Christmas is a holiday shared and celebrated by many religions. What is the meaning of Christmas? Where did the customs and traditions originate?
Most if not all of the customs of Christmas pre-date the birth of Jesus, and Christmas is a collection of traditions and practices taken from many cultures and nations.
The date of December 25th comes from Rome and was a celebration of the Italic god, Saturn, and the rebirth of the sun god.
This was done long before the birth of Jesus.
The evergreen tree was a symbol of the essence of life and was regarded as fertility symbol. Holly and mistletoe were hung in doorways of temples and homes to invoke powers of fertility in those who stood under them and kissed.
The Puritans in England, and later in Massachusetts Colony, outlawed this holiday as witchcraft.
Near the end of the nineteenth century there was a revival of the celebration of Christmas. Today, Christian churches mimic what used to be considered witchcraft.
Consider for a moment; people believing themselves to be Christian worship God by involving themselves with customs and traditions which have pagan origin. Do you suppose this is what the Israelites did when they failed to obey God's instructions to destroy the people in the lands He was giving to them?
People unnecessarily become concerned about Jesus being taken out of Christmas. He was never in it. So enjoy the Holidays....
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Bye Bye Tookie
The execution of Tookie Williams has brought several issues to public discussion.
The first issue is the death penalty itself. Would Williams have been sentenced to die if he had been white? Remember the way he looked when he was younger. He looked pretty mean. He was big; he had “big hair.” He looked like he would have committed the crimes. Do you suppose he actually did?
The second issue involves the entertainment industry. Where were they 24 years ago and in the interim? They waited until after Williams had exhausted all his appeals. They failed to understand that over those 24 years Williams had failed to make his case. None of his appeals were based on the lack of evidence to convict him.
The third issue is the one where we punish people we don't like and absolve those we like. Victim impact statements are proof of that point. Punishment of the convicted should not matter how nice the victim was or how horrible a person they were; if they were a good family person or a vagrant; if they were despised by thousands or if they were loved by thousands. The punishment should fit the crime regardless.
Tookie Williams has shown all of his “little” friends that if you commit the crime you pay for it. Kill and be killed. His gang, the Crips, is much larger than Manson’s family and during the past 24 years has been responsible for hundreds if not thousands of deaths and caused many others to fear for their lives. Why not get on the bandwagon to free Manson and his cronies?
Maybe when someone is sentenced to prison or to death the judge should add the disclaimer "unless you write a book or unless the entertainment industry likes you and in the case of the death penalty if you can string out your appeals for 20 years we will let you go free."
The first issue is the death penalty itself. Would Williams have been sentenced to die if he had been white? Remember the way he looked when he was younger. He looked pretty mean. He was big; he had “big hair.” He looked like he would have committed the crimes. Do you suppose he actually did?
The second issue involves the entertainment industry. Where were they 24 years ago and in the interim? They waited until after Williams had exhausted all his appeals. They failed to understand that over those 24 years Williams had failed to make his case. None of his appeals were based on the lack of evidence to convict him.
The third issue is the one where we punish people we don't like and absolve those we like. Victim impact statements are proof of that point. Punishment of the convicted should not matter how nice the victim was or how horrible a person they were; if they were a good family person or a vagrant; if they were despised by thousands or if they were loved by thousands. The punishment should fit the crime regardless.
Tookie Williams has shown all of his “little” friends that if you commit the crime you pay for it. Kill and be killed. His gang, the Crips, is much larger than Manson’s family and during the past 24 years has been responsible for hundreds if not thousands of deaths and caused many others to fear for their lives. Why not get on the bandwagon to free Manson and his cronies?
Maybe when someone is sentenced to prison or to death the judge should add the disclaimer "unless you write a book or unless the entertainment industry likes you and in the case of the death penalty if you can string out your appeals for 20 years we will let you go free."
Monday, December 12, 2005
Paul Harvey's OnAir Prayer
Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, "The Rest of the Story."
Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,but that is exactly what we have done.
We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.
We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.
We have killed our unborn and called it choice.
We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem.
We have abused power and called it politics. We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.
We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.
We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.
Search us, Oh God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free.
Amen!
Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,but that is exactly what we have done.
We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.
We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.
We have killed our unborn and called it choice.
We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem.
We have abused power and called it politics. We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.
We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.
We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.
Search us, Oh God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free.
Amen!
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays; Why do you care?
A cursory look at the history of our country makes one aware how much the founders were of God and that He gave to all humans certain inalienable rights. Further searches into the history of our country suggest that God was a significant factor in the successful establishment of our country. If you don't accept that idea then you must accept the country was the recipient of a number of coincidental accidents, any of which would have meant the failure of the country to exist as it does today. Without the United States of America imagine how different the world would be today.
Most people considering themselves Christian, acknowledge Jesus was born at a time other than December and that the holiday known as Christmas came out of other celebrations as a matter of convenience.
Religious based celebrations fall into a category of things people do not like to see change but whether one says "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" is insignificant in light of the direction of our country as it speeds away from acknowledging God. For those of us believing the Bible is from God we accept what is written in it as true or we must accept that the Bible is nothing and therefore is to be discarded. One can find in the Bible that God establishes governments and removes governments. If the Bible is what it claims to be that statement is true. With that belief in mind as this country speeds away from God we become a candidate for being removed. We must be concerned for that.
So whether one says "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" or says nothing is trite compared to the consequences of our actions and our running away from God.
Most people considering themselves Christian, acknowledge Jesus was born at a time other than December and that the holiday known as Christmas came out of other celebrations as a matter of convenience.
Religious based celebrations fall into a category of things people do not like to see change but whether one says "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" is insignificant in light of the direction of our country as it speeds away from acknowledging God. For those of us believing the Bible is from God we accept what is written in it as true or we must accept that the Bible is nothing and therefore is to be discarded. One can find in the Bible that God establishes governments and removes governments. If the Bible is what it claims to be that statement is true. With that belief in mind as this country speeds away from God we become a candidate for being removed. We must be concerned for that.
So whether one says "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" or says nothing is trite compared to the consequences of our actions and our running away from God.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Vietnam 1969 aka Iraq 2005
Below is a copy of President Nixon's speech in 1969 followed by an article describing the events of 1975 when the United States finally got around to declaring victory and riding out of town on a white horse.
Read and decide for yourself was it worth it? In 30 years will Iraq have been worth it?
President Nixon’s speech on the plan for Peace during the Vietnam War, 1969
Good evening, my fellow Americans:
Tonight I want to talk to you on a subject of deep concern to all Americans and to many people in all parts of the world--the war in Vietnam.
I believe that one of the reasons for the deep division about Vietnam is that many Americans have lost confidence in what their Government has told them about our policy. The American people cannot and should not be asked to support a policy which involves the overriding issues of war and peace unless they know the truth about that policy.
Tonight, therefore, I would like to answer some of the questions that I know are on the minds of many of you listening to me.
How and why did America get involved in Vietnam in the first place?
How has this administration changed the policy of the previous administration?
What has really happened in the negotiations in Paris and on the battlefront in Vietnam?
What choices do we have if we are to end the war?
What are the prospects for peace?
Now, let me begin by describing the situation I found when I was inaugurated on January 20:
The war had been going on for 4 years; 31,000 Americans had been killed in action; The training program for the South Vietnamese was behind schedule; 540,000 Americans were in Vietnam with no plans to reduce the number; No progress had been made at the negotiations in Paris and the United States had not put forth a comprehensive peace proposal; The war was causing deep division at home and criticism from many of our friends as well as our enemies abroad.
In view of these circumstances there were some who urged that I end the war at once by ordering the immediate withdrawal of all American forces.
From a political standpoint this would have been a popular and easy course to follow. After all, we became involved in the war while my predecessor was in office. I could blame the defeat which would be the result of my action on him and come out as the Peacemaker. Some put it to me quite bluntly: This was the only way to avoid allowing Johnsons war to become Nixon's war.
But I had a greater obligation than to think only of the years of my administration and of the next election. I had to think of the effect of my decision on the next generation and on the future of peace and freedom in America and in the world.
Let us all understand that the question before us is not whether some Americans are for peace and some Americans are against peace. The question at issue is not whether Johnson's war becomes Nixon's war.
The great question is: How can we win America's peace?
Well, let us turn now to the fundamental issue. Why and how did the United States become involved in Vietnam in the first place?
Fifteen years ago North Vietnam, with the logistical support of Communist China and the Soviet Union, launched a campaign to impose a Communist government on South Vietnam by instigating and supporting a revolution.
In response to the request of the Government of South Vietnam, President Eisenhower sent economic aid and military equipment to assist the people of South Vietnam in their efforts to prevent a Communist takeover. Seven years ago, President Kennedy sent 16,000 military personnel to Vietnam as combat advisers. Four years ago, President Johnson sent American combat forces to South Vietnam.
Now, many believe that President Johnsons decision to send American combat forces to South Vietnam was wrong. And many others-I among them-have been strongly critical of the way the war has been conducted.
But the question facing us today is: Now that we are in the war, what is the best way to end it?
In January I could only conclude that the precipitate withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam would be a disaster not only for South Vietnam but for the United States and for the cause of peace.
For the South Vietnamese, our precipitate withdrawal would inevitably allow the Communists to repeat the massacres which followed their takeover in the North 15 years before.
They then murdered more than 50,000 people and hundreds of thousands more died in slave labor camps.
We saw a prelude of what would happen in South Vietnam when the Communists entered the city of Hue last year. During their brief rule there, there was a bloody reign of terror in which 3,000 civilians were clubbed, shot to death, and buried in mass graves.
With the sudden collapse of our support, these atrocities of Hue would become the nightmare of the entire nation-and particularly for the million and a half Catholic refugees who fled to South Vietnam when the Communists took over in the North.
For the United States, this first defeat in our Nation's history would result in a collapse of confidence in American leadership, not only in Asia but throughout the world.
Three American Presidents have recognized the great stakes involved in Vietnam and understood what had to be done.
In 1963, President Kennedy, with his characteristic eloquence and clarity, said: ". . . we want to see a stable government there, carrying on a struggle to maintain its national independence.
"We believe strongly in that. We are not going to withdraw from that effort. In my opinion, for us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Viet-Nam, but Southeast Asia. So we are going to stay there."
President Eisenhower and President Johnson expressed the same conclusion during their terms of office.
For the future of peace, precipitate withdrawal would thus be a disaster of immense magnitude.
A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends.
Our defeat and humiliation in South Vietnam without question would promote recklessness in the councils of those great powers who have not yet abandoned their goals of world conquest.
This would spark violence wherever our commitments help maintain the peace-in the Middle East, in Berlin, eventually even in the Western Hemisphere.
Ultimately, this would cost more lives.
It would not bring peace; it would bring more war.
For these reasons, I rejected the recommendation that I should end the war by immediately withdrawing all of our forces. I chose instead to change American policy on both the negotiating front and battlefront.
In order to end a war fought on many fronts, I initiated a pursuit for peace on many fronts.
In a television speech on May 14, in a speech before the United Nations, and on a number of other occasions I set forth our peace proposals in great detail.
We have offered the complete withdrawal of all outside forces within 1 year.
We have proposed a cease-fire under international supervision.
We have offered free elections under international supervision with the Communists participating in the organization and conduct of the elections as an organized political force. And the Saigon Government has pledged to accept the result of the elections.
We have not put forth our proposals on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. We have indicated that we are willing to discuss the proposals that have been put forth by the other side. We have declared that anything is negotiable except the right of the people of South Vietnam to determine their own future. At the Paris peace conference, Ambassador Lodge has demonstrated our flexibility and good faith in 40 public meetings.
Hanoi has refused even to discuss our proposals. They demand our unconditional acceptance of their terms, which are that we withdraw all American forces immediately and unconditionally and that we overthrow the Government of South Vietnam as we leave.
We have not limited our peace initiatives to public forums and public statements. I recognized, in January, that a long and bitter war like this usually cannot be settled in a public forum. That is why in addition to the public statements and negotiations I have explored every possible private avenue that might lead to a settlement.
Tonight I am taking the unprecedented step of disclosing to you some of our other initiatives for peace-initiatives we undertook privately and secretly because we thought we thereby might open a door which publicly would be closed.
I did not wait for my inauguration to begin my quest for peace.
Soon after my election, through an individual who is directly in contact on a personal basis with the leaders of North Vietnam, I made two private offers for a rapid, comprehensive settlement. Hanoi's replies called in effect for our surrender before negotiations.
Since the Soviet Union furnishes most of the military equipment for North Vietnam, Secretary of State Rogers, my Assistant for National Security Affairs, Dr. Kissinger, Ambassador Lodge, and I, personally, have met on a number of occasions with representatives of the Soviet Government to enlist their assistance in getting meaningful negotiations started. In addition, we have had extended discussions directed toward that same end with representatives of other governments which have diplomatic relations with North Vietnam. None of these initiatives have to date produced results.
In mid-July, I became convinced that it was necessary to make a major move to break the deadlock in the Paris talks. I spoke directly in this office, where I am now sitting, with an individual who had known Ho Chi Minh [President, Democratic Republic of Vietnam] on a personal basis for 25 years. Through him I sent a letter to Ho Chi Minh.
I did this outside of the usual diplomatic channels with the hope that with the necessity of making statements for propaganda removed, there might be constructive progress toward bringing the war to an end. Let me read from that letter to you now.
"Dear Mr. President:
"I realize that it is difficult to communicate meaningfully across the gulf of four years of war. But precisely because of this gulf, I wanted to take this opportunity to reaffirm in all solemnity my desire to work for a just peace. I deeply believe that the war in Vietnam has gone on too long and delay in bringing it to an end can benefit no one-least of all the people of Vietnam. . . .
"The time has come to move forward at the conference table toward an early
resolution of this tragic war. You will find us forthcoming and open-minded in a common effort to bring the blessings of peace to the brave people of Vietnam. Let history record that at this critical juncture, both sides turned their face toward peace rather than toward conflict and war."
I received Ho Chi Minhs reply on August 30, 3 days before his death. It simply reiterated the public position North Vietnam had taken at Paris and flatly rejected my initiative.
The full text of both letters is being released to the press.
In addition to the public meetings that I have referred to, Ambassador Lodge has met with Vietnam's chief negotiator in Paris in II private sessions.
We have taken other significant initiatives which must remain secret to keep open some channels of communication which may still prove to be productive.
But the effect of all the public, private, and secret negotiations which have been undertaken since the bombing halt a year ago and since this administration came into office on January 20, can be summed up in one sentence: No progress whatever has been made except agreement on the shape of the bargaining table.
Well now, who is at fault?
It has become clear that the obstacle in negotiating an end to the war is not the President of the United States. It is not the South Vietnamese Government.
The obstacle is the other side's absolute refusal to show the least willingness to join us in seeking a just peace. And it will not do so while it is convinced that all it has to do is to wait for our next concession, and our next concession after that one, until it gets everything it wants.
There can now be no longer any question that progress in negotiation depends only on Hanoi's deciding to negotiate, to negotiate seriously.
I realize that this report on our efforts on the diplomatic front is discouraging to the American people, but the American people are entitled to know the truth-the bad news as well as the good news where the lives of our young men are involved.
Now let me turn, however, to a more encouraging report on another front.
At the time we launched our search for peace I recognized we might not succeed in bringing an end to the war through negotiation. I, therefore, put into effect another plan to bring peace-a plan which will bring the war to an end regardless of
what happens on the negotiating front.
It is in line with a major shift in U.S. foreign policy which I described in my press conference at Guam on July, 25. Let me briefly explain what has been described as the Nixon Doctrine-a policy which not only will help end the war in Vietnam, but which is an essential element of our program to prevent future Vietnams.
We Americans are a do-it-yourself people. We are an impatient people. Instead of teaching someone else to do a job, we like to do it ourselves. And this trait has been carried over into our foreign policy.
In Korea and again in Vietnam, the United States furnished most of the money, most of the arms, and most of the men to help the people of those countries defend their freedom against Communist aggression.
Before any American troops were committed to Vietnam, a leader of another Asian country expressed this opinion to me when I was traveling in Asia as a private citizen. He said: "When you are trying to assist another nation defend its freedom, U.S. policy should be to help them fight the war but not to fight the war for them."
Well, in accordance with this wise counsel, I laid down in Guam three principles as guidelines for future American policy toward Asia:
First, the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments.
Second, we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security.
Third, in cases involving other types of aggression, we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.
After I announced this policy, I found that the leaders of the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, South Korea, and other nations which might be threatened by Communist aggression, welcomed this new direction in American foreign policy.
The defense of freedom is everybody's business-not just Americas business. And it is particularly the responsibility of the people whose freedom is threatened. In the previous administration, we Americanized the war in Vietnam. In this administration, we are Vietnamizing the search for peace.
The policy of the previous administration not only resulted in our assuming the primary responsibility for fighting the war, but even more significantly did not adequately stress the goal of strengthening the South Vietnamese so that they could defend themselves when we left.
The Vietnamization plan was launched following Secretary Laird's visit to Vietnam in March. Under the plan, I ordered first a substantial increase in the training and equipment of South Vietnamese forces.
In July, on my visit to Vietnam, I changed General Abrams orders so that they were consistent with the objectives of our new policies. Under the new orders, the primary mission of our troops is to enable the South Vietnamese forces to assume the full responsibility for the security of South Vietnam.
Our air operations have been reduced by over 20 percent.
And now we have begun to see the results of this long overdue change in American policy in Vietnam: After 5 years of Americans going into Vietnam, we are finally bringing American men home. By December 15, over 60,000 men will have been withdrawn from South Vietnam-including 20 percent of all of our combat forces. The South Vietnamese have continued to gain in strength. As a result they have been able to take over combat responsibilities from our American troops.
Two other significant developments have occurred since this administration took office: Enemy infiltration, infiltration which is essential if they are to launch a major attack, over the last 3 months is less than 20 percent of what it was over the same period last year. Most important-United States casualties have declined during the last 2 months to the lowest point in 3 years.
Let me now turn to our program for the future.
We have adopted a plan which we have worked out in cooperation with the South Vietnamese for the complete withdrawal of all U.S. combat ground forces, and their replacement by South Vietnamese forces on an orderly scheduled timetable. This withdrawal will be made from strength and not from weakness. As South Vietnamese forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can become greater.
I have not and do not intend to announce the timetable for our program. And there are obvious reasons for this decision which I am sure you will understand. As I have indicated on several occasions, the rate of withdrawal will depend on developments on three fronts.
One of these is the progress which can be or might be made in the Paris talks. An announcement of a fixed timetable for our withdrawal would completely remove any incentive for the enemy to negotiate an agreement. They would simply wait until our forces had withdrawn and then move in.
The other two factors on which we will base our withdrawal decisions are the level of enemy activity and the progress of the training programs of the South Vietnamese forces. And I am glad to be able to report tonight progress on both of these fronts has been greater than we anticipated when we started the program in June for withdrawal. As a result, our timetable for withdrawal is more optimistic now than when we made our first estimates in June. Now, this clearly demonstrates why it is not wise to be frozen in on a fixed timetable.
We must retain the flexibility to base each withdrawal decision on the situation as it is at that time rather than on estimates that are no longer valid.
Along with this optimistic estimate, I must-in all candor-leave one note of caution.
If the level of enemy activity significantly increases we might have to adjust our timetable accordingly.
However, I want the record to be completely clear on one point.
At the time of the bombing halt just a year ago, there was some confusion as to whether there was an understanding on the part of the enemy that if we stopped the bombing of North Vietnam they would stop the shelling of cities in South Vietnam. I want to be sure that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the enemy with regard to our withdrawal Program.
We have noted the reduced level of infiltration, the reduction of our casualties, and are basing our withdrawal decisions partially on those factors.
If the level of infiltration or our casualties increase while we are trying to scale down the fighting, it will be the result of a conscious decision by the enemy.
Hanoi could make no greater mistake than to assume that an increase in violence will be to its advantage. If I conclude that increased enemy action jeopardizes our remaining forces in Vietnam, I shall not hesitate to take strong and effective measures to deal with that situation.
This is not a threat. This is a statement of policy, which as Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, I am making in meeting my responsibility for the protection of American fighting men wherever they may be.
My fellow Americans, I am sure you can recognize from what I have said that we really only have two choices open to us if we want to end this war: I can order an immediate, precipitate withdrawal of all Americans from Vietnam without regard to the effects of that action. Or we can persist in our search for a just peace through a negotiated settlement if possible, or through continued implementation of our plan for Vietnamization if necessary-a plan in which we will withdraw all of our forces from Vietnam on a schedule in accordance with our program, as the South Vietnamese become strong enough to defend their own freedom.
I have chosen this second course.
It is not the easy way.
It is the right way.
It is a plan which will end the war and serve the cause of peace-not just in Vietnam but in the Pacific and in the world.
In speaking of the consequences of a precipitate withdrawal, I mentioned that our allies would lose confidence in America.
Far more dangerous, we would lose confidence in ourselves. Oh, the immediate reaction would be a sense of relief that our men were coming home. But as we saw the consequences of what we had done, inevitable remorse and divisive recrimination would scar our spirit as a people.
We have faced other crisis in our history and have become stronger by rejecting the easy way out and taking the right way in meeting our challenges. Our greatness as a nation has been our capacity to do what had to be done when we knew our course was right.
I recognize that some of my fellow citizens disagree with the plan for peace I have chosen. Honest and patriotic Americans have reached different conclusions as to how peace should be achieved.
In San Francisco a few weeks ago, I saw demonstrators carrying signs reading: "Lose in Vietnam, bring the boys home."
Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view. But as President of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this Nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the Nation by mounting demonstrations in the street.
For almost 200 years, the policy of this Nation has been made under our Constitution by those leaders in the Congress and the White House elected by all of the people. If a vocal minority, however fervent its cause, prevails over reason and the will of the majority, this Nation has no future as a free society.
And now I would like to address a word, if I may, to the young people of this Nation who are particularly concerned, and I understand why they are concerned, about this war.
I respect your idealism.
I share your concern for peace.
I want peace as much as you do.
There are powerful personal reasons I want to end this war. This week I will have to
sign 83 letters to mothers, fathers, wives, and loved ones of men who have given their lives for America in Vietnam. It is very little satisfaction to me that this is only one-third as many letters as I signed the first week in office. There is nothing I want more than to see the day come when I do not have to write any of those letters.
I want to end the war to save the lives of those brave young men in Vietnam. But I want to end it in a way which will increase the chance that their younger brothers and their sons will not have to fight in some future Vietnam someplace in the world. And I want to end the war for another reason. I want to end it so that the energy and dedication of you, our young people, now too often directed into bitter hatred against those responsible for the war, can be turned to the great challenges of peace, a better life for all Americans, a better life for all people on this earth.
I have chosen a plan for peace. I believe it will succeed.
If it does succeed, what the critics say now won't matter. If it does not succeed, anything I say then won't matter.
I know it may not be fashionable to speak of patriotism or national destiny these days. But I feel it is appropriate to do so on this occasion
Two hundred years ago this Nation was weak and poor. But even then, America was the hope of millions in the world. Today we have become the strongest and richest nation in the world. And the wheel of destiny has turned so that any hope the world has for the survival of peace and freedom will be determined by whether the American people have the moral stamina and the courage to meet the challenge of free world leadership.
Let historians not record that when America was the most powerful nation in the world we passed on the other side of the road and allowed the last hopes for peace and freedom of millions of people to be suffocated by the forces of totalitarianism.
And so tonight-to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans. I ask for your support.
I pledged in my campaign for the Presidency to end the war in a way that we could win the peace. I have initiated a plan of action which will enable me to keep that pledge.
The more support I can have from the American people, the sooner that pledge can be redeemed; for the more divided we are at home, the less likely, the enemy is to negotiate at Paris.
Let us be united for peace. Let us also be united against defeat. Because let us understand: North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that.
Fifty years ago, in this room and at this very desk, President Woodrow Wilson spoke words which caught the imagination of a war-weary world. He said: "This is the war to end war." His dream for peace after World War I was shattered on the hard realities of great power politics and Woodrow Wilson died a broken man.
Tonight I do not tell you that the war in Vietnam is the war to end wars. But I do say this: I have initiated a plan which Will end this war in a way that will bring us closer to that great goal to which Woodrow Wilson and every American President in our history has been dedicated-the goal of a just and lasting peace.
As President I hold the responsibility for choosing the best path to that goal and then leading the Nation along it.
I pledge to you tonight that I shall meet this responsibility with all of the strength and wisdom I can command in accordance with your hopes, mindful of your concerns, sustained by your prayers.
Thank you and goodnight.
President Richard M. Nixon - November 3, 1969
Six years later and 20,000 additional deaths see what a difference our not leaving in 1969 made.
The Fall of Saigon, (known also as the Liberation of Saigon) on April 30, 1975, saw the capture of the South Vietnamese capital of Saigon, by the North Vietnamese Army. A massive evacuation of American diplomats and support personnel, foreign nationals, and Vietnamese refugees (including two thousand Vietnamese orphans during "Operation Babylift") occurred, before the city fell. The Fall of Saigon marked the end of the Vietnam War.
In the morning of that day, General Duong Van Minh, who had been president of South Vietnam for only three days after the resignation of Tran Van Huong, made a radio declaration, stating "we are here to hand over to you the power in order to avoid bloodshed." NLF and North Vietnamese forces entered the city soon after, mostly peacefully, despite previous predictions that the fall of Saigon would be 'long and bloody'. The gates of the Independence Palace were destroyed by NLF tanks, and the National Liberation Front "Vietcong" flag was raised over the Palace at 12:15.
Within 24 hours of the fall, the city was renamed "Ho Chi Minh City", after the Vietnamese revolutionary leader Ho Chi Minh. Order was quickly restored to the city, although the US Embassy, previously the site of an evacuation by helicopter, was looted.
At 15:30, General Duong Van Minh released another radio broadcast, stating "I declare the Saigon government is completely dissolved at all levels." After twenty-nine years, the war in Indochina was over.
No official count of the casualties during the fall of Saigon has been made by the government of North Vietnam, and most of the Western journalists who might have covered the story fled the country instead, and the South Vietnamese journalists were captured after the fall of the country, ensuring official silence. Therefore, no accurate or reliable count has been made. However, the subsequent exodus of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese "boat people" in the years afterwards, attest to the feelings of the captive South Vietnamese people, about their subsequent treatment by their North Vietnamese conquerors and "liberators".
Read and decide for yourself was it worth it? In 30 years will Iraq have been worth it?
President Nixon’s speech on the plan for Peace during the Vietnam War, 1969
Good evening, my fellow Americans:
Tonight I want to talk to you on a subject of deep concern to all Americans and to many people in all parts of the world--the war in Vietnam.
I believe that one of the reasons for the deep division about Vietnam is that many Americans have lost confidence in what their Government has told them about our policy. The American people cannot and should not be asked to support a policy which involves the overriding issues of war and peace unless they know the truth about that policy.
Tonight, therefore, I would like to answer some of the questions that I know are on the minds of many of you listening to me.
How and why did America get involved in Vietnam in the first place?
How has this administration changed the policy of the previous administration?
What has really happened in the negotiations in Paris and on the battlefront in Vietnam?
What choices do we have if we are to end the war?
What are the prospects for peace?
Now, let me begin by describing the situation I found when I was inaugurated on January 20:
The war had been going on for 4 years; 31,000 Americans had been killed in action; The training program for the South Vietnamese was behind schedule; 540,000 Americans were in Vietnam with no plans to reduce the number; No progress had been made at the negotiations in Paris and the United States had not put forth a comprehensive peace proposal; The war was causing deep division at home and criticism from many of our friends as well as our enemies abroad.
In view of these circumstances there were some who urged that I end the war at once by ordering the immediate withdrawal of all American forces.
From a political standpoint this would have been a popular and easy course to follow. After all, we became involved in the war while my predecessor was in office. I could blame the defeat which would be the result of my action on him and come out as the Peacemaker. Some put it to me quite bluntly: This was the only way to avoid allowing Johnsons war to become Nixon's war.
But I had a greater obligation than to think only of the years of my administration and of the next election. I had to think of the effect of my decision on the next generation and on the future of peace and freedom in America and in the world.
Let us all understand that the question before us is not whether some Americans are for peace and some Americans are against peace. The question at issue is not whether Johnson's war becomes Nixon's war.
The great question is: How can we win America's peace?
Well, let us turn now to the fundamental issue. Why and how did the United States become involved in Vietnam in the first place?
Fifteen years ago North Vietnam, with the logistical support of Communist China and the Soviet Union, launched a campaign to impose a Communist government on South Vietnam by instigating and supporting a revolution.
In response to the request of the Government of South Vietnam, President Eisenhower sent economic aid and military equipment to assist the people of South Vietnam in their efforts to prevent a Communist takeover. Seven years ago, President Kennedy sent 16,000 military personnel to Vietnam as combat advisers. Four years ago, President Johnson sent American combat forces to South Vietnam.
Now, many believe that President Johnsons decision to send American combat forces to South Vietnam was wrong. And many others-I among them-have been strongly critical of the way the war has been conducted.
But the question facing us today is: Now that we are in the war, what is the best way to end it?
In January I could only conclude that the precipitate withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam would be a disaster not only for South Vietnam but for the United States and for the cause of peace.
For the South Vietnamese, our precipitate withdrawal would inevitably allow the Communists to repeat the massacres which followed their takeover in the North 15 years before.
They then murdered more than 50,000 people and hundreds of thousands more died in slave labor camps.
We saw a prelude of what would happen in South Vietnam when the Communists entered the city of Hue last year. During their brief rule there, there was a bloody reign of terror in which 3,000 civilians were clubbed, shot to death, and buried in mass graves.
With the sudden collapse of our support, these atrocities of Hue would become the nightmare of the entire nation-and particularly for the million and a half Catholic refugees who fled to South Vietnam when the Communists took over in the North.
For the United States, this first defeat in our Nation's history would result in a collapse of confidence in American leadership, not only in Asia but throughout the world.
Three American Presidents have recognized the great stakes involved in Vietnam and understood what had to be done.
In 1963, President Kennedy, with his characteristic eloquence and clarity, said: ". . . we want to see a stable government there, carrying on a struggle to maintain its national independence.
"We believe strongly in that. We are not going to withdraw from that effort. In my opinion, for us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Viet-Nam, but Southeast Asia. So we are going to stay there."
President Eisenhower and President Johnson expressed the same conclusion during their terms of office.
For the future of peace, precipitate withdrawal would thus be a disaster of immense magnitude.
A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends.
Our defeat and humiliation in South Vietnam without question would promote recklessness in the councils of those great powers who have not yet abandoned their goals of world conquest.
This would spark violence wherever our commitments help maintain the peace-in the Middle East, in Berlin, eventually even in the Western Hemisphere.
Ultimately, this would cost more lives.
It would not bring peace; it would bring more war.
For these reasons, I rejected the recommendation that I should end the war by immediately withdrawing all of our forces. I chose instead to change American policy on both the negotiating front and battlefront.
In order to end a war fought on many fronts, I initiated a pursuit for peace on many fronts.
In a television speech on May 14, in a speech before the United Nations, and on a number of other occasions I set forth our peace proposals in great detail.
We have offered the complete withdrawal of all outside forces within 1 year.
We have proposed a cease-fire under international supervision.
We have offered free elections under international supervision with the Communists participating in the organization and conduct of the elections as an organized political force. And the Saigon Government has pledged to accept the result of the elections.
We have not put forth our proposals on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. We have indicated that we are willing to discuss the proposals that have been put forth by the other side. We have declared that anything is negotiable except the right of the people of South Vietnam to determine their own future. At the Paris peace conference, Ambassador Lodge has demonstrated our flexibility and good faith in 40 public meetings.
Hanoi has refused even to discuss our proposals. They demand our unconditional acceptance of their terms, which are that we withdraw all American forces immediately and unconditionally and that we overthrow the Government of South Vietnam as we leave.
We have not limited our peace initiatives to public forums and public statements. I recognized, in January, that a long and bitter war like this usually cannot be settled in a public forum. That is why in addition to the public statements and negotiations I have explored every possible private avenue that might lead to a settlement.
Tonight I am taking the unprecedented step of disclosing to you some of our other initiatives for peace-initiatives we undertook privately and secretly because we thought we thereby might open a door which publicly would be closed.
I did not wait for my inauguration to begin my quest for peace.
Soon after my election, through an individual who is directly in contact on a personal basis with the leaders of North Vietnam, I made two private offers for a rapid, comprehensive settlement. Hanoi's replies called in effect for our surrender before negotiations.
Since the Soviet Union furnishes most of the military equipment for North Vietnam, Secretary of State Rogers, my Assistant for National Security Affairs, Dr. Kissinger, Ambassador Lodge, and I, personally, have met on a number of occasions with representatives of the Soviet Government to enlist their assistance in getting meaningful negotiations started. In addition, we have had extended discussions directed toward that same end with representatives of other governments which have diplomatic relations with North Vietnam. None of these initiatives have to date produced results.
In mid-July, I became convinced that it was necessary to make a major move to break the deadlock in the Paris talks. I spoke directly in this office, where I am now sitting, with an individual who had known Ho Chi Minh [President, Democratic Republic of Vietnam] on a personal basis for 25 years. Through him I sent a letter to Ho Chi Minh.
I did this outside of the usual diplomatic channels with the hope that with the necessity of making statements for propaganda removed, there might be constructive progress toward bringing the war to an end. Let me read from that letter to you now.
"Dear Mr. President:
"I realize that it is difficult to communicate meaningfully across the gulf of four years of war. But precisely because of this gulf, I wanted to take this opportunity to reaffirm in all solemnity my desire to work for a just peace. I deeply believe that the war in Vietnam has gone on too long and delay in bringing it to an end can benefit no one-least of all the people of Vietnam. . . .
"The time has come to move forward at the conference table toward an early
resolution of this tragic war. You will find us forthcoming and open-minded in a common effort to bring the blessings of peace to the brave people of Vietnam. Let history record that at this critical juncture, both sides turned their face toward peace rather than toward conflict and war."
I received Ho Chi Minhs reply on August 30, 3 days before his death. It simply reiterated the public position North Vietnam had taken at Paris and flatly rejected my initiative.
The full text of both letters is being released to the press.
In addition to the public meetings that I have referred to, Ambassador Lodge has met with Vietnam's chief negotiator in Paris in II private sessions.
We have taken other significant initiatives which must remain secret to keep open some channels of communication which may still prove to be productive.
But the effect of all the public, private, and secret negotiations which have been undertaken since the bombing halt a year ago and since this administration came into office on January 20, can be summed up in one sentence: No progress whatever has been made except agreement on the shape of the bargaining table.
Well now, who is at fault?
It has become clear that the obstacle in negotiating an end to the war is not the President of the United States. It is not the South Vietnamese Government.
The obstacle is the other side's absolute refusal to show the least willingness to join us in seeking a just peace. And it will not do so while it is convinced that all it has to do is to wait for our next concession, and our next concession after that one, until it gets everything it wants.
There can now be no longer any question that progress in negotiation depends only on Hanoi's deciding to negotiate, to negotiate seriously.
I realize that this report on our efforts on the diplomatic front is discouraging to the American people, but the American people are entitled to know the truth-the bad news as well as the good news where the lives of our young men are involved.
Now let me turn, however, to a more encouraging report on another front.
At the time we launched our search for peace I recognized we might not succeed in bringing an end to the war through negotiation. I, therefore, put into effect another plan to bring peace-a plan which will bring the war to an end regardless of
what happens on the negotiating front.
It is in line with a major shift in U.S. foreign policy which I described in my press conference at Guam on July, 25. Let me briefly explain what has been described as the Nixon Doctrine-a policy which not only will help end the war in Vietnam, but which is an essential element of our program to prevent future Vietnams.
We Americans are a do-it-yourself people. We are an impatient people. Instead of teaching someone else to do a job, we like to do it ourselves. And this trait has been carried over into our foreign policy.
In Korea and again in Vietnam, the United States furnished most of the money, most of the arms, and most of the men to help the people of those countries defend their freedom against Communist aggression.
Before any American troops were committed to Vietnam, a leader of another Asian country expressed this opinion to me when I was traveling in Asia as a private citizen. He said: "When you are trying to assist another nation defend its freedom, U.S. policy should be to help them fight the war but not to fight the war for them."
Well, in accordance with this wise counsel, I laid down in Guam three principles as guidelines for future American policy toward Asia:
First, the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments.
Second, we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security.
Third, in cases involving other types of aggression, we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.
After I announced this policy, I found that the leaders of the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, South Korea, and other nations which might be threatened by Communist aggression, welcomed this new direction in American foreign policy.
The defense of freedom is everybody's business-not just Americas business. And it is particularly the responsibility of the people whose freedom is threatened. In the previous administration, we Americanized the war in Vietnam. In this administration, we are Vietnamizing the search for peace.
The policy of the previous administration not only resulted in our assuming the primary responsibility for fighting the war, but even more significantly did not adequately stress the goal of strengthening the South Vietnamese so that they could defend themselves when we left.
The Vietnamization plan was launched following Secretary Laird's visit to Vietnam in March. Under the plan, I ordered first a substantial increase in the training and equipment of South Vietnamese forces.
In July, on my visit to Vietnam, I changed General Abrams orders so that they were consistent with the objectives of our new policies. Under the new orders, the primary mission of our troops is to enable the South Vietnamese forces to assume the full responsibility for the security of South Vietnam.
Our air operations have been reduced by over 20 percent.
And now we have begun to see the results of this long overdue change in American policy in Vietnam: After 5 years of Americans going into Vietnam, we are finally bringing American men home. By December 15, over 60,000 men will have been withdrawn from South Vietnam-including 20 percent of all of our combat forces. The South Vietnamese have continued to gain in strength. As a result they have been able to take over combat responsibilities from our American troops.
Two other significant developments have occurred since this administration took office: Enemy infiltration, infiltration which is essential if they are to launch a major attack, over the last 3 months is less than 20 percent of what it was over the same period last year. Most important-United States casualties have declined during the last 2 months to the lowest point in 3 years.
Let me now turn to our program for the future.
We have adopted a plan which we have worked out in cooperation with the South Vietnamese for the complete withdrawal of all U.S. combat ground forces, and their replacement by South Vietnamese forces on an orderly scheduled timetable. This withdrawal will be made from strength and not from weakness. As South Vietnamese forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can become greater.
I have not and do not intend to announce the timetable for our program. And there are obvious reasons for this decision which I am sure you will understand. As I have indicated on several occasions, the rate of withdrawal will depend on developments on three fronts.
One of these is the progress which can be or might be made in the Paris talks. An announcement of a fixed timetable for our withdrawal would completely remove any incentive for the enemy to negotiate an agreement. They would simply wait until our forces had withdrawn and then move in.
The other two factors on which we will base our withdrawal decisions are the level of enemy activity and the progress of the training programs of the South Vietnamese forces. And I am glad to be able to report tonight progress on both of these fronts has been greater than we anticipated when we started the program in June for withdrawal. As a result, our timetable for withdrawal is more optimistic now than when we made our first estimates in June. Now, this clearly demonstrates why it is not wise to be frozen in on a fixed timetable.
We must retain the flexibility to base each withdrawal decision on the situation as it is at that time rather than on estimates that are no longer valid.
Along with this optimistic estimate, I must-in all candor-leave one note of caution.
If the level of enemy activity significantly increases we might have to adjust our timetable accordingly.
However, I want the record to be completely clear on one point.
At the time of the bombing halt just a year ago, there was some confusion as to whether there was an understanding on the part of the enemy that if we stopped the bombing of North Vietnam they would stop the shelling of cities in South Vietnam. I want to be sure that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the enemy with regard to our withdrawal Program.
We have noted the reduced level of infiltration, the reduction of our casualties, and are basing our withdrawal decisions partially on those factors.
If the level of infiltration or our casualties increase while we are trying to scale down the fighting, it will be the result of a conscious decision by the enemy.
Hanoi could make no greater mistake than to assume that an increase in violence will be to its advantage. If I conclude that increased enemy action jeopardizes our remaining forces in Vietnam, I shall not hesitate to take strong and effective measures to deal with that situation.
This is not a threat. This is a statement of policy, which as Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, I am making in meeting my responsibility for the protection of American fighting men wherever they may be.
My fellow Americans, I am sure you can recognize from what I have said that we really only have two choices open to us if we want to end this war: I can order an immediate, precipitate withdrawal of all Americans from Vietnam without regard to the effects of that action. Or we can persist in our search for a just peace through a negotiated settlement if possible, or through continued implementation of our plan for Vietnamization if necessary-a plan in which we will withdraw all of our forces from Vietnam on a schedule in accordance with our program, as the South Vietnamese become strong enough to defend their own freedom.
I have chosen this second course.
It is not the easy way.
It is the right way.
It is a plan which will end the war and serve the cause of peace-not just in Vietnam but in the Pacific and in the world.
In speaking of the consequences of a precipitate withdrawal, I mentioned that our allies would lose confidence in America.
Far more dangerous, we would lose confidence in ourselves. Oh, the immediate reaction would be a sense of relief that our men were coming home. But as we saw the consequences of what we had done, inevitable remorse and divisive recrimination would scar our spirit as a people.
We have faced other crisis in our history and have become stronger by rejecting the easy way out and taking the right way in meeting our challenges. Our greatness as a nation has been our capacity to do what had to be done when we knew our course was right.
I recognize that some of my fellow citizens disagree with the plan for peace I have chosen. Honest and patriotic Americans have reached different conclusions as to how peace should be achieved.
In San Francisco a few weeks ago, I saw demonstrators carrying signs reading: "Lose in Vietnam, bring the boys home."
Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view. But as President of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this Nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the Nation by mounting demonstrations in the street.
For almost 200 years, the policy of this Nation has been made under our Constitution by those leaders in the Congress and the White House elected by all of the people. If a vocal minority, however fervent its cause, prevails over reason and the will of the majority, this Nation has no future as a free society.
And now I would like to address a word, if I may, to the young people of this Nation who are particularly concerned, and I understand why they are concerned, about this war.
I respect your idealism.
I share your concern for peace.
I want peace as much as you do.
There are powerful personal reasons I want to end this war. This week I will have to
sign 83 letters to mothers, fathers, wives, and loved ones of men who have given their lives for America in Vietnam. It is very little satisfaction to me that this is only one-third as many letters as I signed the first week in office. There is nothing I want more than to see the day come when I do not have to write any of those letters.
I want to end the war to save the lives of those brave young men in Vietnam. But I want to end it in a way which will increase the chance that their younger brothers and their sons will not have to fight in some future Vietnam someplace in the world. And I want to end the war for another reason. I want to end it so that the energy and dedication of you, our young people, now too often directed into bitter hatred against those responsible for the war, can be turned to the great challenges of peace, a better life for all Americans, a better life for all people on this earth.
I have chosen a plan for peace. I believe it will succeed.
If it does succeed, what the critics say now won't matter. If it does not succeed, anything I say then won't matter.
I know it may not be fashionable to speak of patriotism or national destiny these days. But I feel it is appropriate to do so on this occasion
Two hundred years ago this Nation was weak and poor. But even then, America was the hope of millions in the world. Today we have become the strongest and richest nation in the world. And the wheel of destiny has turned so that any hope the world has for the survival of peace and freedom will be determined by whether the American people have the moral stamina and the courage to meet the challenge of free world leadership.
Let historians not record that when America was the most powerful nation in the world we passed on the other side of the road and allowed the last hopes for peace and freedom of millions of people to be suffocated by the forces of totalitarianism.
And so tonight-to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans. I ask for your support.
I pledged in my campaign for the Presidency to end the war in a way that we could win the peace. I have initiated a plan of action which will enable me to keep that pledge.
The more support I can have from the American people, the sooner that pledge can be redeemed; for the more divided we are at home, the less likely, the enemy is to negotiate at Paris.
Let us be united for peace. Let us also be united against defeat. Because let us understand: North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that.
Fifty years ago, in this room and at this very desk, President Woodrow Wilson spoke words which caught the imagination of a war-weary world. He said: "This is the war to end war." His dream for peace after World War I was shattered on the hard realities of great power politics and Woodrow Wilson died a broken man.
Tonight I do not tell you that the war in Vietnam is the war to end wars. But I do say this: I have initiated a plan which Will end this war in a way that will bring us closer to that great goal to which Woodrow Wilson and every American President in our history has been dedicated-the goal of a just and lasting peace.
As President I hold the responsibility for choosing the best path to that goal and then leading the Nation along it.
I pledge to you tonight that I shall meet this responsibility with all of the strength and wisdom I can command in accordance with your hopes, mindful of your concerns, sustained by your prayers.
Thank you and goodnight.
President Richard M. Nixon - November 3, 1969
Six years later and 20,000 additional deaths see what a difference our not leaving in 1969 made.
The Fall of Saigon, (known also as the Liberation of Saigon) on April 30, 1975, saw the capture of the South Vietnamese capital of Saigon, by the North Vietnamese Army. A massive evacuation of American diplomats and support personnel, foreign nationals, and Vietnamese refugees (including two thousand Vietnamese orphans during "Operation Babylift") occurred, before the city fell. The Fall of Saigon marked the end of the Vietnam War.
In the morning of that day, General Duong Van Minh, who had been president of South Vietnam for only three days after the resignation of Tran Van Huong, made a radio declaration, stating "we are here to hand over to you the power in order to avoid bloodshed." NLF and North Vietnamese forces entered the city soon after, mostly peacefully, despite previous predictions that the fall of Saigon would be 'long and bloody'. The gates of the Independence Palace were destroyed by NLF tanks, and the National Liberation Front "Vietcong" flag was raised over the Palace at 12:15.
Within 24 hours of the fall, the city was renamed "Ho Chi Minh City", after the Vietnamese revolutionary leader Ho Chi Minh. Order was quickly restored to the city, although the US Embassy, previously the site of an evacuation by helicopter, was looted.
At 15:30, General Duong Van Minh released another radio broadcast, stating "I declare the Saigon government is completely dissolved at all levels." After twenty-nine years, the war in Indochina was over.
No official count of the casualties during the fall of Saigon has been made by the government of North Vietnam, and most of the Western journalists who might have covered the story fled the country instead, and the South Vietnamese journalists were captured after the fall of the country, ensuring official silence. Therefore, no accurate or reliable count has been made. However, the subsequent exodus of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese "boat people" in the years afterwards, attest to the feelings of the captive South Vietnamese people, about their subsequent treatment by their North Vietnamese conquerors and "liberators".
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Statutory Rape and Those Who Cover It Up
Statutory rape is defined as sexual intercourse with a person under a specified age. Sexual intercourse with a female who is below consenting age is termed statutory rape, and consent is no longer relevant. This age varies from state to state and country to country but usually ranges from 12 to 18 years. Sexual intercourse with a person who is mentally deficient or unconscious and therefore incapable of giving consent is also sometimes considered statutory rape. The term statutory rape specifically refers to the legal proscription, existing in most countries, against a man's having sexual intercourse with a child or any other person presumed to lack comprehension of the physical and other consequences of that act.
The origin of rape laws can be traced to the once-widespread belief that women were the property of men. A female was considered first the property of her father. Because her virginity was valued as her principal asset, rape was considered a theft. Once a woman was married, she belonged to her husband. Rape then was treated as a crime against the husband's exclusive sexual rights to her.
Under Kansas state law, a girl under the age of 14 who is impregnated is considered to be a victim of child abuse or statutory rape. In 2003, 78 girls under the age of 14 got abortions in Kansas.
There are two things child predators want: access to children and secrecy. The refusal of clinics performing abortions on those 78, 14 year-old girls is obstruction of justice and enabling child predators and the persons working in such clinics should be accountable.
The pregnancy of an underage girl is evidence that she may be the victim of sexual abuse and, therefore, any healthcare worker who has contact with a pregnant underage girl has an obligation to initiate a report to their state’s designated agency. The job of determining whether or not the circumstances that led to this girl’s pregnancy are criminal lies solely with child protective services or the state agency to which the report is mandated.
Clarification: A girl under a specific age is considered unable to consent to sexual intercourse and if she does she is considered a victim, but she is considered able to consent to someone killing a fetus her parents' grandchild.
If the girl is emotionally mature enough to consent to the killing of her parents’ grandchild why in the world can't she consent to the other? If she is unable to consent to a kidney transplant or an appendectomy how can she consent to an abortion? If a stranger cannot act on her behalf for the medical procedure intended to improve her health how can a stranger act on her behalf and consent to a procedure designed to kill something growing inside of her.
The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision holding that women have a right to choose to have an abortion during the first two trimesters of a pregnancy was based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the so-called "right of privacy" protected in earlier decisions such as the one that struck down a ban on the use, sale, and distribution of contraceptives. As a constitutional matter Roe v. Wade was absurd. Its trimester-based analysis generally prohibits regulation of abortions in the first trimester, allows regulation for protecting the health of the mother in the second trimester, and allows complete abortion bans after six months, the approximate time a fetus becomes viable.
The root of the problem is the inherent ignorance of the citizens of the United States of what the Constitution says and does not say. As long as the people remain ignorant their rights will continue to be infringed upon. The Supreme Court has broadened Roe v Wade to include all trimesters. The Supreme Court makes laws, which is unconstitutional, and should be applying the Constitution.
Wakeup America!! The earth is still turning but it appears all the sane folks got off.
The origin of rape laws can be traced to the once-widespread belief that women were the property of men. A female was considered first the property of her father. Because her virginity was valued as her principal asset, rape was considered a theft. Once a woman was married, she belonged to her husband. Rape then was treated as a crime against the husband's exclusive sexual rights to her.
Under Kansas state law, a girl under the age of 14 who is impregnated is considered to be a victim of child abuse or statutory rape. In 2003, 78 girls under the age of 14 got abortions in Kansas.
There are two things child predators want: access to children and secrecy. The refusal of clinics performing abortions on those 78, 14 year-old girls is obstruction of justice and enabling child predators and the persons working in such clinics should be accountable.
The pregnancy of an underage girl is evidence that she may be the victim of sexual abuse and, therefore, any healthcare worker who has contact with a pregnant underage girl has an obligation to initiate a report to their state’s designated agency. The job of determining whether or not the circumstances that led to this girl’s pregnancy are criminal lies solely with child protective services or the state agency to which the report is mandated.
Clarification: A girl under a specific age is considered unable to consent to sexual intercourse and if she does she is considered a victim, but she is considered able to consent to someone killing a fetus her parents' grandchild.
If the girl is emotionally mature enough to consent to the killing of her parents’ grandchild why in the world can't she consent to the other? If she is unable to consent to a kidney transplant or an appendectomy how can she consent to an abortion? If a stranger cannot act on her behalf for the medical procedure intended to improve her health how can a stranger act on her behalf and consent to a procedure designed to kill something growing inside of her.
The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision holding that women have a right to choose to have an abortion during the first two trimesters of a pregnancy was based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the so-called "right of privacy" protected in earlier decisions such as the one that struck down a ban on the use, sale, and distribution of contraceptives. As a constitutional matter Roe v. Wade was absurd. Its trimester-based analysis generally prohibits regulation of abortions in the first trimester, allows regulation for protecting the health of the mother in the second trimester, and allows complete abortion bans after six months, the approximate time a fetus becomes viable.
The root of the problem is the inherent ignorance of the citizens of the United States of what the Constitution says and does not say. As long as the people remain ignorant their rights will continue to be infringed upon. The Supreme Court has broadened Roe v Wade to include all trimesters. The Supreme Court makes laws, which is unconstitutional, and should be applying the Constitution.
Wakeup America!! The earth is still turning but it appears all the sane folks got off.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
When Ronal Reagan ran for Federal office he was thought to be dangerous. He wanted to eliminate vast portions of the government indiscriminately, and he wanted to commit the military to ill-considered interventions abroad.
Those, with that opinion, couldn't have been more wrong. As an antigovernment crusader and as a warmonger, Reagan turned out to be all bark and no bite. In his first inaugural address, Reagan said:
It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people.
But that didn't happen. After Reagan's two terms, spending by the federal government was one-quarter higher, factoring out inflation, than when he got there; the federal civilian workforce had increased from 2.8 million to 3 million; and federal spending, as a share of Gross Domestic Product, had decreased by one percentage point to 21.2 percent. "If Ronald Reagan and his 'Reaganauts' could only slow down the growth of government spending, not reverse it or eliminate wasteful programs, what hope is there for any other conservative president?" complained the conservative Heritage Foundation soon after Reagan left office. The only major government agency Reagan managed to eliminate was the Civil Aeronautics Board, which didn't have much to do after the Carter administration deregulated the airline industry. The Ronald Reagan Building on Pennsylvania Avenue, completed 10 years after Reagan left office, is said to house 5,000 government employees and is the largest government building in Washington.
In the saber-rattling department, here's what Reagan said in his first inaugural address:
As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it—now or ever. Our forbearance should never be misunderstood. Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will.
But the only hot war waged during the Reagan administration was to remove a comic-opera Marxist government from the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada. The United States retreated from Lebanon after a suicide bomber killed more than 200 American soldiers. It is seldom observed that Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, which George W. Bush denounced prior to the Iraq war, occurred on Reagan's watch. In 1984, when the Reagan administration got its first inkling that Iraq was engaged in chemical warfare, it chose not to make a fuss. The most ambitious foreign intervention during the Reagan administration—the funnelling of aid to the Nicaraguan contras—was done illegally and, after it was discovered, embroiled Reagan's second term in a scandal from which it never recovered.
Reagan can probably claim some credit for ending the Cold War, but his principal weapon, characteristically, was spending—the Soviets bankrupted themselves trying to keep up with the Pentagon's weapons-buying binge through the 1980s. Reagan's greatest achievement in foreign affairs was therefore linked to his greatest achievement in domestic affairs. He taught Republicans that they could be even less responsible than Democrats.
Government spending is not inherently irresponsible. What is irresponsible is spending money you don't have. Perhaps the most poignant passage in Reagan's first inaugural address is the one expressing what today seems a very old-fashioned Republican concern about deficit spending:
For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.
We can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?
The deficit, which stood at $74 billion in Carter's final year, ballooned to $155 billion in Reagan's final year. In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter."
Today, what does it mean to be a Republican? It means you can cut taxes indiscriminately and needn't worry about the debt you're piling up. It doesn't mean that you want to shrink the federal government. Government spending under George43 has increased faster than it did under Bill Clinton. Before Reagan, pandering was principally a Democratic vice. Today, it's principally a Republican vice. Ronald Reagan performed that transformation, and it remains his most enduring legacy.
Those, with that opinion, couldn't have been more wrong. As an antigovernment crusader and as a warmonger, Reagan turned out to be all bark and no bite. In his first inaugural address, Reagan said:
It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people.
But that didn't happen. After Reagan's two terms, spending by the federal government was one-quarter higher, factoring out inflation, than when he got there; the federal civilian workforce had increased from 2.8 million to 3 million; and federal spending, as a share of Gross Domestic Product, had decreased by one percentage point to 21.2 percent. "If Ronald Reagan and his 'Reaganauts' could only slow down the growth of government spending, not reverse it or eliminate wasteful programs, what hope is there for any other conservative president?" complained the conservative Heritage Foundation soon after Reagan left office. The only major government agency Reagan managed to eliminate was the Civil Aeronautics Board, which didn't have much to do after the Carter administration deregulated the airline industry. The Ronald Reagan Building on Pennsylvania Avenue, completed 10 years after Reagan left office, is said to house 5,000 government employees and is the largest government building in Washington.
In the saber-rattling department, here's what Reagan said in his first inaugural address:
As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it—now or ever. Our forbearance should never be misunderstood. Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will.
But the only hot war waged during the Reagan administration was to remove a comic-opera Marxist government from the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada. The United States retreated from Lebanon after a suicide bomber killed more than 200 American soldiers. It is seldom observed that Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, which George W. Bush denounced prior to the Iraq war, occurred on Reagan's watch. In 1984, when the Reagan administration got its first inkling that Iraq was engaged in chemical warfare, it chose not to make a fuss. The most ambitious foreign intervention during the Reagan administration—the funnelling of aid to the Nicaraguan contras—was done illegally and, after it was discovered, embroiled Reagan's second term in a scandal from which it never recovered.
Reagan can probably claim some credit for ending the Cold War, but his principal weapon, characteristically, was spending—the Soviets bankrupted themselves trying to keep up with the Pentagon's weapons-buying binge through the 1980s. Reagan's greatest achievement in foreign affairs was therefore linked to his greatest achievement in domestic affairs. He taught Republicans that they could be even less responsible than Democrats.
Government spending is not inherently irresponsible. What is irresponsible is spending money you don't have. Perhaps the most poignant passage in Reagan's first inaugural address is the one expressing what today seems a very old-fashioned Republican concern about deficit spending:
For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.
We can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?
The deficit, which stood at $74 billion in Carter's final year, ballooned to $155 billion in Reagan's final year. In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter."
Today, what does it mean to be a Republican? It means you can cut taxes indiscriminately and needn't worry about the debt you're piling up. It doesn't mean that you want to shrink the federal government. Government spending under George43 has increased faster than it did under Bill Clinton. Before Reagan, pandering was principally a Democratic vice. Today, it's principally a Republican vice. Ronald Reagan performed that transformation, and it remains his most enduring legacy.
Entitlement Politics
The vast differences in compensation between victims of the September 11 casualty and those who die serving our country in Uniform are profound. No one is really talking about it either, because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11. Well, I can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country. If you lost a family member in the September 11 attack, you're going to get an aver age of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million.
If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable.
Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt.
Keep in mind that some of the people who are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough. Their deaths were tragic, but for most, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Soldiers put themselves in harms way FOR ALL OF US, and they and their families know the dangers.
Some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11 families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well.
You see where this is going, don't you? This is part and parcel of over 50 years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad. Every time a pay raise comes up for the military, they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low-rent housing.
However, our own U.S. Congress voted themselves a raise. You only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month. And most are now equal to being millionaires plus. They do not receive Social Security on retirement because t hey didn't have to pay into the system.
If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7, they may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed them in harm's way receives a pension of $15,000 per month.
How about our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and daughters who are now fighting.
If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable.
Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt.
Keep in mind that some of the people who are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough. Their deaths were tragic, but for most, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Soldiers put themselves in harms way FOR ALL OF US, and they and their families know the dangers.
Some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11 families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well.
You see where this is going, don't you? This is part and parcel of over 50 years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad. Every time a pay raise comes up for the military, they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low-rent housing.
However, our own U.S. Congress voted themselves a raise. You only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month. And most are now equal to being millionaires plus. They do not receive Social Security on retirement because t hey didn't have to pay into the system.
If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7, they may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed them in harm's way receives a pension of $15,000 per month.
How about our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and daughters who are now fighting.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Murtha vs Iraq
Real conservatives recognize the fact the Bush family is NOT conservative. They "go with the flow." For those of us old enough to remember Reagan's first election moderate/liberal Bush41 was added to the ticket to balance the conservative Reagan. Conservatives are like a drowning person grasping for the air when they look at George43 as a conservative. It is too bad more conservatives cannot be more objective and see this.
The United States' plan for Iraq has been a disaster from the beginning. Can we begin to imagine the pressure on the worker-bees in the various Federal agencies to interpret intelligence in such a way as to justify starting a war with Iraq? If they wanted to keep their job they had to get-on-board and find a reason, no matter how obtuse.
Once the decision was made to start an unconstitutional war our military rushing to Baghdad all the while leaving functional fighting groups behind their back has got to be criminal in its stupidity. There is a basic rule in war that says never leave an enemy behind (alive). We fell into a trap an idiot could have seen. Kind of like A. P. Hill at Antietam. Generals such as Tommy Franks should be Court Martialed for their stupidity and the lives they cost.
For those of us old enough to remember Viet Nam, in the first person, it was known at the time that General Giap, of the NVA was willing to lose 10 of his people to kill 1 of ours. Today, George43 is willing to kill more than 2,000 of ours to get one of theirs, (Sadaam). Once you get out of the womb, Georg43 apparently considers you cannon fodder.
Remember when the USSR and the USA could have attacked each other at any time but chose not to? Talk about a threat, the USSR was more of a threat to the USA than Iraq ever was or could have been. Because you can do something does not mean you should do it. We attacked Iraq and tremble at North Korea. Doesn't that make us a bully? We beat up on Granada and get our butts kicked in Somalia. Doesn't that show we are inept? George43 shot off his mouth and then found out that people and media were listening and then he could not find a way to back off. We are experiencing his solution.
Constitutionally, Congress declares war not the Executive branch. Congress was just getting on the bandwagon when they supported the war. If they had any moral backbone they would have objected but as are all politicians they are unethical, dishonest, and immoral, not to forget backboneless. They look out for themselves first, the people who give them money second, and if it happens to be convenient they will help people who voted for them. Apparently George43 thinks our Military voted BLUE.
Hopefully next election we will elect someone with intelligence AND character. Clinton had intelligence with no character. George43 has character with no intelligence at least faulty intelligence. Maybe one of these days we can get both at the same time.
The United States' plan for Iraq has been a disaster from the beginning. Can we begin to imagine the pressure on the worker-bees in the various Federal agencies to interpret intelligence in such a way as to justify starting a war with Iraq? If they wanted to keep their job they had to get-on-board and find a reason, no matter how obtuse.
Once the decision was made to start an unconstitutional war our military rushing to Baghdad all the while leaving functional fighting groups behind their back has got to be criminal in its stupidity. There is a basic rule in war that says never leave an enemy behind (alive). We fell into a trap an idiot could have seen. Kind of like A. P. Hill at Antietam. Generals such as Tommy Franks should be Court Martialed for their stupidity and the lives they cost.
For those of us old enough to remember Viet Nam, in the first person, it was known at the time that General Giap, of the NVA was willing to lose 10 of his people to kill 1 of ours. Today, George43 is willing to kill more than 2,000 of ours to get one of theirs, (Sadaam). Once you get out of the womb, Georg43 apparently considers you cannon fodder.
Remember when the USSR and the USA could have attacked each other at any time but chose not to? Talk about a threat, the USSR was more of a threat to the USA than Iraq ever was or could have been. Because you can do something does not mean you should do it. We attacked Iraq and tremble at North Korea. Doesn't that make us a bully? We beat up on Granada and get our butts kicked in Somalia. Doesn't that show we are inept? George43 shot off his mouth and then found out that people and media were listening and then he could not find a way to back off. We are experiencing his solution.
Constitutionally, Congress declares war not the Executive branch. Congress was just getting on the bandwagon when they supported the war. If they had any moral backbone they would have objected but as are all politicians they are unethical, dishonest, and immoral, not to forget backboneless. They look out for themselves first, the people who give them money second, and if it happens to be convenient they will help people who voted for them. Apparently George43 thinks our Military voted BLUE.
Hopefully next election we will elect someone with intelligence AND character. Clinton had intelligence with no character. George43 has character with no intelligence at least faulty intelligence. Maybe one of these days we can get both at the same time.
BLOGS and Elections
BLOGS will make the next Presidential election interesting. Congress has attempted to control political participation by creating political entities such as 527 committees and the like but when two political parties are so similar it is difficult for either to pass laws inhibiting the other without also inhibiting themselves. Now with BLOGS both parties have lost all control. Individuals will be able to say anything they want to say in BLOGS and truth, fairness, accuracy, and ethics will have nothing to with it and government will have no say.
As a "greatAmerican" once said, "Bring them on!" Now, so say we concerning elections....
As a "greatAmerican" once said, "Bring them on!" Now, so say we concerning elections....
Saturday, November 19, 2005
TDOT and 321 East Parkway
Where else but in Tennessee do people remove mountains, install concrete barriers to keep the mountains back and then paint the walls to make them less visable. There has got to be a joke in there somewhere.
TDOT is breaking new ground in the area of removing mountains and painting walls to look like the mountains. Gatlinburg and the TDOT can be proud of their breakthrough design strategies. The city can now do away with any building code requirements having to do with the outside of a structure. We can build a nice concrete block building and paint it to look like a nice mountain log cabin or the governor's mansion, or maybe even the Parthenon or how about a replica of the Mountain View Inn, destroyed a few years by Gatlinburg, or whatever we like. That will reduce construction costs quite a bit as well as speed up development. And we're always looking for ways to speed up development aren't we?
Gatlinburg will be the butt of jokes for years to come as tourists drive the concrete corridor and look, in bewilderment, at the concrete barrier walls painted to look like they are rock walls and the larger walls painted like treeless nothings and wonder why things were not left as they were since the paint is attempting to make things look like they used to be. The view should be picturesque as the tourists look out over the painted short barriers to see the mountains. As they take pictures and people across the country view those pictures they too will be able to appreciate what Gatlinburg and the State of Tennessee have done and reputations of both should grow in leaps and bounds. Southern Living should be able to do at least a couple of stories on the subject of Tennessee landscaping techniques and maybe My South can tape a couple of episodes.
When, as hoped, thousands and tens of thousands of cars use the concrete corridor, you might ask Gatlinburg if any thought has been given to what they will do at light 3 in Gatlinburg? Do you suppose we can look forward to traffic backed up to City Hall or maybe even to Glades similar to the backup at the intersection of Rt 66 and Chapman/Dolly Parton highways?
As was explained during a meeting on the project several months ago, the Community Based Resource Team, made up of area citizens, has no authority. That's fair since no one has any responsibility for the debacle that is now attempting to be mitigated. Their primary purpose was to share the blame. The Resource Team's choice was to agree with TDOT's representatives to paint the walls or to leave them as they are. At least the walls on I40 have some texture, Gatlinburg's looks like basement walls and will continue to look like painted basement walls. Apparently the construction company has one design for walls whether for a basement of a house or next to a highway..
Citizens of Gatlinburg should resent the State of Tennessee destroying parts of the city and the City Leadership for failing to raise public awareness of what was going to be happening to our fair city. Who would have thought, the city government wasn't looking out for citizens.
It should be interesting to watch the remaining phases plod along. The problem TDOT will have is the communities impacted by their project now have an example of their work.
As they say, I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Trust me...
TDOT is breaking new ground in the area of removing mountains and painting walls to look like the mountains. Gatlinburg and the TDOT can be proud of their breakthrough design strategies. The city can now do away with any building code requirements having to do with the outside of a structure. We can build a nice concrete block building and paint it to look like a nice mountain log cabin or the governor's mansion, or maybe even the Parthenon or how about a replica of the Mountain View Inn, destroyed a few years by Gatlinburg, or whatever we like. That will reduce construction costs quite a bit as well as speed up development. And we're always looking for ways to speed up development aren't we?
Gatlinburg will be the butt of jokes for years to come as tourists drive the concrete corridor and look, in bewilderment, at the concrete barrier walls painted to look like they are rock walls and the larger walls painted like treeless nothings and wonder why things were not left as they were since the paint is attempting to make things look like they used to be. The view should be picturesque as the tourists look out over the painted short barriers to see the mountains. As they take pictures and people across the country view those pictures they too will be able to appreciate what Gatlinburg and the State of Tennessee have done and reputations of both should grow in leaps and bounds. Southern Living should be able to do at least a couple of stories on the subject of Tennessee landscaping techniques and maybe My South can tape a couple of episodes.
When, as hoped, thousands and tens of thousands of cars use the concrete corridor, you might ask Gatlinburg if any thought has been given to what they will do at light 3 in Gatlinburg? Do you suppose we can look forward to traffic backed up to City Hall or maybe even to Glades similar to the backup at the intersection of Rt 66 and Chapman/Dolly Parton highways?
As was explained during a meeting on the project several months ago, the Community Based Resource Team, made up of area citizens, has no authority. That's fair since no one has any responsibility for the debacle that is now attempting to be mitigated. Their primary purpose was to share the blame. The Resource Team's choice was to agree with TDOT's representatives to paint the walls or to leave them as they are. At least the walls on I40 have some texture, Gatlinburg's looks like basement walls and will continue to look like painted basement walls. Apparently the construction company has one design for walls whether for a basement of a house or next to a highway..
Citizens of Gatlinburg should resent the State of Tennessee destroying parts of the city and the City Leadership for failing to raise public awareness of what was going to be happening to our fair city. Who would have thought, the city government wasn't looking out for citizens.
It should be interesting to watch the remaining phases plod along. The problem TDOT will have is the communities impacted by their project now have an example of their work.
As they say, I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Trust me...
Letter to Gatlinburg City Commissioners Which They Ignored
Mayor Werner:
Vice Mayor Helton:
Commissioner Hayes:
Commissioner Montgomery:
Commissioner Smith:
I moved to Gatlinburg seven years ago. Our family has vacationed in Gatlinburg since 1963 and have seen the area change drastically over that time. Over those years it was evident Gatlinburg did not believe in planning ahead and that anywhere you could find a place you were allowed to build something, regardless of appearance or how it fit in with the mountains. It appeared the dollar was the only thing that was important and the affect on the city was of no consequence. It appears to continue to be that way even with the Gateway Foundation and other attempts by special interest groups that will ultimately fail due to the lack of support by City Government and city management. I remember the Mountain View Inn and now that land is a disgrace to any city as well as the area along the East Parkway that appears to be an annex for the sanitation department, and the city, specifically you as the leaders of the city, permit it. There is nothing quaint about Gatlinburg and other than for being in the mountains Gatlinburg no longer has anything to do with the mountains. Most of the problems began before any of you were in office but since you are all business people I imagine you are the cause of some.
This past summer we traveled in several of the western states. Something we noticed, in several states including Montana and South Dakota, but also in Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri and other states, was the abundance of casinos. It seemed that in every town and city casinos were everywhere: gas stations, restaurants, book stores, bars, many times we saw one or more at each corner of intersections. It occurred to me that is the future of Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge and maybe even Sevierville unless cities plan now for when casinos become legal in Tennessee.
I believe casinos are not currently allowed in Tennessee but it is just a matter of time. I imagine 10 years ago the idea of Tennessee having a lottery was unexpected but it happened and casinos will not be far behind. Now is the time to zone to prohibit or control the locations of casinos or Gatlinburg will become a quaint mountain town full of tattoo shops, motorcycle shops, vulgar T-shirts shops and casinos beckoning families to come enjoy all that Gatlinburg has to offer.
Now is the time to decide what place casinos will play in Gatlinburg. When they become legal in Tennessee it will too late.
I am assuming that you as individuals and business people will not be leading the way to get casinos legalized.
Sometime the businesses of Gatlinburg will have to begin to work together, led by the City Commissioners as well as business people, to do what is best for the city and not individual bank accounts. I expect the alternative to be no bank accounts.
Respectfully submitted,
Vice Mayor Helton:
Commissioner Hayes:
Commissioner Montgomery:
Commissioner Smith:
I moved to Gatlinburg seven years ago. Our family has vacationed in Gatlinburg since 1963 and have seen the area change drastically over that time. Over those years it was evident Gatlinburg did not believe in planning ahead and that anywhere you could find a place you were allowed to build something, regardless of appearance or how it fit in with the mountains. It appeared the dollar was the only thing that was important and the affect on the city was of no consequence. It appears to continue to be that way even with the Gateway Foundation and other attempts by special interest groups that will ultimately fail due to the lack of support by City Government and city management. I remember the Mountain View Inn and now that land is a disgrace to any city as well as the area along the East Parkway that appears to be an annex for the sanitation department, and the city, specifically you as the leaders of the city, permit it. There is nothing quaint about Gatlinburg and other than for being in the mountains Gatlinburg no longer has anything to do with the mountains. Most of the problems began before any of you were in office but since you are all business people I imagine you are the cause of some.
This past summer we traveled in several of the western states. Something we noticed, in several states including Montana and South Dakota, but also in Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri and other states, was the abundance of casinos. It seemed that in every town and city casinos were everywhere: gas stations, restaurants, book stores, bars, many times we saw one or more at each corner of intersections. It occurred to me that is the future of Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge and maybe even Sevierville unless cities plan now for when casinos become legal in Tennessee.
I believe casinos are not currently allowed in Tennessee but it is just a matter of time. I imagine 10 years ago the idea of Tennessee having a lottery was unexpected but it happened and casinos will not be far behind. Now is the time to zone to prohibit or control the locations of casinos or Gatlinburg will become a quaint mountain town full of tattoo shops, motorcycle shops, vulgar T-shirts shops and casinos beckoning families to come enjoy all that Gatlinburg has to offer.
Now is the time to decide what place casinos will play in Gatlinburg. When they become legal in Tennessee it will too late.
I am assuming that you as individuals and business people will not be leading the way to get casinos legalized.
Sometime the businesses of Gatlinburg will have to begin to work together, led by the City Commissioners as well as business people, to do what is best for the city and not individual bank accounts. I expect the alternative to be no bank accounts.
Respectfully submitted,
Some People Just Cannot be Helped
In 1998 articles about the hazards of Aspartame appeared.
See the link below.
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/embalm.html
The following supports my contention that all politicians are immoral, unethical and dishonest. They will take care of themselves first, the people who give them money second, and if it is convenient they will do as little as they can get by with, for the people who voted for them. You can only look at what they do, not what they say.
In 1985 Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame's clouded past, including a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it "might induce brain tumors."
The FDA had actually banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld (currently the Secretary of Defense) vow to "call in his markers," to get it approved.
On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener, and Reagan's new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision.
It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision, but Hull then installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame.
People, continuing to consume products containing Aspartame can relate to those people continuing to consumer products containing tobacco.
See the link below.
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/embalm.html
The following supports my contention that all politicians are immoral, unethical and dishonest. They will take care of themselves first, the people who give them money second, and if it is convenient they will do as little as they can get by with, for the people who voted for them. You can only look at what they do, not what they say.
In 1985 Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame's clouded past, including a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it "might induce brain tumors."
The FDA had actually banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld (currently the Secretary of Defense) vow to "call in his markers," to get it approved.
On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener, and Reagan's new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision.
It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision, but Hull then installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame.
People, continuing to consume products containing Aspartame can relate to those people continuing to consumer products containing tobacco.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Our local newspaper was congratulating the Tennessee state representatives for saying they favor Ethics Rules...
Corrupt, dishonest, immoral, and unethical behavior has been in government at all levels ever since there has been government. Look at all the people who leave government offices or jobs and take high paying positions with companies and countries doing business with their old employer. You think it is coincidence? Many of the people in senior positions in the current Federal government came out of the oil business and look how those companies are doing. But government is not alone. Businesses have their problems also. Tremendous bonuses for failing; large golden parachutes for the CEO while the people who trusted them lose their jobs; large bonuses to the CEO to send jobs overseas are examples of such behavior. It is just the nature of the beast that those in power take advantage of those not in power and asking the foxes to watch the chicken house is a losing idea.
Government folks get mighty rich when they leave office, especially when you consider their government salaries. Are we to not think the big book deals they know they will get when they leave office doesn't affect their decisions while they are in office? Knowing they will be on the "cold chicken dinner circuit" when they leave office and be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for an hour or so of bragging about themselves doesn't affect decisions? You know, a friend of a friend of a friend type thing. Word gets back to a President that a foreign government will give him many millions of dollars for a speech or two, and we don’t expect him to help that government if he can? Look at the "pardons" every president gives, especially those close to the end of their time in office. Knowing they can go into consulting or join a “think-tank” partially funded by a foreign government doesn't affect decisions they make? If you knew a person high in government would appreciate it, wouldn’t you help his son to get out of trouble? This goes without being asked so everyone can deny collusion.
The electorate is at fault here. Will Rogers is alleged to have said “we should elect the local thief and send him to rob Washington.” As our government representatives achieve seniority they have more opportunities to give something to us, and we don’t care how they do it, so we elect them again and again and again. The situation is similar as with lawyers. We make jokes about lawyers but when we are in trouble we want the lawyer who can get us out of that trouble and we don’t care how. The idea of a professional representative was foreign to the men who began this country.
Priorities in public office are: first: take care of ones self; second: take care of the people who provided money; and last, if it does not negatively affect the other two priorities, help the voter. Who amongst us would do otherwise?
If our representative is unethical, dishonest, immoral, not doing the job to which we voted them, we, the people, should vote them out of office and stop our complaining
Government folks get mighty rich when they leave office, especially when you consider their government salaries. Are we to not think the big book deals they know they will get when they leave office doesn't affect their decisions while they are in office? Knowing they will be on the "cold chicken dinner circuit" when they leave office and be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for an hour or so of bragging about themselves doesn't affect decisions? You know, a friend of a friend of a friend type thing. Word gets back to a President that a foreign government will give him many millions of dollars for a speech or two, and we don’t expect him to help that government if he can? Look at the "pardons" every president gives, especially those close to the end of their time in office. Knowing they can go into consulting or join a “think-tank” partially funded by a foreign government doesn't affect decisions they make? If you knew a person high in government would appreciate it, wouldn’t you help his son to get out of trouble? This goes without being asked so everyone can deny collusion.
The electorate is at fault here. Will Rogers is alleged to have said “we should elect the local thief and send him to rob Washington.” As our government representatives achieve seniority they have more opportunities to give something to us, and we don’t care how they do it, so we elect them again and again and again. The situation is similar as with lawyers. We make jokes about lawyers but when we are in trouble we want the lawyer who can get us out of that trouble and we don’t care how. The idea of a professional representative was foreign to the men who began this country.
Priorities in public office are: first: take care of ones self; second: take care of the people who provided money; and last, if it does not negatively affect the other two priorities, help the voter. Who amongst us would do otherwise?
If our representative is unethical, dishonest, immoral, not doing the job to which we voted them, we, the people, should vote them out of office and stop our complaining
Meaningless Professional World Championships..World Series
Am I the only person who recognizes when overpaid athletes are done? Clemens is done. He may win a game now and then during the season but when the chips are down he will not deliver. Petit is the same. Most baseball teams are owned by egomaniacs who have more money than brains. Can you name one "deva" who won a game? You can not because it is a team sport and teams should be rewarded not individual players. MVPs are always failures.
With all the statistics in baseball someone should research "star players" to see when they produced in pressure situations against formidable foes. My guess is very seldom.
When "stars" retire they finally understand what they have been doing for their entire career means nothing and that most people don't care. The only people who care are the ESPNs of the world...
With all the statistics in baseball someone should research "star players" to see when they produced in pressure situations against formidable foes. My guess is very seldom.
When "stars" retire they finally understand what they have been doing for their entire career means nothing and that most people don't care. The only people who care are the ESPNs of the world...
Hu's on First?
George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?
Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.
George: Great. Lay it on me.
Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.
George: That's what I want to know.
Condi: That's what I'm telling you.
George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes.
George: I mean the fellow's name.
Condi: Hu.
George: The guy in China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The new leader of China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The main man in China!
Condi: Hu is leading China.
George: Now whaddya' asking me for?
Condi: I'm telling you, Hu is leading China.
George: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China?
Condi: That's the man's name.
George: That's who's name?
Condi: Yes.
George: Will you, or will you not, tell me the name of the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he's dead in the Middle East.
Condi: That's correct.
George: Then who is in China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir is in China?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Then who is?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Look Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the
Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.
Condi: Kofi?
George: No, thanks.
Condi: You want Kofi?
George: No.
Condi: You don't want Kofi.
George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N.
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.
Condi: Kofi?
George: Milk! Will you please make the call?
Condi: And call who?
George: Who is the guy at the U.N?
Condi: Hu is the guy in China
George: Will you stay out of China?!
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N.
Condi: Kofi.
George: All right! With cream and two sugars.
Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.
George: Great. Lay it on me.
Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.
George: That's what I want to know.
Condi: That's what I'm telling you.
George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes.
George: I mean the fellow's name.
Condi: Hu.
George: The guy in China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The new leader of China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The main man in China!
Condi: Hu is leading China.
George: Now whaddya' asking me for?
Condi: I'm telling you, Hu is leading China.
George: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China?
Condi: That's the man's name.
George: That's who's name?
Condi: Yes.
George: Will you, or will you not, tell me the name of the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he's dead in the Middle East.
Condi: That's correct.
George: Then who is in China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir is in China?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Then who is?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Look Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the
Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.
Condi: Kofi?
George: No, thanks.
Condi: You want Kofi?
George: No.
Condi: You don't want Kofi.
George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N.
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.
Condi: Kofi?
George: Milk! Will you please make the call?
Condi: And call who?
George: Who is the guy at the U.N?
Condi: Hu is the guy in China
George: Will you stay out of China?!
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N.
Condi: Kofi.
George: All right! With cream and two sugars.
Terrorist Attack in Jordan
We have no friends in the Middle-East. Jordan is more afraid of Israel than they are of the other terrorist states in the area so they look to us to protect them. The terrorists don't understand that we do not care if they kill as long as they leave us alone. Hopefully Saudi Arabia will be their next target. Terrorists cannot do anything bad enough to countries in that area of the world for us to be concerned. Islam is a terrorist religion........
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Alleged Iraqi Prisoner Abuse
The alleged abuse of prisoners is all flash and no cash. The purpose of war is to destroy the enemy and have our way. The purpose of the American soldier is to make sure the enemy soldier dies for his/her country. Why do we take prisoners? These people want to die for their country and we should not only permit them to do so but help them. We have no business babysitting. In war the best thing you can do is to wound the enemy because it takes more enemy soldiers to care for them.
Anyone who thinks the Army Reserve and National Guards are soldiers havenÂ’t seen them in action. To say that the American soldier is the best-trained soldier in the world says more about the other armyÂ’s lack of training than it says positive things about the American soldier. Our special and elite units are trained and are the best in the world the average soldier is not. The Reserve and National Guards are civilians in uniform. They neither have the desire to serve or the training to be put in a combat situation. Can you imagine Bill Clinton or George Bush in combat? Anyone who wonders how the Jessica Lynch outfit got lost in the desert obviously has not seen these weekend warriors getting lost on the interstate highways while they are trying to find there camp for the weekend or their two weeks duty in the summer. The members of congress who voted to reduce the standing army and to reduce training budgets are the culprits here not the soldier who has been thrown into a situation beyond his/her control. Do we use women to guard men in our criminal justice systemÂ’s maximum-security prisons? Why use women to guard prisoners in the military? They neither have the skill or strength to control a bad situation. They are window dressing and war is no place for window dressing.
Watching the congressional inquisition of our military is sickening. The high and mighty congress spanking the bad boys of the military for doing their job. Seven soldiers received court martial while six officers received reprimands. Congress should get off their soapbox and tell the American public what these soldiers could have done to stop the alleged abuse. The answer is there was no one to tell and thatÂ’s because of congress, who are running the war and are hiding in safety while the soldiers are trying to figure out what is thmissionsion and are trying to do itÂ…
We proved during our Revolutionary war, saw it in the Viet Nam war, saw it in Afghanistan when the Afghans threw the Russians out, and are seeing it in Iraq, local folks dedicated to their cause will defeat the largest of armies every time unless the army is ruthless like the Russians in Hungry.
LET'S GET OUT OF IRAQ!!!! Before we are embarrassed moreÂ…
Anyone who thinks the Army Reserve and National Guards are soldiers havenÂ’t seen them in action. To say that the American soldier is the best-trained soldier in the world says more about the other armyÂ’s lack of training than it says positive things about the American soldier. Our special and elite units are trained and are the best in the world the average soldier is not. The Reserve and National Guards are civilians in uniform. They neither have the desire to serve or the training to be put in a combat situation. Can you imagine Bill Clinton or George Bush in combat? Anyone who wonders how the Jessica Lynch outfit got lost in the desert obviously has not seen these weekend warriors getting lost on the interstate highways while they are trying to find there camp for the weekend or their two weeks duty in the summer. The members of congress who voted to reduce the standing army and to reduce training budgets are the culprits here not the soldier who has been thrown into a situation beyond his/her control. Do we use women to guard men in our criminal justice systemÂ’s maximum-security prisons? Why use women to guard prisoners in the military? They neither have the skill or strength to control a bad situation. They are window dressing and war is no place for window dressing.
Watching the congressional inquisition of our military is sickening. The high and mighty congress spanking the bad boys of the military for doing their job. Seven soldiers received court martial while six officers received reprimands. Congress should get off their soapbox and tell the American public what these soldiers could have done to stop the alleged abuse. The answer is there was no one to tell and thatÂ’s because of congress, who are running the war and are hiding in safety while the soldiers are trying to figure out what is thmissionsion and are trying to do itÂ…
We proved during our Revolutionary war, saw it in the Viet Nam war, saw it in Afghanistan when the Afghans threw the Russians out, and are seeing it in Iraq, local folks dedicated to their cause will defeat the largest of armies every time unless the army is ruthless like the Russians in Hungry.
LET'S GET OUT OF IRAQ!!!! Before we are embarrassed moreÂ…
Increased Gasoline Prices
When you look at the influential members of the George W. Bush administration and understand their histories with the oil industry you better understand why gasoline prices are where they are and why the administration has remained silent on the subject. You also understand the attack on the Taliban government in Afghanistan and the loss of focus on the war on terror. When you see the influence the members of the royal family of Saudi Arabia have over the members of the government of the United States you understand why they have no respect for America. As long as members of the government of the United States can leave government at the end of their terms and go to work for firms, organizations, etc subsidized by Saudi Arabia the people of the United States will remain captive to the oil industry and to its sugar daddy the Middle East. What I find the mot problematic is the silence of the members of Congress. The rulers in the middle-east obviously have no respect for George Bush or this country and feel free to treat this country any way they like.
When you look at the individual countries in the middle-east you see an overwhelming hatred of the United States and its leaders which includes Congress which includes you. When you look at the individual countries in Europe you see an overwhelming lack of respect for the United States and its leaders, which again includes Congress.
The leadership of the United States has become a nonentity in the world leaving this country in its weakest position in memory. While we get weaker our enemies get stronger.
We punish our soldiers for doing their jobs just to placate the uncivilized barbarians of the Middle East. The more you understand about the Islamic religion the more you understand it is not a religion of love but a religion of hatred and one that encourages killing non believers. The Geneva Convention is only valid when countries at war had agree to the convention. When we are at war with a people who did not sign the agreement we are not to be held to its limitations and should feel free to do anything necessary to win. We proved that killing civilians is a good thing; reference the atom bomb in Japan. Why do we condemn countries for using a proven tactic? We proved that hit and run tactics work reference our war with England and our war with North Viet Nam. Maybe it’s our hypocrisy that people hate the most.
We try to make everyone happy and make no one happy. Our enemies need to learn to fear us. We should be good friends and horrible enemies.
Someone in our government needs to develop a back bone and maybe it will be contagious.
When you look at the individual countries in the middle-east you see an overwhelming hatred of the United States and its leaders which includes Congress which includes you. When you look at the individual countries in Europe you see an overwhelming lack of respect for the United States and its leaders, which again includes Congress.
The leadership of the United States has become a nonentity in the world leaving this country in its weakest position in memory. While we get weaker our enemies get stronger.
We punish our soldiers for doing their jobs just to placate the uncivilized barbarians of the Middle East. The more you understand about the Islamic religion the more you understand it is not a religion of love but a religion of hatred and one that encourages killing non believers. The Geneva Convention is only valid when countries at war had agree to the convention. When we are at war with a people who did not sign the agreement we are not to be held to its limitations and should feel free to do anything necessary to win. We proved that killing civilians is a good thing; reference the atom bomb in Japan. Why do we condemn countries for using a proven tactic? We proved that hit and run tactics work reference our war with England and our war with North Viet Nam. Maybe it’s our hypocrisy that people hate the most.
We try to make everyone happy and make no one happy. Our enemies need to learn to fear us. We should be good friends and horrible enemies.
Someone in our government needs to develop a back bone and maybe it will be contagious.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Sex in the United States
Someone should do a story on sex in the United States. There are commercials about men who can't get it up so they get Viagra and commercials about women who aren't interested unless they take their version of Viagra. And then there is that four hour problem. There are commercials for women who don't make it to the bathroom in time or experience some leakage if they move too quickly. Changes the image of those cheerleaders, doesn't it. We can't forge the commercials about men and women who have to go to the bathroom all of the time. There might be a sitcom for HBO or the Comedy Channel in here somewhere maybe starring Michael Jackson as the sufferer of all.
Casualties and Policies
I am against the war in Iraq. I have been against putting troops on the ground in the Middle East before Afghanistan because we cannot win and we are wasting the lives of our Military to no good purpose. When we eventually leave the area, there will be civil war.
But..... Let's get real. We have not experienced casualties of any numbers in this country since WWII which was the last war where our freedom was on the line. All of the wars since then have been political and lives sacrificed were collateral damage. In Viet Nam we wasted about 200 lives a week and now people want to have diplomatic relations with the people who killed our soldiers. If 50 dead marines upsets you what would you have said during the Normandy invasion? How about the battle of Fredericksburg during the War Between the States? Reports were 1,000 an hour died. Don't concern yourself with dead marines but instead concern yourself with the policies of our government that cannot succeed.
One of policies of our government prohibits the use of embryos in research designed to improve the lives of American citizens and at the same time sacrifices the lives of American citizens in the futile attempt to improve the lives of people who hate us? How about sacrificing 2,000+ embryos? Why not?
But all is not lost. Haliburton is doing well as are the rest of the oil business.
But..... Let's get real. We have not experienced casualties of any numbers in this country since WWII which was the last war where our freedom was on the line. All of the wars since then have been political and lives sacrificed were collateral damage. In Viet Nam we wasted about 200 lives a week and now people want to have diplomatic relations with the people who killed our soldiers. If 50 dead marines upsets you what would you have said during the Normandy invasion? How about the battle of Fredericksburg during the War Between the States? Reports were 1,000 an hour died. Don't concern yourself with dead marines but instead concern yourself with the policies of our government that cannot succeed.
One of policies of our government prohibits the use of embryos in research designed to improve the lives of American citizens and at the same time sacrifices the lives of American citizens in the futile attempt to improve the lives of people who hate us? How about sacrificing 2,000+ embryos? Why not?
But all is not lost. Haliburton is doing well as are the rest of the oil business.
Freedom of the Press is Abused
The problem is not with the concept of Freedom of the Press but the laziness of the media that is constantly quoting another story without verifying the veracity of the story. What this means is one reporter writes something and the rest of the media quotes it. Errors are NOT mistakes but are efforts to increase their circulation or viewership by beating the competition. ALL media does the same thing including cable news networks. When they do they show themselves as unprofessional and not to be trusted..
Thursday, November 03, 2005
History of the Palestinians in Israel
Palestinian citizens of Israel makeup close to 20% of the total population of the country, numbering over 1,000,000. They live predominantly in the Galilee region in the north, central Israel, and the Negev desert in the south. The Palestinian people living in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Diaspora, belong to three religious communities: Muslim (81%), Christian (10%), and Druze (9%).
In 1947, the Palestinians were 67% of the population of Palestine. The State of Israel was established, May 14, 1948. During the Arab-Israeli war, approximately 780,000 of the pre-1948 Palestinian population left or were expelled to the neighboring Arab states and to the West. Of the 150,000 Palestinians remaining in the new state, 25% were displaced from their homes and villages and became internally displaced persons. As a result of the war, the Palestinian population in Israel was transformed from a majority population to a minority in an exclusively Jewish state with no political or economic power.
The Jewish majority viewed the Palestinians suspiciously and with hostility - as part of the Arab world and as enemies of the state. From 1948 to 1966, the Palestinians in Israel lived under military rule applied only to them. Military rule placed severe restrictions on movement, prohibitions on political organization, limitations on job opportunities, and censorship of publications. In 1956, the Israeli army killed 49 Palestinian farmers in Kufr Kasem for "violating" the curfew imposed on their village. Unaware that a curfew had been ordered, the farmers were returning home when they were killed. Substantial demonstrations on the anniversary of the massacre in 1957 marked the first time that Palestinians in Israel had organized on a large scale to protest what they considered the state's repressive policies.
The Israeli authorities confiscated Palestinian-owned lands forcing the Palestinians to become dependent on the Israeli economy. Prior to 1948, the Jewish community owned just 6-7% of the land. During the next forty years, 80% of lands owned by Palestinians living in Israel were confiscated and placed at the exclusive disposal of Jewish citizens. Today, 93% of all land in Israel is under direct state control.
Military rule was lifted in 1966. One year later, following the war in 1967, Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Jerusalem. As a result Palestinians in Israel regained contacts with Palestinians in these areas.
Israel never sought to assimilate or integrate the Palestinian population, treating them as second-class citizens and excluding them from public life and the public sphere. The state practiced systematic and institutionalized discrimination in all areas, such as land dispossession and allocation, education, language, economics, culture, and political participation. Successive Israeli governments maintained tight control over the community, attempting to suppress Palestinian/Arab identity and to divide the community within itself. To that end, Palestinians are not defined by the state as a national minority despite UN Resolution 181 calling for such; rather they are referred to as "Israeli Arabs," "non-Jews," or by religious affiliation. Further attempts have been made to split the Palestinian community into "minorities within a minority" through separate educational curricula, disparate employment and academic opportunities, and the selective conscription of Druze and some Bedouin men to military service. Israeli discourse has legitimated the second-class status of Palestinian citizens on the basis that the minority population does not serve in the military; however, the selective conscription of Druze and some Bedouin has not prevented discrimination against them.
Despite historical marginalization and overwhelming disparities, many Palestinian citizens believed that their situation would improve with the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization. However, the 1990s brought many shifts in the political atmosphere which affected the situation of the Palestinian minority. Under Labor-led governments, Arab political parties held a balance of power, and the government occasionally accounted for those Palestinian concerns that did not challenge the structure of the state. When the Likud or unity coalition governments held power, Palestinian citizens were faced with decreasing budgets, special programs exclusively established for Jewish communities and institutions, and heightened institutional discrimination.
These political shifts have been exacerbated by the problems that the Palestinian minority has faced post-Oslo. The promise and hopes that were briefly raised have not been met with concrete benefits for Palestinian citizens of Israel. In fact, the widely-held view that the peace process would act as a springboard to alleviating or at least addressing the problems of the Palestinian minority did not materialize. Palestinians in Israel found themselves excluded from the peace process, and their civic and socio-economic status unilaterally neglected. Indeed the Oslo Accords have redefined and limited the "Palestinian question" to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, excluding Palestinian citizens of Israel as well as the entire refugee population in the Diaspora from any substantive dialogue.
The realization that their concerns would not be met through the Oslo process brought an increase in political protest on the part of the Palestinian minority. Palestinians demonstrated in large numbers in 1998 in Umm al-Sahali following the court-ordered and state-executed demolition of Palestinian homes, and in Umm al-Fahem after the army attempted to expropriate Palestinian land for use as a military training area. Both protests resulted in violent clashes with the police. As a result of the events in Umm al-Fahem, which went on for three days, hundreds of Palestinians including students, were injured by tear gas, rubber-coated steel bullets and live ammunition after the police stormed the high school. Students also protested at universities, demonstrating on numerous issues such as tuition increases and other academic issues; violence against the Palestinian community; and national identity concerns.
The post-Oslo period has also been characterized by a substantial decline in economic stability of the Palestinian minority. The Palestinian community already faced a high rate of unemployment: as of July 2000, the localities with the highest rates of unemployment were all Arab, and the situation has worsened since the outbreak of the al-Aqsa Intifada. The ongoing high rate of unemployment compounds the ill effects of discrimination. The poverty statistics for the Palestinian minority are equally chilling, as after social security payments, 37.6% of Palestinian citizens of Israel remained below the poverty line in 1998-1999.
In September 2000, two months after the failed Camp David accords, Ariel Sharon, then a Member of the Knesset (MK), visited the Haram al-Sharif compound, site of the al-Aqsa Mosque in East Jerusalem. Over the course of the next two days, Israeli security forces killed and injured tens of Palestinian worshippers and demonstrators throughout the Occupied Territories.
The uprising that began with Sharon's provocative visit to assert Israeli sovereignty over the disputed area and the resulting demonstrations throughout Israel and the Occupied Territories has become known as the al-Aqsa Intifada. Following these events in the Occupied Territories, Palestinians in Israel called for a general strike in early October to express solidarity with the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
Palestinians demonstrated in massive numbers in Arab towns and villages throughout the country, resulting in more than 1,000 arrests, with hundreds indicted and detained without bail until the end of trial, many of whom were minors. During street demonstrations in early October 2000, Israeli police used live ammunition, rubber-coated steel bullets and tear gas against the unarmed protestors; hundreds were injured and 13 Palestinian citizens of Israel were killed. The al-Aqsa Intifada events marked the first time in decades that such brutal violence was used by Israeli police against Palestinian citizens of the state.
In November 2000, the Israeli government, headed by then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak, announced the establishment of a three-member Commission of Inquiry ("the Commission"), in accordance with the Commissions of Inquiry Law (1968). The mandate of the Commission is to investigate the clashes between the security forces and Arab and Jewish citizens, which culminated in the death and injury of Israeli citizens starting from 29 September 2000. It further calls for an investigation into the behavior of the inciters, organizers and participants in the events from all sectors, and the security forces. The Commission sets a precedent in Israeli legal history. This is the first time a Commission has been established to investigate police violence against the Palestinian minority, although the Palestinian community has demanded such commissions in the past. As a result of the Commission, serious questions have been raised regarding the credibility of the police force as a whole. Testimonies heard by the Commission to date shed important light on the relationship between Palestinian citizens and the state, and Jewish-Arab relations in Israel. As it stands, the state-sanctioned use of force against Palestinian citizens calls into question Israel's commitment to democracy, and highlights the problems of Palestinian engagement with state institutions.
Along with the establishment of the Commission, the February 2001 direct election of MK Ariel Sharon as Prime Minister was another pivotal moment for the Palestinian minority. For Palestinian citizens of Israel, the choice between Barak and Sharon afforded no political option, as both candidates touted a Zionist agenda that explicitly and implicitly relegated Palestinians to second-class citizenship and continued the policies of occupation in the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem. For the first time, most of Palestinian community boycotted the election (only 23% voted, less than a third of the typical turnout by the community) by staying home from the polls or submitting blank ballots. The unity government subsequently created by Sharon is facing the end of the Oslo process, as political negotiations have broken down and massive violence rages in the Occupied Territories
In 1947, the Palestinians were 67% of the population of Palestine. The State of Israel was established, May 14, 1948. During the Arab-Israeli war, approximately 780,000 of the pre-1948 Palestinian population left or were expelled to the neighboring Arab states and to the West. Of the 150,000 Palestinians remaining in the new state, 25% were displaced from their homes and villages and became internally displaced persons. As a result of the war, the Palestinian population in Israel was transformed from a majority population to a minority in an exclusively Jewish state with no political or economic power.
The Jewish majority viewed the Palestinians suspiciously and with hostility - as part of the Arab world and as enemies of the state. From 1948 to 1966, the Palestinians in Israel lived under military rule applied only to them. Military rule placed severe restrictions on movement, prohibitions on political organization, limitations on job opportunities, and censorship of publications. In 1956, the Israeli army killed 49 Palestinian farmers in Kufr Kasem for "violating" the curfew imposed on their village. Unaware that a curfew had been ordered, the farmers were returning home when they were killed. Substantial demonstrations on the anniversary of the massacre in 1957 marked the first time that Palestinians in Israel had organized on a large scale to protest what they considered the state's repressive policies.
The Israeli authorities confiscated Palestinian-owned lands forcing the Palestinians to become dependent on the Israeli economy. Prior to 1948, the Jewish community owned just 6-7% of the land. During the next forty years, 80% of lands owned by Palestinians living in Israel were confiscated and placed at the exclusive disposal of Jewish citizens. Today, 93% of all land in Israel is under direct state control.
Military rule was lifted in 1966. One year later, following the war in 1967, Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Jerusalem. As a result Palestinians in Israel regained contacts with Palestinians in these areas.
Israel never sought to assimilate or integrate the Palestinian population, treating them as second-class citizens and excluding them from public life and the public sphere. The state practiced systematic and institutionalized discrimination in all areas, such as land dispossession and allocation, education, language, economics, culture, and political participation. Successive Israeli governments maintained tight control over the community, attempting to suppress Palestinian/Arab identity and to divide the community within itself. To that end, Palestinians are not defined by the state as a national minority despite UN Resolution 181 calling for such; rather they are referred to as "Israeli Arabs," "non-Jews," or by religious affiliation. Further attempts have been made to split the Palestinian community into "minorities within a minority" through separate educational curricula, disparate employment and academic opportunities, and the selective conscription of Druze and some Bedouin men to military service. Israeli discourse has legitimated the second-class status of Palestinian citizens on the basis that the minority population does not serve in the military; however, the selective conscription of Druze and some Bedouin has not prevented discrimination against them.
Despite historical marginalization and overwhelming disparities, many Palestinian citizens believed that their situation would improve with the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization. However, the 1990s brought many shifts in the political atmosphere which affected the situation of the Palestinian minority. Under Labor-led governments, Arab political parties held a balance of power, and the government occasionally accounted for those Palestinian concerns that did not challenge the structure of the state. When the Likud or unity coalition governments held power, Palestinian citizens were faced with decreasing budgets, special programs exclusively established for Jewish communities and institutions, and heightened institutional discrimination.
These political shifts have been exacerbated by the problems that the Palestinian minority has faced post-Oslo. The promise and hopes that were briefly raised have not been met with concrete benefits for Palestinian citizens of Israel. In fact, the widely-held view that the peace process would act as a springboard to alleviating or at least addressing the problems of the Palestinian minority did not materialize. Palestinians in Israel found themselves excluded from the peace process, and their civic and socio-economic status unilaterally neglected. Indeed the Oslo Accords have redefined and limited the "Palestinian question" to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, excluding Palestinian citizens of Israel as well as the entire refugee population in the Diaspora from any substantive dialogue.
The realization that their concerns would not be met through the Oslo process brought an increase in political protest on the part of the Palestinian minority. Palestinians demonstrated in large numbers in 1998 in Umm al-Sahali following the court-ordered and state-executed demolition of Palestinian homes, and in Umm al-Fahem after the army attempted to expropriate Palestinian land for use as a military training area. Both protests resulted in violent clashes with the police. As a result of the events in Umm al-Fahem, which went on for three days, hundreds of Palestinians including students, were injured by tear gas, rubber-coated steel bullets and live ammunition after the police stormed the high school. Students also protested at universities, demonstrating on numerous issues such as tuition increases and other academic issues; violence against the Palestinian community; and national identity concerns.
The post-Oslo period has also been characterized by a substantial decline in economic stability of the Palestinian minority. The Palestinian community already faced a high rate of unemployment: as of July 2000, the localities with the highest rates of unemployment were all Arab, and the situation has worsened since the outbreak of the al-Aqsa Intifada. The ongoing high rate of unemployment compounds the ill effects of discrimination. The poverty statistics for the Palestinian minority are equally chilling, as after social security payments, 37.6% of Palestinian citizens of Israel remained below the poverty line in 1998-1999.
In September 2000, two months after the failed Camp David accords, Ariel Sharon, then a Member of the Knesset (MK), visited the Haram al-Sharif compound, site of the al-Aqsa Mosque in East Jerusalem. Over the course of the next two days, Israeli security forces killed and injured tens of Palestinian worshippers and demonstrators throughout the Occupied Territories.
The uprising that began with Sharon's provocative visit to assert Israeli sovereignty over the disputed area and the resulting demonstrations throughout Israel and the Occupied Territories has become known as the al-Aqsa Intifada. Following these events in the Occupied Territories, Palestinians in Israel called for a general strike in early October to express solidarity with the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
Palestinians demonstrated in massive numbers in Arab towns and villages throughout the country, resulting in more than 1,000 arrests, with hundreds indicted and detained without bail until the end of trial, many of whom were minors. During street demonstrations in early October 2000, Israeli police used live ammunition, rubber-coated steel bullets and tear gas against the unarmed protestors; hundreds were injured and 13 Palestinian citizens of Israel were killed. The al-Aqsa Intifada events marked the first time in decades that such brutal violence was used by Israeli police against Palestinian citizens of the state.
In November 2000, the Israeli government, headed by then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak, announced the establishment of a three-member Commission of Inquiry ("the Commission"), in accordance with the Commissions of Inquiry Law (1968). The mandate of the Commission is to investigate the clashes between the security forces and Arab and Jewish citizens, which culminated in the death and injury of Israeli citizens starting from 29 September 2000. It further calls for an investigation into the behavior of the inciters, organizers and participants in the events from all sectors, and the security forces. The Commission sets a precedent in Israeli legal history. This is the first time a Commission has been established to investigate police violence against the Palestinian minority, although the Palestinian community has demanded such commissions in the past. As a result of the Commission, serious questions have been raised regarding the credibility of the police force as a whole. Testimonies heard by the Commission to date shed important light on the relationship between Palestinian citizens and the state, and Jewish-Arab relations in Israel. As it stands, the state-sanctioned use of force against Palestinian citizens calls into question Israel's commitment to democracy, and highlights the problems of Palestinian engagement with state institutions.
Along with the establishment of the Commission, the February 2001 direct election of MK Ariel Sharon as Prime Minister was another pivotal moment for the Palestinian minority. For Palestinian citizens of Israel, the choice between Barak and Sharon afforded no political option, as both candidates touted a Zionist agenda that explicitly and implicitly relegated Palestinians to second-class citizenship and continued the policies of occupation in the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem. For the first time, most of Palestinian community boycotted the election (only 23% voted, less than a third of the typical turnout by the community) by staying home from the polls or submitting blank ballots. The unity government subsequently created by Sharon is facing the end of the Oslo process, as political negotiations have broken down and massive violence rages in the Occupied Territories
Israel Has No Choice
Israel’s population is growing but the neighborhood trend helps to understand why soldier Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak concluded that they had no choice but to trade land for peace.
The fertility rate among Palestinians in Israel is 4.5 children per woman; on the West Bank, 5.5 children per woman; in Gaza, 6.6 children per woman. If demography is destiny, Israel is in an existential crisis that can only be exacerbated by continued military occupation and expansion of settlements.
In the next twenty-five years, Israels population (Jewish and Arab) will grow by 2.1 million, while her Arab neighbors will swell by 62.2 million. Now consider Israel’s “Palestinian problem.”
At the beginning of the seventh century, the Mediterranean world was Christian. But, within fifty years of Muhammad’s flight to Medina in 622, the armies of Islam had swept over the southern coast of the Inland Sea. Early in the eighth century, Arabs and Berbers brushed aside weak Visigoth resistance, overran Spain, and crossed the Pyrenees into France, where on of the decisive battles of history was fought. At Tours, the “Hammer of the Franks,” Charles Martel defeated the Muslims, who withdrew back over the mountains. Except for the tiny kingdom of the Asturias, which would be the base camp of the Spanish Reconquista, Islam dominated the Iberian peninsula for centuries. Not until 1492 did Ferdinand and Isabella finally drive the Moors out of Spain.
Indicators everywhere suggest Islam is rising again. An Islamic secessionist movement is active in the Philippines. Muslim troops battle Christian secessionists in Indonesia. From Palestine to Pakistan, street mobs cheered the slaughter at the Pentagon and World Trade Center. For years, the Afghani Taliban gave sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist cells and dispatched holy warriors into the old Soviet republics of Central Asia and to assist Chechen rebels fighting in Russia. In March 2001, Taliban ruler Mullah Muhammad Omar ordered all religious statues smashed, including the seventh-century Great Buddhas of Bamiyan, declaring, “These idols have been gods of the infidels.”
In Turkey and Algeria, elections in the 1990s brought to power Islamic regimes, which were removed by methods other than democratic. In Egypt, Muslim militants have renewed the persecution of Christian Copts. Islamic law has now been imposed on ten northern states in Nigeria.
In Europe, Christian congregations are dying, churches are emptying out, and mosques are filling up. There are five million Muslims in France, and between twelve and fifteen million in the European Union. There are fifteen hundred mosques in German. Islam has replaced Judaism as the second religion of Europe. As the Christian tide goes out in Europe, and Islamic tide comes in. In 2000, for the first time there were more Muslims in the world than Catholics.
While the ideology of “Islamism” has failed in Afghanistan, Iran, and Sudan to create a modern state that can command the loyalty of its people and serve as a model for other Islamic nations, the religion of Islam has not failed. In science, technology, economics, industry, agriculture, armaments, and democratic rule, America, Europe, and Japan are generations ahead. But the Islamic world retains something the West has lost: a desire to have children and the will to carry on their civilization, cultures, families, and faith. Today, it is difficult to find a Western nation where the native population is not dying as it is to find an Islamic nation where the native population is not exploding. The West may have learned what Islam knows not, but Islam remembers what the West has forgotten: “There is no vision but by faith.”
How does one sever a people’s roots? Answer: Destroy its memory. Deny a people the knowledge of who they are and where they came from.
In the Middle Ages, Ottoman Turks imposed on Balkan Christians a blood tax—one boy out of every five. Taken from their parents, the boys were raised as strict Muslims to become the fanatic elite soldiers of the Sultan, the Janissaries, who were then sent back to occupy and oppress the peoples who had borne them. George Orwell in the party slogan of Big Brother gave the formula for erasing memory, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
As Christianity began to die in the West, something else occurred: Western peoples began to stop having children. The correlation between religious faith and large families is absolute. The more devout a people, whether Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, the higher its birth rate. In New Square, New York, in the first wholly Orthodox Jewish community in the United States, the average family has ten children. In Kostroma, Russia, Vladimir Alexseyev, father of a poster family of sixteen children, and his pregnant wife have a home full of icons. In the Baptist state of Texas, the birthrate among whites is higher than among white folks in sybarite California. Wherever secularism triumphs, populations begin to shrink and die.
Years ago, when the film The Prophet came out, in which the face of Muhammad was shown, an act of blasphemy to Islam, theaters refused to run it for fear of violent retaliation. When Salman Rushdie published Satanic Verses, a novel judged an obscene insult by Islam; he spent years hiding from the fatwa (Islamic religious decree), a death sentence imposed by the Ayatollah Khomeini. While fatwas and fire bombings are not the American way, Americans must be prepared to live with them.
At a level of 1.2 billion, [in1999] Muslims represent between 19.2% and 22% of the world's population. It has become the second largest religion in the world. Christianity has slightly less than 30%.
Islam is growing about 2.9% per year which is faster than the total world population which increases at about 2.3% annually. It is thus attracting a progressively larger percentage of the world's population.
The number of Muslims in North America is in dispute: estimates range from under 3 million to over 6 million. The main cause of the disagreement appears to be over how many Muslim immigrants have converted to Christianity since they arrived in the US.
Statistics Canada reports that 253,260 Canadians identified themselves as Muslims (0.9% of the total population) during the 1991 census. Some estimated that there were as many as 500,000 Muslims in Canada. Today (.2001) there are an estimated 650,000 Muslims in Canada.
Demographics
In the Northwestern Africa between 1965 and 1990, the population rose from 29.8 million to 59 million. During the same period, the number of Egyptians increased from 29.4 million to 52.4 million. In Central Asia, between 1970 and 1993, populations grew at an annual rate of 2.9 percent in Tajikistan, 2.6 percent in Uzbekistan, 2.5 percent in Turkmenistan, and 1.9 percent in Kyrgyzia. In the 1970s, the demographic balance in the Soviet Union shifted drastically, with Muslims increasing by 24 percent while Russians increased by only 6.5 percent.
In countries, such as Tanzania and Macedonia, the Muslims will become a majority within twenty years.
Largely through immigration, the Muslim population of the United States grew sixfold between 1972 and 1990.
Last year, seven percent of babies born in European Union countries were Muslims. In Brussels, the figure was 57 percent. Islam is the second religion of almost every European state - the only exceptions being those European countries such as Azerbaijan and Albania where it is the majority religion.
If current trends continue, then an overall ten percent of European nationals will be Muslim by the year 2020.
Conclusion
If the west's population is top-heavy, (i.e., the ratio of youth to elderly is low) that of Muslim populations is the opposite. For example, today more than half the population of Algeria is under the age of twenty and this situation is similar elsewhere. These young populations will reproduce and perpetuate the increase of Muslims on a percentage basis well into the next millennium.
North America and Europe have increasingly aging populations and one of the most disturbing social issues of the new millennium will concern a more efficient means of disposing of the elderly. (For example, witness the new euthanasia laws in the Netherlands, and the ongoing debate in many countries about this issue.) Medical advances can assure an average life span in the high seventies, although active life spans have not grown as fast. In the early 1900s, a westerner could expect to spend an average of the last two years of life as an invalid. Today, that figure is seven years. Studies have shown medicine prolongs life, but can not prolong mobility nearly as well. Aging populations with their increased healthcare costs are considered a more extensive socio- economic burden to society. The UK Department of Health recently announced that a new prescription drug for Alzheimer's Disease was available on the National Health Service - but its cost meant that it was only available to a small minority of patients.
An aging population tends to be introspective and sluggish, whereas a young population is more likely to be vibrant and energetic. This may or may not bode well for many countries depending on whether their political structure is fragile or not.
The fertility rate among Palestinians in Israel is 4.5 children per woman; on the West Bank, 5.5 children per woman; in Gaza, 6.6 children per woman. If demography is destiny, Israel is in an existential crisis that can only be exacerbated by continued military occupation and expansion of settlements.
In the next twenty-five years, Israels population (Jewish and Arab) will grow by 2.1 million, while her Arab neighbors will swell by 62.2 million. Now consider Israel’s “Palestinian problem.”
At the beginning of the seventh century, the Mediterranean world was Christian. But, within fifty years of Muhammad’s flight to Medina in 622, the armies of Islam had swept over the southern coast of the Inland Sea. Early in the eighth century, Arabs and Berbers brushed aside weak Visigoth resistance, overran Spain, and crossed the Pyrenees into France, where on of the decisive battles of history was fought. At Tours, the “Hammer of the Franks,” Charles Martel defeated the Muslims, who withdrew back over the mountains. Except for the tiny kingdom of the Asturias, which would be the base camp of the Spanish Reconquista, Islam dominated the Iberian peninsula for centuries. Not until 1492 did Ferdinand and Isabella finally drive the Moors out of Spain.
Indicators everywhere suggest Islam is rising again. An Islamic secessionist movement is active in the Philippines. Muslim troops battle Christian secessionists in Indonesia. From Palestine to Pakistan, street mobs cheered the slaughter at the Pentagon and World Trade Center. For years, the Afghani Taliban gave sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist cells and dispatched holy warriors into the old Soviet republics of Central Asia and to assist Chechen rebels fighting in Russia. In March 2001, Taliban ruler Mullah Muhammad Omar ordered all religious statues smashed, including the seventh-century Great Buddhas of Bamiyan, declaring, “These idols have been gods of the infidels.”
In Turkey and Algeria, elections in the 1990s brought to power Islamic regimes, which were removed by methods other than democratic. In Egypt, Muslim militants have renewed the persecution of Christian Copts. Islamic law has now been imposed on ten northern states in Nigeria.
In Europe, Christian congregations are dying, churches are emptying out, and mosques are filling up. There are five million Muslims in France, and between twelve and fifteen million in the European Union. There are fifteen hundred mosques in German. Islam has replaced Judaism as the second religion of Europe. As the Christian tide goes out in Europe, and Islamic tide comes in. In 2000, for the first time there were more Muslims in the world than Catholics.
While the ideology of “Islamism” has failed in Afghanistan, Iran, and Sudan to create a modern state that can command the loyalty of its people and serve as a model for other Islamic nations, the religion of Islam has not failed. In science, technology, economics, industry, agriculture, armaments, and democratic rule, America, Europe, and Japan are generations ahead. But the Islamic world retains something the West has lost: a desire to have children and the will to carry on their civilization, cultures, families, and faith. Today, it is difficult to find a Western nation where the native population is not dying as it is to find an Islamic nation where the native population is not exploding. The West may have learned what Islam knows not, but Islam remembers what the West has forgotten: “There is no vision but by faith.”
How does one sever a people’s roots? Answer: Destroy its memory. Deny a people the knowledge of who they are and where they came from.
In the Middle Ages, Ottoman Turks imposed on Balkan Christians a blood tax—one boy out of every five. Taken from their parents, the boys were raised as strict Muslims to become the fanatic elite soldiers of the Sultan, the Janissaries, who were then sent back to occupy and oppress the peoples who had borne them. George Orwell in the party slogan of Big Brother gave the formula for erasing memory, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
As Christianity began to die in the West, something else occurred: Western peoples began to stop having children. The correlation between religious faith and large families is absolute. The more devout a people, whether Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, the higher its birth rate. In New Square, New York, in the first wholly Orthodox Jewish community in the United States, the average family has ten children. In Kostroma, Russia, Vladimir Alexseyev, father of a poster family of sixteen children, and his pregnant wife have a home full of icons. In the Baptist state of Texas, the birthrate among whites is higher than among white folks in sybarite California. Wherever secularism triumphs, populations begin to shrink and die.
Years ago, when the film The Prophet came out, in which the face of Muhammad was shown, an act of blasphemy to Islam, theaters refused to run it for fear of violent retaliation. When Salman Rushdie published Satanic Verses, a novel judged an obscene insult by Islam; he spent years hiding from the fatwa (Islamic religious decree), a death sentence imposed by the Ayatollah Khomeini. While fatwas and fire bombings are not the American way, Americans must be prepared to live with them.
At a level of 1.2 billion, [in1999] Muslims represent between 19.2% and 22% of the world's population. It has become the second largest religion in the world. Christianity has slightly less than 30%.
Islam is growing about 2.9% per year which is faster than the total world population which increases at about 2.3% annually. It is thus attracting a progressively larger percentage of the world's population.
The number of Muslims in North America is in dispute: estimates range from under 3 million to over 6 million. The main cause of the disagreement appears to be over how many Muslim immigrants have converted to Christianity since they arrived in the US.
Statistics Canada reports that 253,260 Canadians identified themselves as Muslims (0.9% of the total population) during the 1991 census. Some estimated that there were as many as 500,000 Muslims in Canada. Today (.2001) there are an estimated 650,000 Muslims in Canada.
Demographics
In the Northwestern Africa between 1965 and 1990, the population rose from 29.8 million to 59 million. During the same period, the number of Egyptians increased from 29.4 million to 52.4 million. In Central Asia, between 1970 and 1993, populations grew at an annual rate of 2.9 percent in Tajikistan, 2.6 percent in Uzbekistan, 2.5 percent in Turkmenistan, and 1.9 percent in Kyrgyzia. In the 1970s, the demographic balance in the Soviet Union shifted drastically, with Muslims increasing by 24 percent while Russians increased by only 6.5 percent.
In countries, such as Tanzania and Macedonia, the Muslims will become a majority within twenty years.
Largely through immigration, the Muslim population of the United States grew sixfold between 1972 and 1990.
Last year, seven percent of babies born in European Union countries were Muslims. In Brussels, the figure was 57 percent. Islam is the second religion of almost every European state - the only exceptions being those European countries such as Azerbaijan and Albania where it is the majority religion.
If current trends continue, then an overall ten percent of European nationals will be Muslim by the year 2020.
Conclusion
If the west's population is top-heavy, (i.e., the ratio of youth to elderly is low) that of Muslim populations is the opposite. For example, today more than half the population of Algeria is under the age of twenty and this situation is similar elsewhere. These young populations will reproduce and perpetuate the increase of Muslims on a percentage basis well into the next millennium.
North America and Europe have increasingly aging populations and one of the most disturbing social issues of the new millennium will concern a more efficient means of disposing of the elderly. (For example, witness the new euthanasia laws in the Netherlands, and the ongoing debate in many countries about this issue.) Medical advances can assure an average life span in the high seventies, although active life spans have not grown as fast. In the early 1900s, a westerner could expect to spend an average of the last two years of life as an invalid. Today, that figure is seven years. Studies have shown medicine prolongs life, but can not prolong mobility nearly as well. Aging populations with their increased healthcare costs are considered a more extensive socio- economic burden to society. The UK Department of Health recently announced that a new prescription drug for Alzheimer's Disease was available on the National Health Service - but its cost meant that it was only available to a small minority of patients.
An aging population tends to be introspective and sluggish, whereas a young population is more likely to be vibrant and energetic. This may or may not bode well for many countries depending on whether their political structure is fragile or not.
Either we get off this narcotic, or it kills us.
In his 1935 State of the Union Address, FDR spoke to a nation mired in the Depression, but still marinated in conservative values: "Continued dependence" upon welfare, said FDR, "induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
Behind FDR's statement was the conviction that, while the government must step in in an emergency, in normal times, men provide the food, clothing and shelter for their families.
And we did, until the war pulled us out of the Depression and a postwar boom made us, in John K. Galbraith's phrase, The Affluent Society. By the 1960s, America, the richest country on earth, was growing ever more prosperous. But with the 1964 landslide of LBJ, liberalism triumphed and began its great experiment. Behind the Great Society was a great idea: to lift America's poor out of poverty, government should now take care of all their basic needs. By giving the poor welfare, subsidized food, public housing and free medical care, government will end poverty in America.
At the Superdome and New Orleans Convention Center, we saw the failure of 40 years of the Great Society. No sooner had Katrina passed by and the 17th Street levee broke than hundreds of young men who should have taken charge in helping the aged, the sick and the women with babies to safety took to the streets to shoot, loot and rape. The New Orleans police, their numbers cut by deserters who left their posts to look after their families, engaged in running gun battles all day long to stay alive and protect people.
It was the character and conduct of its people that makes the New Orleans disaster unique. After a hurricane, people's needs are simple: food, water, shelter, medical attention. But they can be hard to meet. People buried in rubble or hiding in attics of flooded homes are tough to get to. But, even with the incompetence of the mayor and governor, and the torpor of federal officials, this was possible.
Coast Guard helicopters were operating Tuesday. There were roads open into the city for SUVs, buses and trucks. While New Orleans was flooded, the water was stagnant. People walked through to the convention center and Superdome. The flimsiest boat could navigate. Even if government dithered for days -- what else is new -- this does not explain the failure of the people themselves.
Between 1865 and 1940, the South -- having lost a fourth of its best and bravest in battle, devastated by war, mired in poverty -- was famous for the hardy self-reliance of her people, black and white.
In 1940, hundreds of British fishermen and yachtsmen sailed back and forth daily under fire across a turbulent 23-mile Channel to rescue 300,000 soldiers from Dunkirk. How do we explain to the world that a tenth that number of Americans could not be reached in four days from across a stagnant pond?
The real disaster of Katrina was that society broke down. An entire community could not cope. Liberalism, the idea that good intentions and government programs can build a Great Society, was exposed as fraud. After trillions of tax dollars (6.5 trillion to be exact--that's million with 6 more zeroes) for welfare, food stamps, public housing, job training and education have poured out since 1965, poverty remains pandemic. But today, when the police vanish, the community disappears and men take to the streets to prey on women and the weak.
Stranded for days in a pool of fetid water, almost everyone waited for the government to come save them. They screamed into the cameras for help, and the reporters screamed into the cameras for help, and the "civil rights leaders" screamed into the cameras that Bush was responsible and Bush was a racist.
Americans were once famous for taking the initiative, for having young leaders rise up to take command in a crisis. See any of that at the Superdome? Sri Lankans and Indonesians, far poorer than we, did not behave like this in a tsunami that took 400 times as many lives as Katrina has thus far.
We are the descendants of men and women who braved the North Atlantic in wooden boats to build a country in a strange land. Our ancestors traveled thousands of miles in covered wagons, fighting off Indians far braver than those cowards preying on New Orleans' poor.
Watching that performance in the Crescent City, it seems clear: We are not the people our parents were. And what are all our Lords Temporal now howling for? Though government failed at every level, they want more government.
FDR was right. A "spiritual disintegration" has overtaken us. Government-as-first provider, the big idea of the Great Society, has proven to be "a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
Either we get off this narcotic, or it kills us.
Author Unknown
Behind FDR's statement was the conviction that, while the government must step in in an emergency, in normal times, men provide the food, clothing and shelter for their families.
And we did, until the war pulled us out of the Depression and a postwar boom made us, in John K. Galbraith's phrase, The Affluent Society. By the 1960s, America, the richest country on earth, was growing ever more prosperous. But with the 1964 landslide of LBJ, liberalism triumphed and began its great experiment. Behind the Great Society was a great idea: to lift America's poor out of poverty, government should now take care of all their basic needs. By giving the poor welfare, subsidized food, public housing and free medical care, government will end poverty in America.
At the Superdome and New Orleans Convention Center, we saw the failure of 40 years of the Great Society. No sooner had Katrina passed by and the 17th Street levee broke than hundreds of young men who should have taken charge in helping the aged, the sick and the women with babies to safety took to the streets to shoot, loot and rape. The New Orleans police, their numbers cut by deserters who left their posts to look after their families, engaged in running gun battles all day long to stay alive and protect people.
It was the character and conduct of its people that makes the New Orleans disaster unique. After a hurricane, people's needs are simple: food, water, shelter, medical attention. But they can be hard to meet. People buried in rubble or hiding in attics of flooded homes are tough to get to. But, even with the incompetence of the mayor and governor, and the torpor of federal officials, this was possible.
Coast Guard helicopters were operating Tuesday. There were roads open into the city for SUVs, buses and trucks. While New Orleans was flooded, the water was stagnant. People walked through to the convention center and Superdome. The flimsiest boat could navigate. Even if government dithered for days -- what else is new -- this does not explain the failure of the people themselves.
Between 1865 and 1940, the South -- having lost a fourth of its best and bravest in battle, devastated by war, mired in poverty -- was famous for the hardy self-reliance of her people, black and white.
In 1940, hundreds of British fishermen and yachtsmen sailed back and forth daily under fire across a turbulent 23-mile Channel to rescue 300,000 soldiers from Dunkirk. How do we explain to the world that a tenth that number of Americans could not be reached in four days from across a stagnant pond?
The real disaster of Katrina was that society broke down. An entire community could not cope. Liberalism, the idea that good intentions and government programs can build a Great Society, was exposed as fraud. After trillions of tax dollars (6.5 trillion to be exact--that's million with 6 more zeroes) for welfare, food stamps, public housing, job training and education have poured out since 1965, poverty remains pandemic. But today, when the police vanish, the community disappears and men take to the streets to prey on women and the weak.
Stranded for days in a pool of fetid water, almost everyone waited for the government to come save them. They screamed into the cameras for help, and the reporters screamed into the cameras for help, and the "civil rights leaders" screamed into the cameras that Bush was responsible and Bush was a racist.
Americans were once famous for taking the initiative, for having young leaders rise up to take command in a crisis. See any of that at the Superdome? Sri Lankans and Indonesians, far poorer than we, did not behave like this in a tsunami that took 400 times as many lives as Katrina has thus far.
We are the descendants of men and women who braved the North Atlantic in wooden boats to build a country in a strange land. Our ancestors traveled thousands of miles in covered wagons, fighting off Indians far braver than those cowards preying on New Orleans' poor.
Watching that performance in the Crescent City, it seems clear: We are not the people our parents were. And what are all our Lords Temporal now howling for? Though government failed at every level, they want more government.
FDR was right. A "spiritual disintegration" has overtaken us. Government-as-first provider, the big idea of the Great Society, has proven to be "a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
Either we get off this narcotic, or it kills us.
Author Unknown
How President Bush should have said it....
Citizens of the United States, I want to offer my sincerest apologies for the nature of the federal response to the hurricane Katrina disaster. My administration and I have completely failed to predict how stupid and inept the local and state government was in Louisiana. Frankly, I expected a response more along the lines of that from Mississippi, in which the locals were able to support themselves for a few days until we brought in the cavalry. However, it is clear that the state and local government leaders in Louisiana are incapable of such self reliance and emergency planning. So, as Harry Truman said, the buck stops here and I take complete responsibility for failing to recognize that we were dealing with idiots in Louisiana, people who cannot manage their own state. I am embarrassed to admit this, because after all, a simple review of the state's history and position should be more than enough to demonstrate that these people are absolute morons that need to be completely supported from day one. Sometimes I am not very good at seeing the obvious.
I should have predicted that the local government would release the criminals being held in prison into the general population instead of evacuating them. Likewise, I failed to predict that Louisiana citizens would begin shooting at and attacking the very people who were trying to help them. Along a similar vein, I should have recognized that we would need to move the people along with the wide screen televisions, clothes and other items they had stolen from local stores. Many people were heard screaming "I just stole this and now you want me to leave it behind!" I frankly cannot believe that I failed to predict such activity in and around New Orleans.
Also, I should have recognized that the federal plan would be too complicated for Governor Blanco. My failure to "dumb down" the proposal, my failure to recognize my audience, likely resulted in the loss of hundreds of lives. The extra 24 hours she needed to understand the plan was critical, I should have predicted that she was too stupid to be able to make an executive decision in short order. (Said tearfully) Had I only offered a simpler minded plan, more people would have survived.
Likewise, I want to apologize for buckling under pressure from democrats to limit what they called pork barrel spending. When Senator Kennedy publicly criticized my spending bill, asking me to reduce the federal spending on local projects in New Orleans, I caved in and reduced expenditures on the levee system that would have strengthened it to a point of being able to withstand the forces of a category four storm. I will never know if my spineless response to Senator Kennedy's harassment was instrumental in the failure of the levee system.
However, I can assure the American people that I have learned a valuable lesson. I will no longer allow the ineptness of local and state governments to circle around and cause hardship for the local citizenry. I will step in sooner to save them from their stupidity. I am frankly accustomed to being in a room with people who are smarter than me. I have little experience working with people who are even less intelligent than I am.
All I can hope is that the American people forgive me my shortcomings.
Author Unknown
I should have predicted that the local government would release the criminals being held in prison into the general population instead of evacuating them. Likewise, I failed to predict that Louisiana citizens would begin shooting at and attacking the very people who were trying to help them. Along a similar vein, I should have recognized that we would need to move the people along with the wide screen televisions, clothes and other items they had stolen from local stores. Many people were heard screaming "I just stole this and now you want me to leave it behind!" I frankly cannot believe that I failed to predict such activity in and around New Orleans.
Also, I should have recognized that the federal plan would be too complicated for Governor Blanco. My failure to "dumb down" the proposal, my failure to recognize my audience, likely resulted in the loss of hundreds of lives. The extra 24 hours she needed to understand the plan was critical, I should have predicted that she was too stupid to be able to make an executive decision in short order. (Said tearfully) Had I only offered a simpler minded plan, more people would have survived.
Likewise, I want to apologize for buckling under pressure from democrats to limit what they called pork barrel spending. When Senator Kennedy publicly criticized my spending bill, asking me to reduce the federal spending on local projects in New Orleans, I caved in and reduced expenditures on the levee system that would have strengthened it to a point of being able to withstand the forces of a category four storm. I will never know if my spineless response to Senator Kennedy's harassment was instrumental in the failure of the levee system.
However, I can assure the American people that I have learned a valuable lesson. I will no longer allow the ineptness of local and state governments to circle around and cause hardship for the local citizenry. I will step in sooner to save them from their stupidity. I am frankly accustomed to being in a room with people who are smarter than me. I have little experience working with people who are even less intelligent than I am.
All I can hope is that the American people forgive me my shortcomings.
Author Unknown
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)