Update from the Heartland
No.320
21.1.08 – 27.1.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.320
21.1.08 – 27.1.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- As you know, I try to avoid criminal prosecution cases; however, there are always exceptions; so it is this week. I note with some pleasure the sentencing of Jose Padilla [AKA Abdullah Al Muhajir] [107, 134, 159, et al] to 17⅓ years in Federal prison. He deserved a far harsher punishment, but this shall suffice for now.
-- A week ago Sunday, a teenage boy, proffering an open box of candy, walked into a group of Iraqi-Sunni, Issawi tribal members near Fallujah, al-Anbar, Iraq, and detonated his concealed explosive vest, killing four and wounding nine. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to who pumped up that boy-suicide-bomber to carry-out his dastardly deed?
-- Discussion continues to percolate from time to time on the supposed “lies” President George W. Bush and his administration told regarding the threat posted by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. I am reminded of history. Was Germany a threat to the United States of America in 1940? Many famous and powerful Americans at the time answered with an emphatic no! In fact, some of those characters advocated for siding with Germany. Did President Franklin Roosevelt “lie” to the American People as he attempted to articulate the threat as he saw it in Germany? Many accused him of such. Is the public ‘desire-to-know’ worth the risk to our intelligence means & methods? Absolutely not, which is why I continue to protest the repeated New York Times’ abusive actions? For the record and in my most humble opinion, President Bush has understated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 2002, and the Islamic Republic of Iran today. If I am correct, how can we be so foolish?
The New York Times has an on-line feature called, bloggingheads.tv, that presents interesting tête-à-tête, webcam, debates between two “experts” on a variety of topics. Previously, I noted a discussion on embryonic stem cell research [315]. This week, I illuminate two blogginheads videos; one on international sex trade:
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=588a2dc1e04102d5542db2a9fac6c7085bc1e08e&8ty&emc=ty
and, the other video clip on Orwellian government surveillance:
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=824ec9ddec63712d1ab510853000c5c372805677
Render your opinions, if you will.
The Senate is considering S.2248 [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2007, or FISA Amendments Act of 2007]. The President has indicated he intends to veto the bill, if it does not include some form of immunity for the telecommunications providers. On this one, I support the President's position. Placing companies at risk because the administration may have exceeded its authority seems grossly unfair, unwise, and otherwise self-destructive. Too many law suits have placed commercial companies at risk, primarily because seeking restitution from the Federal government is so bloody hard. I can understand, accept and appreciate the concern about precedent and the law of unintended consequences. The solution may rest in limited, discreet immunity, by perhaps several constraints. We already have numerous law suits related to the wartime operations: ACLU v. Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc. [289]; Doe v. Gonzales [USDC, SDNY 04 Civ. 2614 (VM) {2007}] [301]; Mayfield v. United States [USDC DO civil no. 04-1427-AA] [303]; and others I have not found yet. None of these court actions are good for the defense of the United States of America. I hope Congress can find the wisdom to move passed this parochial political kerfuffle.
Just because the urge strikes me, I shall offer some thoughts on the nature of education. Children are born with genetically coded, autonomic reflexes that instruct them to breathe, command their hearts to pump blood, and to cry when hungry or discomforted. Beyond the instinctive responses, children are predominately a blank sheet of paper upon which their life-story will be written. Their education generally comes from four broad source categories: home (parents & family), church, school, and society; each area possesses unique responsibilities and contributions. To my way of thinking, the first, foremost and ultimate source is the parental home -- teaching our children to walk, to eat properly, to clean themselves, to talk, and all the other basic functions of life. The difficulty here is the vastly disparate involvement, participation and contribution from parent to parent, regarding the education of their children. The church can offer additional moral training consistent with the family's beliefs, but it is all too often more concerned with indoctrination of future parishioners than in the improvement of children. Then, since we have compulsory education for our children, the schools inherit whatever deficiencies, anomalies, or whatnot; and faced with the common ground along with the need for peace, stability, and a conducive, learning environment, the schools must act to iron out the rough spots -- prime example: the King Middle School, Portland, Maine contraception brouhaha [308]. Schools are often caught in no-man's-land. Then, we add the enormous power of peer pressure -- the need for children to be accepted by their 'friends.' We, including me, criticize schools and governments for failing to deal with our unruly or destructive children; in so doing, we are abdicating our responsibility and ignoring our accountability. While some parents may be quite comfortable abdicating to government and as long as We, the People, tolerate such abdication, we have only ourselves to blame. Perhaps, we tolerate relinquishing our responsibility because we do not wish our performance to be judged, so we seek to avoid condemning others. Whatever the reason(s), we must turn back all these foolish laws that establish the government as parents and enact laws that hold parents accountable for the conduct of their children – the parents are the ultimate source. As we do so, we must find the means to protect and nurture our children, even and especially when children are not wanted. In my humble and unqualified opinion, criminals are created by parents who abuse or neglect their children, who do not teach discipline, moral values, and their place in society. Until we make the hard decisions, find the appropriate solutions, we will continue pasting meager band-aids on symptoms rather than treating the underlying root cause of societal diseases.
For those who subscribe to the Patriot Post, please pardon this repeat. Based on recent Patriot Post editions, I suspect we are going to spend a lot of time talking about religion and politics in this election cycle. I wrote about religion becoming the contemporary racism (319); but more appropriately, to use a redneck colloquialism to put this in proper terms, if you ain’t Christian, you ain’t s**t. Perhaps this is a necessary stage in the evolution of this Grand Republic. This week [Patriot Post, Vol. 08, No. 04; 21 January 2008], Mark Alexander attributed the following quote to Burt Prelutsky:
“One of the obvious differences between Democrats and Republicans is the role that religion plays in their presidential campaigns. For instance, every Democrat, while pretending to believe that ‘separation of church and state’ actually appears somewhere in the Constitution, must also insist that religion plays an essential role in his or her life. But just about the only time you see them going to church is when they’re posing for the cameras while addressing a black Baptist congregation. What’s more, when questioning these people, the liberal media kindly limits itself to a yes or no question regarding the existence of God. However, when the candidates are Republicans, you might get the idea that the members of the MSM were boning up for their theology exams. Is Huckabee too Christian? Does he actually believe the universe was created in six days? When he was a governor, did he go out of his way to commute the sentences of felons because he was a sucker for anyone who announced he’d found Christ in the slammer? Is Giuliani, who contributed to Pro-Choice organizations, flying under false colors as a Catholic? Does Romney really believe that Satan and Jesus are brothers, or at least third cousins, once removed? Why is it, I wonder, that nobody is asking Barack Obama about his religious convictions? From what I’ve gathered, they’re far more fascinating than Mitt Romney’s.”
FYI, MSM = MainStream Media. Now, I must admit I do not know who Burt Prelutsky is, and I am certain he does not who I am and probably could care less, even if he did. Yet, his opinion jacked up my blood pressure a smidge. This religious litmus test for political office ought to scare the bloody hell out of all good and patriotic Americans, and yet, most Americans seem to be oblivious or quite content with such tests. So now, to be a viable candidate one must be a mainstream Christian (I say that since many so-called Christians believe Mormonism is a cult and not part of the Christian faith, and heaven forbid a Muslim should be so audacious), male (heaven forbid, again, a woman should lead us), church-going (as if that is some physical demonstration of religious belief), heterosexual (and probably married, since that is another test, although adultery is tolerable since that is better than homosexuality), and of course, at least for Prelutsky, he must be Republican (as if that is some secret code word for a brother-in-politics who signed the blood oath that government shall dominate the lives of all of us peons). I shudder to think where the turning point is, out ahead of us; we are certainly not there yet. The rise of the uber-Right, fundamentalist, evangelical, so-called Christian pseudo-politicians along with those who actually stand for elected office began in earnest somewhere between the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Roe v. Wade [319]. Like all other societal mood swings – the Inquisition, the Victorian faux prudishness, the Roaring 20’s, the free-love hippy era – this period of politicizing religion and evangelizing politics will be rejected, but not until we see this movement for what it is – megalomania, pure and simple. Until then, I am afraid we shall have to endure the injury, abuse and disgusting oppression in the name of their religion (cuz it certainly ain’t mine). Further, and even more fearful, the Burt Prelutsky’s among us are far more prevalent than the few Cap Parlier’s – so it is, so it shall be. One day, America shall awaken to what is happening; I just hope I live to see the awakening.
Come think of it, with this kerfuffle between Slick Willy and Barack, and the not too distant race and gender topic, what does it say about our citizens as voters when they cast their votes based on any of the social factors (age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, language, political affiliation, physical characteristics, and disability). Well, OK, language might be problem, except W. is not exactly a master of English oratory and rhetoric, and he is a two-term president. Then, there are those who vote based on appearance. The salient question is, what do any of the social factors have to do with performance? Again, one day, we shall realize the social factors have no bearing on performance. Another, well . . . there are limits to everything -- a six-year-old could hardly lead an infantry division, and the Constitution states that only a natural born citizen can be President. Character, strength, courage, commitment, vision, inspiration, oratory, ad infinitum -- these are NOT traits defined by ANY of the social factors. Leadership is not unique to any of the social factors. Sir Winston Churchill was certainly not the best or even a good specimen of humanity, and yet he was arguably the greatest political leader in the last 100 years. Franklin Roosevelt endured significant disability to be an inspirational and visionary wartime president. To paraphrase a famous American, I have a dream that one day this nation will judge our leaders by the content of their character rather than the number of social factors that match our wishes.
As some of you know, either directly or by deduction, I am not a fan of or prone to any of the incessant eMail chain letters I receive from all quarters. Nonetheless, one of the many 're-send' chains sparked my attention, not for the potential exception to my rule, but for what the story represents. This particular sample featured this photograph:
The follow-up news items:
-- As you know, I try to avoid criminal prosecution cases; however, there are always exceptions; so it is this week. I note with some pleasure the sentencing of Jose Padilla [AKA Abdullah Al Muhajir] [107, 134, 159, et al] to 17⅓ years in Federal prison. He deserved a far harsher punishment, but this shall suffice for now.
-- A week ago Sunday, a teenage boy, proffering an open box of candy, walked into a group of Iraqi-Sunni, Issawi tribal members near Fallujah, al-Anbar, Iraq, and detonated his concealed explosive vest, killing four and wounding nine. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to who pumped up that boy-suicide-bomber to carry-out his dastardly deed?
-- Discussion continues to percolate from time to time on the supposed “lies” President George W. Bush and his administration told regarding the threat posted by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. I am reminded of history. Was Germany a threat to the United States of America in 1940? Many famous and powerful Americans at the time answered with an emphatic no! In fact, some of those characters advocated for siding with Germany. Did President Franklin Roosevelt “lie” to the American People as he attempted to articulate the threat as he saw it in Germany? Many accused him of such. Is the public ‘desire-to-know’ worth the risk to our intelligence means & methods? Absolutely not, which is why I continue to protest the repeated New York Times’ abusive actions? For the record and in my most humble opinion, President Bush has understated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 2002, and the Islamic Republic of Iran today. If I am correct, how can we be so foolish?
The New York Times has an on-line feature called, bloggingheads.tv, that presents interesting tête-à-tête, webcam, debates between two “experts” on a variety of topics. Previously, I noted a discussion on embryonic stem cell research [315]. This week, I illuminate two blogginheads videos; one on international sex trade:
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=588a2dc1e04102d5542db2a9fac6c7085bc1e08e&8ty&emc=ty
and, the other video clip on Orwellian government surveillance:
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=824ec9ddec63712d1ab510853000c5c372805677
Render your opinions, if you will.
The Senate is considering S.2248 [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2007, or FISA Amendments Act of 2007]. The President has indicated he intends to veto the bill, if it does not include some form of immunity for the telecommunications providers. On this one, I support the President's position. Placing companies at risk because the administration may have exceeded its authority seems grossly unfair, unwise, and otherwise self-destructive. Too many law suits have placed commercial companies at risk, primarily because seeking restitution from the Federal government is so bloody hard. I can understand, accept and appreciate the concern about precedent and the law of unintended consequences. The solution may rest in limited, discreet immunity, by perhaps several constraints. We already have numerous law suits related to the wartime operations: ACLU v. Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc. [289]; Doe v. Gonzales [USDC, SDNY 04 Civ. 2614 (VM) {2007}] [301]; Mayfield v. United States [USDC DO civil no. 04-1427-AA] [303]; and others I have not found yet. None of these court actions are good for the defense of the United States of America. I hope Congress can find the wisdom to move passed this parochial political kerfuffle.
Just because the urge strikes me, I shall offer some thoughts on the nature of education. Children are born with genetically coded, autonomic reflexes that instruct them to breathe, command their hearts to pump blood, and to cry when hungry or discomforted. Beyond the instinctive responses, children are predominately a blank sheet of paper upon which their life-story will be written. Their education generally comes from four broad source categories: home (parents & family), church, school, and society; each area possesses unique responsibilities and contributions. To my way of thinking, the first, foremost and ultimate source is the parental home -- teaching our children to walk, to eat properly, to clean themselves, to talk, and all the other basic functions of life. The difficulty here is the vastly disparate involvement, participation and contribution from parent to parent, regarding the education of their children. The church can offer additional moral training consistent with the family's beliefs, but it is all too often more concerned with indoctrination of future parishioners than in the improvement of children. Then, since we have compulsory education for our children, the schools inherit whatever deficiencies, anomalies, or whatnot; and faced with the common ground along with the need for peace, stability, and a conducive, learning environment, the schools must act to iron out the rough spots -- prime example: the King Middle School, Portland, Maine contraception brouhaha [308]. Schools are often caught in no-man's-land. Then, we add the enormous power of peer pressure -- the need for children to be accepted by their 'friends.' We, including me, criticize schools and governments for failing to deal with our unruly or destructive children; in so doing, we are abdicating our responsibility and ignoring our accountability. While some parents may be quite comfortable abdicating to government and as long as We, the People, tolerate such abdication, we have only ourselves to blame. Perhaps, we tolerate relinquishing our responsibility because we do not wish our performance to be judged, so we seek to avoid condemning others. Whatever the reason(s), we must turn back all these foolish laws that establish the government as parents and enact laws that hold parents accountable for the conduct of their children – the parents are the ultimate source. As we do so, we must find the means to protect and nurture our children, even and especially when children are not wanted. In my humble and unqualified opinion, criminals are created by parents who abuse or neglect their children, who do not teach discipline, moral values, and their place in society. Until we make the hard decisions, find the appropriate solutions, we will continue pasting meager band-aids on symptoms rather than treating the underlying root cause of societal diseases.
For those who subscribe to the Patriot Post, please pardon this repeat. Based on recent Patriot Post editions, I suspect we are going to spend a lot of time talking about religion and politics in this election cycle. I wrote about religion becoming the contemporary racism (319); but more appropriately, to use a redneck colloquialism to put this in proper terms, if you ain’t Christian, you ain’t s**t. Perhaps this is a necessary stage in the evolution of this Grand Republic. This week [Patriot Post, Vol. 08, No. 04; 21 January 2008], Mark Alexander attributed the following quote to Burt Prelutsky:
“One of the obvious differences between Democrats and Republicans is the role that religion plays in their presidential campaigns. For instance, every Democrat, while pretending to believe that ‘separation of church and state’ actually appears somewhere in the Constitution, must also insist that religion plays an essential role in his or her life. But just about the only time you see them going to church is when they’re posing for the cameras while addressing a black Baptist congregation. What’s more, when questioning these people, the liberal media kindly limits itself to a yes or no question regarding the existence of God. However, when the candidates are Republicans, you might get the idea that the members of the MSM were boning up for their theology exams. Is Huckabee too Christian? Does he actually believe the universe was created in six days? When he was a governor, did he go out of his way to commute the sentences of felons because he was a sucker for anyone who announced he’d found Christ in the slammer? Is Giuliani, who contributed to Pro-Choice organizations, flying under false colors as a Catholic? Does Romney really believe that Satan and Jesus are brothers, or at least third cousins, once removed? Why is it, I wonder, that nobody is asking Barack Obama about his religious convictions? From what I’ve gathered, they’re far more fascinating than Mitt Romney’s.”
FYI, MSM = MainStream Media. Now, I must admit I do not know who Burt Prelutsky is, and I am certain he does not who I am and probably could care less, even if he did. Yet, his opinion jacked up my blood pressure a smidge. This religious litmus test for political office ought to scare the bloody hell out of all good and patriotic Americans, and yet, most Americans seem to be oblivious or quite content with such tests. So now, to be a viable candidate one must be a mainstream Christian (I say that since many so-called Christians believe Mormonism is a cult and not part of the Christian faith, and heaven forbid a Muslim should be so audacious), male (heaven forbid, again, a woman should lead us), church-going (as if that is some physical demonstration of religious belief), heterosexual (and probably married, since that is another test, although adultery is tolerable since that is better than homosexuality), and of course, at least for Prelutsky, he must be Republican (as if that is some secret code word for a brother-in-politics who signed the blood oath that government shall dominate the lives of all of us peons). I shudder to think where the turning point is, out ahead of us; we are certainly not there yet. The rise of the uber-Right, fundamentalist, evangelical, so-called Christian pseudo-politicians along with those who actually stand for elected office began in earnest somewhere between the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Roe v. Wade [319]. Like all other societal mood swings – the Inquisition, the Victorian faux prudishness, the Roaring 20’s, the free-love hippy era – this period of politicizing religion and evangelizing politics will be rejected, but not until we see this movement for what it is – megalomania, pure and simple. Until then, I am afraid we shall have to endure the injury, abuse and disgusting oppression in the name of their religion (cuz it certainly ain’t mine). Further, and even more fearful, the Burt Prelutsky’s among us are far more prevalent than the few Cap Parlier’s – so it is, so it shall be. One day, America shall awaken to what is happening; I just hope I live to see the awakening.
Come think of it, with this kerfuffle between Slick Willy and Barack, and the not too distant race and gender topic, what does it say about our citizens as voters when they cast their votes based on any of the social factors (age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, language, political affiliation, physical characteristics, and disability). Well, OK, language might be problem, except W. is not exactly a master of English oratory and rhetoric, and he is a two-term president. Then, there are those who vote based on appearance. The salient question is, what do any of the social factors have to do with performance? Again, one day, we shall realize the social factors have no bearing on performance. Another, well . . . there are limits to everything -- a six-year-old could hardly lead an infantry division, and the Constitution states that only a natural born citizen can be President. Character, strength, courage, commitment, vision, inspiration, oratory, ad infinitum -- these are NOT traits defined by ANY of the social factors. Leadership is not unique to any of the social factors. Sir Winston Churchill was certainly not the best or even a good specimen of humanity, and yet he was arguably the greatest political leader in the last 100 years. Franklin Roosevelt endured significant disability to be an inspirational and visionary wartime president. To paraphrase a famous American, I have a dream that one day this nation will judge our leaders by the content of their character rather than the number of social factors that match our wishes.
As some of you know, either directly or by deduction, I am not a fan of or prone to any of the incessant eMail chain letters I receive from all quarters. Nonetheless, one of the many 're-send' chains sparked my attention, not for the potential exception to my rule, but for what the story represents. This particular sample featured this photograph:
[Marine prayer.jpg]The image is of Marines in prayer, apparently, at a Corps birthday ceremony. So the story goes, the ACLU objected, citing the Marines as Federal employees, on Federal property during work hours, and thus, according to the ACLU, violating the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The story continues that a Marine officer, speaking for the Commandant, responded to the ACLU’s charges with a simple, direct, unambiguous, expletive-enhanced rejection. My point for recounting the story, even if not factual, is the persistent debate regarding the separation of church and state. While I am an absolute, unwavering advocate for Jefferson’s observation, this is yet another example of political correctness gone dreadfully wrong. There is a mischievous part of me that hopes the story is true, and that the ACLU files suit, just so I can revel in a judge slapping the ACLU in the face along with a stern admonition for insulting the court and the Corps. And, I must say, if this story is true, no wonder citizens of faith get so fired up about these religion expunging exercises.
Comments and contributions from Update no.319:
"It is sad to think a G-suit could have saved the Blue. Let's see if this initiates a change for the better."
My response:
Hopefully! Unfortunately, machismo has a tendency to produce those results.
Another contribution:
"Would you try to image verifying and agreeing on signatures? Remember the 'hanging chads?' We still do not have agreement on what is a countable vote and what is not.
"The present primaries and the next elections will deal with electronic voting and there will be no end to the court cases. There are already many rumors of election fraud or irregularities. Can you imagine the chaos around signatures?"
"If you have been watching the History Channel or the Military Channel lately, you would have seen and heard of many instances where it was clearly spoken that, '…no prisoners were taken, or We sealed off the caves and we knew women and children were in there but there was no other way to ensure our safety.'
"We, as a nation, have become too soft in dealing with enemies in war and with murderers outside of war; the Muslim fanatics have not and I am afraid that through appeasement and being overly concerned about 'not appearing politically correct to ourselves and the rest of the world,' we are more and more in danger of losing the greatest war we might ever be engaged in – the war against Muslim fanaticism and terrorism."
My reply:
Well said on both counts.
The signature ‘honor’ system has been in existence all my voting life. We still hear whining about the 2000 election fiasco. And, we constantly hear these incessant rants about electronic voting. We moved trillions of dollars electronically. I have been using on-line banking for many years, and ‘the system’ has caught several anomalies and protected our bank accounts from penetration or abuse. We have used electronic, paperless machines in Butler County, Kansas, for the last handful of elections, and I think it is the best, most accurate, and positive voting system I’ve used to date. There is no such thing as a 100% hacker-free electronic system, not even our bank accounts; but, the systems are set up with layers of security to: 1.) make it hard to hack, and 2.) to identify penetrations quickly. Hollywood is great at creating horror shows, but reality rarely comes even close to Hollywood’s imagination. As I said, let’s get on with it.
There are more than a few of us who agree with your opinion regarding the War on Islamic Fascism. Time shall tell whether we are up to the challenge.
Another comment:
"Right on, good commentary and right to the heart of the issues especially Huckabee."
My response:
I try. But, remember, I make no claim to being right!
. . . with this follow-up:
"The important thing is you make people think and evaluate between what they get from the yellow press and your views."
. . . and my follow-up response:
That is my intent . . . to stimulate thinking, to encourage vigorous debate. I truly enjoy a good argument . . . makes me think. I have been accused of preaching; that is NOT my intent, for preaching connotes correctness, and I make no such claim. I know some of my opinions stir the emotions and probably upset some, but my purpose is not to offend . . . only to think. And, my opinions are meant to be a catalyst, a precipitant.
A contribution from another thread:
"Yet even ONE life lost in a war that has not been prosecuted, in my opinion, in the right way, is too many. Have we not learned from Korea and Vietnam? No, we haven't. Many reasons WHY we haven't, but the bottom line is the same. We haven't.
"There is ONLY one way to fight ANY war! Absolutely superior, no holds barred, no quarter asked and none given, total destruction of the enemy's ability to wage ANY kind of war against you. Put him DOWN---period!!! And do it as quickly as possible, using whatever methods you have available. Keep the civilian politicians, naysayers, and pundits out of it. They will only muddle the waters.
"Then, after some appropriate time, and only IF the enemy has seen the light, so to speak, help him get back on his feet to take a new direction."
My reply:
And, my opinion as well. War is like a pistol shot . . . shoot to kill; there is no Hollywood 'wing 'im' nonsense. The sooner we get it over with, the sooner we can return to peace.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
Comments and contributions from Update no.319:
"It is sad to think a G-suit could have saved the Blue. Let's see if this initiates a change for the better."
My response:
Hopefully! Unfortunately, machismo has a tendency to produce those results.
Another contribution:
"Would you try to image verifying and agreeing on signatures? Remember the 'hanging chads?' We still do not have agreement on what is a countable vote and what is not.
"The present primaries and the next elections will deal with electronic voting and there will be no end to the court cases. There are already many rumors of election fraud or irregularities. Can you imagine the chaos around signatures?"
"If you have been watching the History Channel or the Military Channel lately, you would have seen and heard of many instances where it was clearly spoken that, '…no prisoners were taken, or We sealed off the caves and we knew women and children were in there but there was no other way to ensure our safety.'
"We, as a nation, have become too soft in dealing with enemies in war and with murderers outside of war; the Muslim fanatics have not and I am afraid that through appeasement and being overly concerned about 'not appearing politically correct to ourselves and the rest of the world,' we are more and more in danger of losing the greatest war we might ever be engaged in – the war against Muslim fanaticism and terrorism."
My reply:
Well said on both counts.
The signature ‘honor’ system has been in existence all my voting life. We still hear whining about the 2000 election fiasco. And, we constantly hear these incessant rants about electronic voting. We moved trillions of dollars electronically. I have been using on-line banking for many years, and ‘the system’ has caught several anomalies and protected our bank accounts from penetration or abuse. We have used electronic, paperless machines in Butler County, Kansas, for the last handful of elections, and I think it is the best, most accurate, and positive voting system I’ve used to date. There is no such thing as a 100% hacker-free electronic system, not even our bank accounts; but, the systems are set up with layers of security to: 1.) make it hard to hack, and 2.) to identify penetrations quickly. Hollywood is great at creating horror shows, but reality rarely comes even close to Hollywood’s imagination. As I said, let’s get on with it.
There are more than a few of us who agree with your opinion regarding the War on Islamic Fascism. Time shall tell whether we are up to the challenge.
Another comment:
"Right on, good commentary and right to the heart of the issues especially Huckabee."
My response:
I try. But, remember, I make no claim to being right!
. . . with this follow-up:
"The important thing is you make people think and evaluate between what they get from the yellow press and your views."
. . . and my follow-up response:
That is my intent . . . to stimulate thinking, to encourage vigorous debate. I truly enjoy a good argument . . . makes me think. I have been accused of preaching; that is NOT my intent, for preaching connotes correctness, and I make no such claim. I know some of my opinions stir the emotions and probably upset some, but my purpose is not to offend . . . only to think. And, my opinions are meant to be a catalyst, a precipitant.
A contribution from another thread:
"Yet even ONE life lost in a war that has not been prosecuted, in my opinion, in the right way, is too many. Have we not learned from Korea and Vietnam? No, we haven't. Many reasons WHY we haven't, but the bottom line is the same. We haven't.
"There is ONLY one way to fight ANY war! Absolutely superior, no holds barred, no quarter asked and none given, total destruction of the enemy's ability to wage ANY kind of war against you. Put him DOWN---period!!! And do it as quickly as possible, using whatever methods you have available. Keep the civilian politicians, naysayers, and pundits out of it. They will only muddle the waters.
"Then, after some appropriate time, and only IF the enemy has seen the light, so to speak, help him get back on his feet to take a new direction."
My reply:
And, my opinion as well. War is like a pistol shot . . . shoot to kill; there is no Hollywood 'wing 'im' nonsense. The sooner we get it over with, the sooner we can return to peace.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment