an orderly, disciplined community. The line is crossed when a willful minority, or even a majority, uses the State to project their beliefs beyond the front door and into the private affairs of other citizens; that simply cannot be seen as freedom. Further, I am all in favor of majority rule, but where that principle must fail occurs when the majority attempts to penetrate the front door. Each and every citizen possesses unalienable rights, endowed by our Creator, that include Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Yet, freedom does not entitle any citizen to cause harm or a denial of rights to any other citizen regardless of the venue. Our society has been out of balance with those Founding principles for many decades now; it is long past time to trim the ship of State.
Twenty-eight retired generals and admirals intend to urge Congress to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, signed into law by President Clinton in 1993.
"A New Push to Roll Back ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’"
by Thom Shanker and Patrick Healy
New York Times
Published: November 30, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/30military.html?th&emc=th
I wrote an essay titled: "Limits on Gender Integration" (25.August.1998) [http://www.parlier.com/web1p03w.htm#gender], in which I argued for restrictions on those who served in the combat arms of the military, based on gender and sexual orientation. I think it is time to listen to General John Malchase David Shalikashvili, USA (Ret.) [265] and the other flag officers. With an estimated 15% of humanity being classified as other than heterosexual, we should rethink our homophobia. For those of us who served on active duty in the 1970's, the military initiated an extraordinary, extended program to eradicate racism within its ranks. While none of us would claim perfection, the program was broadly successful. Using that effort as an example, a similar initiative might well achieve comparable results in eliminating sexism and homophobia. We can grow and mature.
Another recent editorial attracted my attention.
"A Loss for Privacy Rights"
Editorial
New York Times
Published: November 28, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/opinion/28wed2.html?th&emc=th
The catalyst for the Times' editorial staff came from a Supreme Court rejection notice, letting stand a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 4th Amendment ruling. A group of welfare recipients in San Diego County filed suit in objection to the county's Project 100% on the basis that the unannounced, warrantless, home searches were unreasonable, and thus a violation of their constitutional rights. The Appeals' court panel affirmed the district court judgment that the county's welfare fraud prevention program did not violate the Plaintiffs-Appellants’ constitutional right to unreasonable search of their private domain by the government. Of note in the sequence of court rulings is Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson's dissenting opinion in the court's rejection of a rehearing petition in the case. He wrote, "San Diego’s program requires destitute, often disabled, persons and their families to forfeit all rights to privacy to qualify for welfare. The government’s general interest in preventing fraud cannot justify such highly intrusive searches of homes where no grounds for suspicion exist. Welfare applicants are ordinary people who, due to lack of adequate funds, find themselves applying for life-sustaining government benefits." Kind of tugs at your heart strings, doesn't it? Nonetheless, as much as I resent and rail against governmental intrusion in our private lives, there are times when it is appropriate, and here is such an example. The 9th Circuit got it right, despite Harry's objections, and the Supreme Court saw nothing that deserved their action. I have mixed feelings, and yet at the bottom line, welfare funds are cash payments that can be used for anything, and thus are easily abused. Whether we like to admit it, there are people who truly believe the State should take care of them, provide for their wishes and needs, and not ask any questions. Well, there should be conditions on funds from the public treasury, especially those that have essentially no checks and balances.
Comments and contributions from Update no.311:
"Regarding the Europeans--and others in the world's view of the U.S. as being dangerous, it is important to try to understand their point of view, even if one doesn't agree with it. Many feel that the Bush Administration has buggered up things badly in Iraq and as such, has made things much worse in the struggle against terrorism. It isn't as though Europeans and other countries are blind to the Islamist terrorist threat. They feel that they are even more immediately threatened and have their own ways of combating. Indeed, as the former CIA Chief in Europe stated, they are on the front line and we (the U.S.) depend very much on their work (and intel). Many feel that we have made things worse - that is why they say the U.S. is dangerous. One doesn't have to agree - or agree completely with them to see their point of view, which isn't based on coddling terrorists, but in the most effective way to combat them--and in doing so, not inflame more terrorism. BTW, a recent report noted over 6,000 terrorism-related incidents last year, three-fold over 2001 - so there is something to that point. While there has always been as residual of anti-U.S. feeling abroad, serious people have concerns about our unilateral actions adversely affecting their (and our) security.
"Having served overseas, and being a reader of foreign press--as well as having had discussions with foreign officials and laymen, I have heard their concerns about the U.S. going hastily into Iraq and letting Afghanistan go back into the Taliban's hands--mucking things up worse. There is real concern in the UK and other parts about Afghanistan going south. It is becoming a classic case of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. As of now, the Taliban, once on the run, has a permanent presence in 54% of Afghanistan and a lesser presence in over 20% more. That is stunning. If Afghanistan falls back into the hands of the Taliban, it would be a disaster in the struggle against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. This message has been repeated lately in the UK and European media-- but we don't hear much here, and we should - it is that serious. That said, the Europeans need to ante up for NATO--not just the U.S. and the UK.
"Another note, my son, a cow at West Point, noted a spate of recent announcements in the hall about USMA grads killed in Afghanistan. So, there has apparently been a notable up-turn in fighting there."
. . . to which a knowledgeable contributor added:
"In my humble opinion, the center of gravity is the drug gangs. The only reason the Taliban appear to be doing better is that they promise the war lords that any Taliban rule will allow them the autonomy to continue their drug business, whereas, the current Afghan government presents a threat to business. The reputation of the U.S. cutting and running does not help matters."
My reply:
Your counsel is wise. While I may come on a little strong from time to time, I do understand and appreciate how the Europeans feel toward GWB. I would have to admit that my attitudes toward GWB are more closely aligned with the Europeans. And yet, as I hinted in last week's Update, I am disappointed that such learned and experienced leaders as former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt can take such a myopic view of American history, current foreign policy, and the prognosis for the future. In some respects, Schmidt is correct, but in the main, I truly believe he is wrong. I think the Bush-Rumsfeld-Franks-Sanchez gross mismanagement of the post-invasion, ground battle and evolving counter-insurgency in the Battle for Iraq has cost this Grand Republic dearly in probably more ways than I can imagine. However, an analogy that may describe my opinion is . . . what radical fundamentalist Islamists have done to our citizens for nearly 30 years is like a gang of thugs entering my home, killing one of my children, and then claiming my arrogance provoked the attack. Let it suffice to say my probable actions would not be classified as humanitarian or gentlemanly.
With no intent to rationalize W's failures as President, I think that if the Annapolis Conference yields any positive results for peace, we may well credit the breakthrough in Middle East intransigence to the brash, bold commitment of American blood to exposing and eradicating radical Islam. That said, I still believe W made and continues to make huge mistakes in the War on Islamic Fascism.
1. Failure to seek and obtain a full declaration of war,
2. Failure to mobilize the United States for prolonged, global war,
3. Failure to create a unity government,
4. Failure to substantially expand the military to properly take and control the ground,
5. Failure to select the correct military leaders to fight a protracted counter-insurgency, and
6. Failure to constrain non-contributory, domestic spending (earmarks).
I could go on for quite some time, but those are good starters from my perspective. Yet, to this point, I still think the President took the correct action to confront Islamic fascism, but he had very poor follow-through to execute a plan to achieve the objective.
Lastly and most importantly, may God watch over and protect your son as he enters his service to this Grand Republic. Too bad, though, that the Woops are going to lose . . . again! Take care and enjoy, Dad.
Another contribution:
“Re the 2nd amendment questions....I agree with you that the founders wanted the right to bear arms to be an individual right. At the time of the revolution, most of the militia consisted of all males between about 16 and 60 if I remember my history. They used their personal rifles, many of them the Pennsylvania Long Rifles, which were the most potent weapon of the day, far superior to the muskets of the British Army. Basically they took their personal weapons from the closet and shot the legal government of the day. I feel that the founders thought that this was a pretty good defense against an overpowerful government and therefore wanted this protection in the Constitution. The people should be as well armed as the government. I agree with this idea,,,,,however, saying that, the term "arms" included the most deadly weapon of the day and could reasonably include any weapon. Since the government has nerve gas and nuclear weapons, should individuals be allowed these same arms? I like the idea of well armed citizens and keep my rusty old shotgun but am not sure where a wide open interpretation of the second amendment would lead.”
My response:
As I have written, I certainly agree with you on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I eagerly await the ruling of the Supremes. You pose an interesting question . . . are there limits? One boundary would or should be . . . individual versus crew-served weapons. I have a really hard time extending the language and intent of the 2nd Amendment to a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier or an M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank. I also believe there should be a bore limitation, e.g., a solid projectile weapon with a bore greater than 12.7mm; I could argue bigger or smaller, but that seemed reasonable to me. And, I have a really, really, hard time rationalizing any private ownership of special weapons (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical). I inherited a small arsenal from my father, so, added to my existing weapons, I’d say my household is fairly well armed. I have mixed feelings on the prohibitions on automatic weapons established by the National Firearms Act of 1934; I can argue that one either way. While I am a staunch advocate of the individual rights view, I cannot support an unbounded interpretation; there is a monumental difference between a Pennsylvania long rifle and a 20KT thermonuclear device. If We, the People, agree, then the debate rests upon where we draw the line.
. . . with this follow-up:
“Keep up the writing . . . it's a gift but I know also a lot of work . . . .
“Re the second amendment; my thoughts are that the framers wanted the citizens to be as well armed as the government. I approve that idea in principle but carried to its extreme, things gets a bit interesting. Related question, even with the collective interpretation, states should be allowed to maintain any weapon such as nuclear, biological, etc. I guess the Civil war sort of put that argument away by force of arms but the Constitution would still, in my view, allow states to leave the Union and also to maintain any armaments they desired to pay for. If you get bored sometime, look at the movie "The Second Civil War," a comedy about Idaho's leaving the union. Good laughs.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
Beyond writing at work and writing the Update, my principal writing task is continuing my quest for find a good agent to represent my “To So Few” novels . . . a very laborious and frustrating process. But, everyone has said . . . persistence and perseverance, so the search continues.
I make no bones about my apprehension regarding an unbounded interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The collective interpretation . . . perhaps; individual interpretation regarding special weapons . . . I’m sorry, no way. I’ve not seen the movie, but I will look for it.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
Once again, I must offer my condolences to my cousins, Greg and Sandy -- Navy, 38 - Army, 3; and, for the first time in history, one of the two teams has won six (6) straight games. I could say, better luck next year; but instead, I shall say, Go Navy, Beat Army!
The follow-up news items:
-- Wow, the hits just keep coming for the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi announced his intention to resign his seat by the end of this year, which means a special election must be held to fill his seat for the remainder of his term (2012). I wonder how many more veteran Republican senators and representatives are going to bail?
-- Australia Prime Minister John Winston Howard, MP, lost the election, and the United States may have lost a consistent contributor to fighting the War on Islamic Fascism
-- The United States hosted a 50-nation, Middle East Peace conference at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. The conference did not accomplish much in a public sense, and history tells us optimism for Middle East peace is not appropriate, however we can always be surprised.
Just to keep some balance here, please read this essay about Hezbollah:
"Dissecting the 'Party of God'"
by Fred Burton and Reva Bhalla
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: November 28, 2007; 20:03 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/tir.php?utm_source=071128-TIR&utm_medium=email-strat-html&utm_content=071128-TIR-header-read&utm_campaign=TIR
Also, please do not forget that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been, is and will be the predominant financial and leadership sponsor of Hezbollah -- the connection is deep, expansive and durable. So, when you see or hear of Hezbollah, think Iran. The same can be said about Hamas, but not to the same extent as Hezbollah.
A few words of illumination and amplification regarding my opinion on individual rights, majority rule, and the relationship between the individual and government might be helpful. If every citizen could do whatever they wished, whenever and wherever they wanted, we would have anarchy. Society, and on its behalf government, should and must define acceptable public conduct . . . for an orderly, disciplined community. The line is crossed when a willful minority, or even a majority, uses the State to project their beliefs beyond the front door and into the private affairs of other citizens; that simply cannot be seen as freedom. Further, I am all in favor of majority rule, but where that principle must fail occurs when the majority attempts to penetrate the front door. Each and every citizen possesses unalienable rights, endowed by our Creator, that include Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Yet, freedom does not entitle any citizen to cause harm or a denial of rights to any other citizen regardless of the venue. Our society has been out of balance with those Founding principles for many decades now; it is long past time to trim the ship of State.
Twenty-eight retired generals and admirals intend to urge Congress to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, signed into law by President Clinton in 1993.
"A New Push to Roll Back ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’"
by Thom Shanker and Patrick Healy
New York Times
Published: November 30, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/30military.html?th&emc=th
I wrote an essay titled: "Limits on Gender Integration" (25.August.1998) [http://www.parlier.com/web1p03w.htm#gender], in which I argued for restrictions on those who served in the combat arms of the military, based on gender and sexual orientation. I think it is time to listen to General John Malchase David Shalikashvili, USA (Ret.) [265] and the other flag officers. With an estimated 15% of humanity being classified as other than heterosexual, we should rethink our homophobia. For those of us who served on active duty in the 1970's, the military initiated an extraordinary, extended program to eradicate racism within its ranks. While none of us would claim perfection, the program was broadly successful. Using that effort as an example, a similar initiative might well achieve comparable results in eliminating sexism and homophobia. We can grow and mature.
Another recent editorial attracted my attention.
"A Loss for Privacy Rights"
Editorial
New York Times
Published: November 28, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/opinion/28wed2.html?th&emc=th
The catalyst for the Times' editorial staff came from a Supreme Court rejection notice, letting stand a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 4th Amendment ruling. A group of welfare recipients in San Diego County filed suit in objection to the county's Project 100% on the basis that the unannounced, warrantless, home searches were unreasonable, and thus a violation of their constitutional rights. The Appeals' court panel affirmed the district court judgment that the county's welfare fraud prevention program did not violate the Plaintiffs-Appellants’ constitutional right to unreasonable search of their private domain by the government. Of note in the sequence of court rulings is Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson's dissenting opinion in the court's rejection of a rehearing petition in the case. He wrote, "San Diego’s program requires destitute, often disabled, persons and their families to forfeit all rights to privacy to qualify for welfare. The government’s general interest in preventing fraud cannot justify such highly intrusive searches of homes where no grounds for suspicion exist. Welfare applicants are ordinary people who, due to lack of adequate funds, find themselves applying for life-sustaining government benefits." Kind of tugs at your heart strings, doesn't it? Nonetheless, as much as I resent and rail against governmental intrusion in our private lives, there are times when it is appropriate, and here is such an example. The 9th Circuit got it right, despite Harry's objections, and the Supreme Court saw nothing that deserved their action. I have mixed feelings, and yet at the bottom line, welfare funds are cash payments that can be used for anything, and thus are easily abused. Whether we like to admit it, there are people who truly believe the State should take care of them, provide for their wishes and needs, and not ask any questions. Well, there should be conditions on funds from the public treasury, especially those that have essentially no checks and balances.
Comments and contributions from Update no.311:
"Regarding the Europeans--and others in the world's view of the U.S. as being dangerous, it is important to try to understand their point of view, even if one doesn't agree with it. Many feel that the Bush Administration has buggered up things badly in Iraq and as such, has made things much worse in the struggle against terrorism. It isn't as though Europeans and other countries are blind to the Islamist terrorist threat. They feel that they are even more immediately threatened and have their own ways of combating. Indeed, as the former CIA Chief in Europe stated, they are on the front line and we (the U.S.) depend very much on their work (and intel). Many feel that we have made things worse - that is why they say the U.S. is dangerous. One doesn't have to agree - or agree completely with them to see their point of view, which isn't based on coddling terrorists, but in the most effective way to combat them--and in doing so, not inflame more terrorism. BTW, a recent report noted over 6,000 terrorism-related incidents last year, three-fold over 2001 - so there is something to that point. While there has always been as residual of anti-U.S. feeling abroad, serious people have concerns about our unilateral actions adversely affecting their (and our) security.
"Having served overseas, and being a reader of foreign press--as well as having had discussions with foreign officials and laymen, I have heard their concerns about the U.S. going hastily into Iraq and letting Afghanistan go back into the Taliban's hands--mucking things up worse. There is real concern in the UK and other parts about Afghanistan going south. It is becoming a classic case of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. As of now, the Taliban, once on the run, has a permanent presence in 54% of Afghanistan and a lesser presence in over 20% more. That is stunning. If Afghanistan falls back into the hands of the Taliban, it would be a disaster in the struggle against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. This message has been repeated lately in the UK and European media-- but we don't hear much here, and we should - it is that serious. That said, the Europeans need to ante up for NATO--not just the U.S. and the UK.
"Another note, my son, a cow at West Point, noted a spate of recent announcements in the hall about USMA grads killed in Afghanistan. So, there has apparently been a notable up-turn in fighting there."
. . . to which a knowledgeable contributor added:
"In my humble opinion, the center of gravity is the drug gangs. The only reason the Taliban appear to be doing better is that they promise the war lords that any Taliban rule will allow them the autonomy to continue their drug business, whereas, the current Afghan government presents a threat to business. The reputation of the U.S. cutting and running does not help matters."
My reply:
Your counsel is wise. While I may come on a little strong from time to time, I do understand and appreciate how the Europeans feel toward GWB. I would have to admit that my attitudes toward GWB are more closely aligned with the Europeans. And yet, as I hinted in last week's Update, I am disappointed that such learned and experienced leaders as former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt can take such a myopic view of American history, current foreign policy, and the prognosis for the future. In some respects, Schmidt is correct, but in the main, I truly believe he is wrong. I think the Bush-Rumsfeld-Franks-Sanchez gross mismanagement of the post-invasion, ground battle and evolving counter-insurgency in the Battle for Iraq has cost this Grand Republic dearly in probably more ways than I can imagine. However, an analogy that may describe my opinion is . . . what radical fundamentalist Islamists have done to our citizens for nearly 30 years is like a gang of thugs entering my home, killing one of my children, and then claiming my arrogance provoked the attack. Let it suffice to say my probable actions would not be classified as humanitarian or gentlemanly.
With no intent to rationalize W's failures as President, I think that if the Annapolis Conference yields any positive results for peace, we may well credit the breakthrough in Middle East intransigence to the brash, bold commitment of American blood to exposing and eradicating radical Islam. That said, I still believe W made and continues to make huge mistakes in the War on Islamic Fascism.
1. Failure to seek and obtain a full declaration of war,
2. Failure to mobilize the United States for prolonged, global war,
3. Failure to create a unity government,
4. Failure to substantially expand the military to properly take and control the ground,
5. Failure to select the correct military leaders to fight a protracted counter-insurgency, and
6. Failure to constrain non-contributory, domestic spending (earmarks).
I could go on for quite some time, but those are good starters from my perspective. Yet, to this point, I still think the President took the correct action to confront Islamic fascism, but he had very poor follow-through to execute a plan to achieve the objective.
Lastly and most importantly, may God watch over and protect your son as he enters his service to this Grand Republic. Too bad, though, that the Woops are going to lose . . . again! Take care and enjoy, Dad.
Another contribution:
“Re the 2nd amendment questions....I agree with you that the founders wanted the right to bear arms to be an individual right. At the time of the revolution, most of the militia consisted of all males between about 16 and 60 if I remember my history. They used their personal rifles, many of them the Pennsylvania Long Rifles, which were the most potent weapon of the day, far superior to the muskets of the British Army. Basically they took their personal weapons from the closet and shot the legal government of the day. I feel that the founders thought that this was a pretty good defense against an overpowerful government and therefore wanted this protection in the Constitution. The people should be as well armed as the government. I agree with this idea,,,,,however, saying that, the term "arms" included the most deadly weapon of the day and could reasonably include any weapon. Since the government has nerve gas and nuclear weapons, should individuals be allowed these same arms? I like the idea of well armed citizens and keep my rusty old shotgun but am not sure where a wide open interpretation of the second amendment would lead.”
My response:
As I have written, I certainly agree with you on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I eagerly await the ruling of the Supremes. You pose an interesting question . . . are there limits? One boundary would or should be . . . individual versus crew-served weapons. I have a really hard time extending the language and intent of the 2nd Amendment to a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier or an M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank. I also believe there should be a bore limitation, e.g., a solid projectile weapon with a bore greater than 12.7mm; I could argue bigger or smaller, but that seemed reasonable to me. And, I have a really, really, hard time rationalizing any private ownership of special weapons (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical). I inherited a small arsenal from my father, so, added to my existing weapons, I’d say my household is fairly well armed. I have mixed feelings on the prohibitions on automatic weapons established by the National Firearms Act of 1934; I can argue that one either way. While I am a staunch advocate of the individual rights view, I cannot support an unbounded interpretation; there is a monumental difference between a Pennsylvania long rifle and a 20KT thermonuclear device. If We, the People, agree, then the debate rests upon where we draw the line.
. . . with this follow-up:
“Keep up the writing . . . it's a gift but I know also a lot of work . . . .
“Re the second amendment; my thoughts are that the framers wanted the citizens to be as well armed as the government. I approve that idea in principle but carried to its extreme, things gets a bit interesting. Related question, even with the collective interpretation, states should be allowed to maintain any weapon such as nuclear, biological, etc. I guess the Civil war sort of put that argument away by force of arms but the Constitution would still, in my view, allow states to leave the Union and also to maintain any armaments they desired to pay for. If you get bored sometime, look at the movie "The Second Civil War," a comedy about Idaho's leaving the union. Good laughs.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
Beyond writing at work and writing the Update, my principal writing task is continuing my quest for find a good agent to represent my “To So Few” novels . . . a very laborious and frustrating process. But, everyone has said . . . persistence and perseverance, so the search continues.
I make no bones about my apprehension regarding an unbounded interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The collective interpretation . . . perhaps; individual interpretation regarding special weapons . . . I’m sorry, no way. I’ve not seen the movie, but I will look for it.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment