Abraham Lincoln's Suspension of Civil Liberties and Our Holier Than Thou Attitude

You cannot give people democracy. They must want it and be willing to fight for it and to die for it. We look around the world and see governments doing things with which we disagree. We forget our past and we fail to recognize sometimes the people are not right. Remember Abraham Lincoln:

During Lincoln's presidency, he was criticized for taking what were considered "extra-constitutional measures." But in the end, the verdict of history is that Lincoln's use of power did not constitute abuse since historians rank Lincoln as number one among the great presidents.

Far harsher would have been his denunciation if the whole American experiment of a democratic Union had failed--as seemed possible given the circumstances. If such a disaster occurred, what benefit would have been gained by adhering to a fallen Constitution? It was a classic example of the age-old conflict in a democracy: how to balance individual rights with security for a nation.

Between Abraham Lincoln's April 1861 call for troops--the beginning of the Civil War--and the official convening of Congress in special session on July 4, 1861, Lincoln performed a whole series of important acts by sheer assumption of presidential power. Lincoln, without congressional approval, called forth the militia to "suppress said combinations," which he ordered "to disperse and retire peacefully" to their homes. He increased the size of the Army and Navy, expended funds for the purchase of weapons, instituted a blockade--an act of war--and suspended the precious writ of habeas corpus, all without congressional approval.

Lincoln termed these actions not the declaration of "civil war," but rather the suppression of rebellion. Congress is constitutionally empowered to declare war, but suppression of rebellion has been recognized as an executive function, for which the prerogative of setting aside civil procedures has been placed in the President's hands.

Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a procedural method by which one who is imprisoned can be immediately released if his imprisonment is found not to conform to law. With suspension of the writ, this immediate judicial review of detention becomes unavailable. This suspension triggered the most heated and serious constitutional disputes of the Lincoln Administration.

In April 1861 John Merryman spoke out against the Union and in favor of the South and recruited a company of soldiers for the Confederate Army. He not only exercised his constitutional right to disagree with what the government was doing, but engaged in raising an armed group to attack and attempt to destroy the government.

On May 25, Merryman was arrested by the military for treason. His counsel sought a writ of habeas corpus from Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, alleging that Merryman was being illegally held. Taney issued a writ to fort commander George Cadwalader directing him to produce Merryman before the Court the next day at 11:00 a.m. Cadwalader respectfully refused on the ground that President Lincoln had authorized the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

Taney immediately issued an attachment for Cadwalader for contempt. The marshal could not enter the fort to serve the attachment, so the old justice, recognizing the impossibility of enforcing his order, settled back and produced the now-famous opinion, Ex parte Merryman. The Chief Justice defended the power of Congress alone to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

The Constitution permits the suspension of the writ in "cases of rebellion and when the public safety" requires it. But it is unclear who has the power, Congress or the President.

Taney relied on the fact that the right to suspend the writ was in Article I, section 9 of the Constitution, the section describing congressional duties. Dean of Lincoln historians Richard Nelson Current believes that it was put in this article because the Committee on Style could find no other place for it.

Taney failed to acknowledge that a rebellion was in progress and that the fate of the nation was, in fact, at stake. Taney missed the crucial point made in the draft of Lincoln's report to Congress on July 4:

[T]he whole of the laws which I was sworn to [execute] were being resisted...in nearly one-third of the states. Must I have allowed them to finally fail of execution?... Are all the laws but one [the right to habeas corpus] to go unexecuted, and the government itself...go to pieces, lest that one be violated?

Two years later, Congress resolved the ambiguity in the Constitution and permitted the President the right to suspend the writ while the rebellion continued. Imagine the reaction of our fellow American citizens today if an anti-war demonstrator was treated as Merryman was in 1861 or if the writ of habeas corpus was suspended.

Blogs and Elections

Blogs should make future elections interesting. With no way to controll them, governments will have no way of restricting them as they restrict 527s and other election tools.


As there are no controlls, accuracy and truthfulness will not be limiting factors. As studies routinely show, when there is no accountability people's behavior is unreliable.

Once, it was advocated that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards would eventually produce the complete works of William Shakespear but thanks to the Internet we now know that is not correct.

But imagine what a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards will do to future elections.

The Stockdale Paradox

Admiral Jim Stockdale was the highest-ranking United States military officer in the “Hanoi Hilton” prisoner-of-war camp during the height of the Vietnam War. Tortured over twenty times during his eight-year imprisonment from 1965 to 1973, he lived out the war without any prisoner’s rights, no set release date, and no certainty as to whether he would even survive to see his family again. He shouldered the burden of command; doing everything he could to create conditions that would increase the number of prisoners who would survive unbroken, while fighting an internal war against his captors and their attempts to use the prisoners for propaganda. At one point, he beat himself with a stool and cut himself with a razor, deliberately disfiguring himself, so that he could not be put on videotape as an example of a “well-treated prisoner.” He exchanged secret intelligence information with his wife through their letters, knowing that discovery would mean more torture and perhaps death. He instituted rules that would help people to deal with torture (no one can resist torture indefinitely, so he created a stepwise system --- after x minutes, you can say certain things --- that gave the men milestones to survive toward). He instituted an elaborate internal communications system to reduce the sense of isolation that their captors tried to create which used a five-by-five matrix of tap codes for alpha characters. (Tap-tap equals the letter a, tap-pause-tap-tap equals the letter b, tap-tap-pause-tap equals the letter f, and so forth for twenty-five letters, c doubling for k.) At one point during an imposed silence, the prisoners mopped and swept the central yard using the code, swish-swashing out “We love you” to Stockdale, on the third anniversary of his being shot down. After his release, he became the first three-star officer in the history of the navy to wear both aviator wings and the Congressional Medal of Honor.

“I never lost faith in the end of the story,” he said, when I asked him. “I never doubted not only that I would get out, but also that I would prevail in the end and turn the experience into the defining event of my life, which, in retrospect, I would not trade.”

I asked, “Who didn’t make it out?”

“Oh, that’s easy,” he said, “the optimists. The optimists were the ones who said, ‘We’re going to be out by Christmas’. And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then they would say, ‘We’re going to be out of here by Easter. And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart.”

“This is a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end---which you can never afford to lose---with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.”

To this day, I carry a mental image of Stockdale admonishing the optimists: “We’re not getting out by Christmas; deal with it!”

The Stockdale Paradox

Retain faith, that you will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties.

AND AT THE SAME TIME

Confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.

Acceptance of Church Family Disagreements

People mumble about how difficult it is to find a "right" church to meet with.

It is disappointing when one finds that a church is doing things they believe to be wrong or makes them uncomfortable but is it worth leaving the assembly? Do you sin by association? As messed up as some of the churches, addressed in Revelation were, Jesus never told those he commended to leave those he was criticizing.

Is the assembly a worship event or hs man decided it is worship?. In Acts the church assembled to remember Jesus, to "break bread." In Hebrews the church assembled to encourage each other to love and good works. No place do we read the church met to worship. Paul encouraged the individuals of the church in Rome to each present their body a living sacrifice which is their reasonable service or worship.

With the recent activities surrounding the "unity" of the Church of Christ with the Christian Church you can almost forget that the a cappella churches have divided over pre-millennialism, pacifism, congregational cooperation, Bible classes, the use of multiple communion cups, the construction of kitchens and bathrooms in church buildings, the indwelling of the holy Spirit, charismatic gifts, hermeneutics, women in public leadership, choruses, and worship teams, cell groups, prayer partners, over/under discipling, and the nature of total commitment, etc.

Our local congregation receives calls from people looking for a "good" church and many times we are found wanting and the caller does not want to assemble with us. Why? We have a kitchen. We have bathrooms. We use individual cups during communion. We have a Youth Minister. We have Bible Classes. For some, those are as or more important than instruments. Human families have disagreements but they are always family. Spiritual families have disagreements and they hate each other and refuse to associate.

Based on Jesus' prayer, recorded by John, the world is not going to believe that the Father has sent Him and that will be because of our actions. The church needs to rethink our responsibilities. Our actions show we would rather let the world enter eternity with no hope than to find ways to get along with our brothers and sisters. And we should make no mistake, anyone who has obeyed the Bible's teaching on what they must do to be saved are brothers and sisters. Is it any wonder the church is not effective?

No Morals, No Laws

In the Declaration of Independance, our founders asserted that the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle the people to exist equal among the Powers of the Earth. That the people’s Creator endows them with certain unalienable Rights among which are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and with the firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, the signers pledged their Lives, Fortunes and sacred Honor. When the people deny or fail to acknowledge God they undermine the very basis on which the existence of their country depends.

The Rights of the people come from God, not from man. What man gives, man can take away. What God gives, no man can take away. If there is no God, man’s authority controls the people. Religion and morality are essential to the existence of the United States. National morality cannot exist without religious principle. Without morals, laws cannot exist. Nothing is wrong. Anything and everything is permissible. As an example, those who advocate abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, birth control and its active distribution, and divorce for any reason, have as their goal society’s permission to have sex with anyone, anytime, anywhere with no responsibility no accountability. The practice of morality is necessary for the well-being of Society.

The framers of the Constitution never conceived of government being allowed to interfere with the free exercise of the Christian religion in public life. They expected the longstanding religious heritage would remain as the foundation of the Republic the existence of which depends on the public institutions of religion, Christian religion.

For the past fifty years or so individuals with the assistance of the Judicial System have steadily worked to be free from authority and restraint and to rewrite law and make lawlessness legal!

Christian religion, in its purity, is the source of all genuine freedom in government. No government can exist and be durable without the principles of Christian religion. This July 4th I encourage everyone to read the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. The people go into exile for lack of knowledge.

Sevier County and Highway 66 Expansion

TDOT has decided not to purchase right aways for Sevier County's Highway 66 expansion project. I wrote the following letter to the Editor of The MountainPress.

As far as the expansion of highway 66 is concerned I am with TDOT and their disdain for the Highway 66 Expansion Project. As a taxpayer I want TDOT to steward my tax dollars and that does not include giving those dollars to greedy, land owners in Sevier County or any other county. Sevier County developers claiming the price of land has increased greatly is not reason enough for TDOT to give them my tax dollars. If, as The Mountain Press says “An expansion of Highway 66 is needed sooner rather than later,” let Sevier County expand it. Why should people in middle and west Tennessee or even in Knox County care how bad the traffic is in Sevier County? Why should I care when fixing the problem will make millionaires out of some good-ole-boys? Remember the “responsible” stewardship of tax dollars Pigeon Forge exhibited when they gave $17.5 million of those tax dollars for 35 acres leaving the developers with a cool 275% profit? This purchase left those developers with 75 acres at a remaining cost to them of $2.5 million dollars. An auction had set the market price of the land at a little less than $182,000 per acre but PF decided it was worth $500,000 an acre. If TDOT over pays like that, I hope someone is arrested and goes to jail. I encourage TDOT to drop the allocation of dollars for the purchase of land in Sevier County until the various governmental bodies in Sevier County begin to show some responsibility.

Original purchase was 110 acres for $20,000,000 for an average per acre cost or $181,818.

Pigeon Forge purchased 35 acres for $17,500,000 for an average cost of $500,000.

Leaving the owners with 75 acres at a remaining cost to them of $2,500,000 for an average of $33,333 per acre.















Reference your Editorial, TDOT doesn’t play nice with Sevier, Thursday June 22, 2006.

Civility is always in style, but as we all know some local politicians do not understand that as The Mountain Press addressed in your Editorial a few weeks or months back. As far as the expansion of highway 66 is concerned I am with TDOT and their disdain for the Highway 66 Expansion Project. As a taxpayer I want TDOT to steward my tax dollars and that does not include giving those dollars to greedy, land owners in Sevier County or any other county. Sevier County developers claiming the price of land has increased greatly is not reason enough for TDOT to give them my tax dollars. If, as The Mountain Press says “An expansion of Highway 66 is needed sooner rather than later,” let Sevier County expand it. Why should people in middle and west Tennessee or even in Knox County care how bad the traffic is in Sevier County? Why should I care when fixing the problem will make millionaires out of some good-ole-boys? Remember the “responsible” stewardship of tax dollars Pigeon Forge exhibited when they gave $17.5 million of those tax dollars for 35 acres leaving the developers with a cool 275% profit? This purchase left those developers with 75 acres at a remaining cost to them of $2.5 million dollars. An auction had set the market price of the land at a little less than $182,000 per acre but PF decided it was worth $500,000 an acre. If TDOT over pays like that, I hope someone is arrested and goes to jail. I encourage TDOT to drop the allocation of dollars for the purchase of land in Sevier County until the various governmental bodies in Sevier County begin to show some responsibility.

110
$20,000,000
$181,818




35
$17,500,000
$500,000
32%
88%
275%

75
$2,500,000
$33,333
68%
13%
18%

Stress on Preachers Wives

The concept of a congregation hiring a preacher and paying him to preach to the saved, teach classes, publish a bulletin, visit the sick, etc is not found in the Bible, making it non-biblical. A congregation hiring a preacher to preach to the unsaved is a biblical concept. Being big on commands, examples, and necessary inferences why does the church follow the non-biblical and generally reject the biblical?

It is unreasonable for a congregation to bring a stranger into their midst and isolate his wife, requiring her to be perfect and if she develops close friends, accuse her of favoritism. It is permissible for local ladies to elect not to teach a childrens class or a ladies class but for a preachers wife to make the same decision is not to be tolerated


Walk a mile in the wife's shoes and then let those without sin cast the first stone.

The Rights of the People Come From God

With the anniversary of the signing of our Declaration of Independence on the horizon, we should keep ever before us that in that Declaration our founders asserted that the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle the people to exist equal among the Powers of the Earth. That the people’s Creator endows them with certain unalienable Rights among which are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and with the firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, the signers pledged their Lives, Fortunes and sacred Honor. When the people deny or fail to acknowledge God they undermine the very basis on which the existence of their country depends.

The Rights of the people come from God, not from man. What man gives, man can take away. What God gives, no man can take away. If there is no God, man’s authority controls the people. Religion and morality are essential to the existence of the United States. National morality cannot exist without religious principle. Without morals, laws cannot exist. Nothing is wrong. Anything and everything is permissible. The practice of morality is necessary for the well-being of Society.

The framers of the Constitution never conceived of government being allowed to interfere with the free exercise of the Christian religion in public life. They expected the longstanding religious heritage would remain as the foundation of the Republic the existence of which depends on the public institutions of religion, Christian religion.

For the past fifty years or so individuals with the assistance of the Judicial System have steadily worked to be free from authority and restraint and to rewrite law and make lawlessness legal!

Christian religion, in its purity, is the source of all genuine freedom in government. No government can exist and be durable without the principles of Christian religion. This July 4th I encourage everyone to read the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. The people go into exile for lack of knowledge.

The Christian Religion and Morals permit Government

The premise of our Declaration of Independence is that the people’s Creator endows them with certain unalienable Rights among which are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Anytime the people deny or fail to acknowledge God they are undermining the very basis on which the existence of their country depends. The Declaration also says the people believe the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them to exist equal among the Powers of the Earth.

The Rights of the people come from God, not from man. What man gives, man can take away. What God gives, no man can take away. If there is no God, man’s authority controls the people. Religion and morality are essential to the existence of the United States. National morality cannot exist without religious principle. Without morals, laws cannot exist. Nothing is wrong. Anything and everything is permissible. The practice of morality is necessary for the well-being of Society. God has put eternity into man’s heart. The founders of the United States of America were bound by the laws of God as the rules of their conduct and they confessed the same.

Anarchy: disorder especially political or social; Lack of government in a society:
Anarchism: a doctrine that all government and laws should be abolished;

Christian religion, in its purity, is the source of all genuine freedom in government. No government can exist and be durable without the principles of the Christian religion.

The framers of the Constitution never conceived of government being allowed to interfere with the free exercise of the Christian religion in public life. They expected the longstanding religious heritage would remain as the foundation of the Republic. Setting aside “thou shall not commit adultery” and replacing it with homosexual marriage will destroy America. The existence of the republic depends on the public institutions of religion, Christian religion.

For the forty years past individuals with the assistance of the Judicial System have steadily worked to be free from authority and restraint and to rewrite law and make lawlessness legal!

Future of America?

In his book Sexual Anarchy – The Moral Implosion of America, Dave Miller refers to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 and makes some claims. I looked into his claims and was able to verifiy his assertions. The disconnects between our country's laws are sometimes mind-boggling.

Anarchy is defined:

• Absence of any form of political authority;
• Political disorder and confusion; and
• Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
  

Sorry for the convoluted wording. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act – 1940 provides for the protection of two species of eagles by prohibiting taking, possessing, selling, purchasing, bartering, offering to sell, purchasing or bartering, transporting, exporting or importing, at any time or in any manner any bald eagle commonly known as the American eagle or any golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof of the foregoing eagles.

Definitions as used in this subchapter:

• ''Whoever'' includes also associations, partnerships, and corporations;
• ''Take'' includes also pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb;
• ‘‘Transport'' includes also ship, convey, carry, or transport by any means whatever, and deliver or receive or cause to be delivered or received for such shipment, conveyance, carriage, or transportation.

Felony convictions of the Act carry a maximum of $250,000 or two years of imprisonment (or five years under the Lace Act of 2002.

This is the point---A person may be fined $250,000 and put in prison for five years for collecting eagle eggs but Federal law permits the same person to abort an unborn human infant. Pre-born eagles have a greater value to society than pre-born humans do.

During my verification I found a couple of other articles. In a magazine article dated October 2, 2005 Dorothy Seese writes: However, just as Rome tired of its deities and began to ignore them, Americans of the late 19th and 20th centuries tired of God's absolute rules, considered them restrictive and regressive, and thus began to chip away at the foundational Christian principles of our founders' government. The Supreme Court was used/misused to end prayer in schools, approve of abortion as a woman's "constitutional right" and is now faced with whether it shall redefine marriage to include any union. Even Rome, with its rampant homosexuality and pedophilia, never attempted to redefine marriage! While marriages were often matters of money and convenience, they were always between man and woman. In that regard, the Romans were just one baby step ahead of the United States and its redefinition of marriage.

In another book ”When Nations Die” Jim Nelson asks the question: “Has America come to a similar point as Rome before it fell?” and lists 10 symptoms:

1. Increase in lawlessness
2. Loss of economic discipline
3. Rising bureaucracy
4. Decline in education
5. Weakening of cultural foundations
6. Loss of respect for traditions
7. Increase in materialism
8. Rise in immorality
9. Decay of religious belief
10. Devaluing of human life

He then adds: (Rome) slowly declined as wealth, power, and passion took first place in the Roman heart. Once again, society became preoccupied with sensuality. Moral decadence set in, involving adultery and homosexuality, thus a breakdown of the Roman family. Eventually Roman citizens lost interest in piety and dignity and focused on day-to-day "living" and instant gratification.

What process played an important role in propagating the spread of moral decay? People became addicted to the amphitheater to watch — violence, nudity and sports. Citizens worshipped the gladiators who fought in these arenas. Consequently, the Romans lost respect for human life. Originally punishable by death, abortion became common, even encouraged. Violence became epidemic. Gang violence was rampant in the large cities.

Makes you wonder if it is possible to see our future..

Immigration or Invasion?

Our border with Mexico resembles Swiss cheese and there is nothing we can do to change it.

Our politicians have turned a blind eye because the people who give them money want cheap labor. The Mexican government is corrupt so their common citizen cannot afford to pay officials to allow them to apply for a visa. Once the individual is in the United States we are not going to permit a child to die for lack of medical care or food or shelter therefore welfare will continue to support the illegals. The United States will not force a parent who is illegal to return to Mexico leaving a child who may legally be a citizen so illegals will remain.

I hear discussion of a wall. Good, grief are we nuts? Freedom loving people building a wall? Never!! Besides, the Chinese built a wall and were invaded at least three times following the construction. In each case the guards at a gate were bribed. What makes us think we would be any more successful? Who do you would be the primary applicants for such a job? you guessed it..

Native Americans had the same issues and failed. We will fail. Time is right for those of North American descent to move into reservations otherwise known as gated communities.

Bringing Corporate America into Line

In corporate America it is impossible to reward high performers because of the way performance is measured.

Each position should be rated hourly or salaried up-to and including the position of Chairman of the Board and assign dollars to the job either by the hour, week, month, etc. Each year if the incumbent passed the performance review, meaning they were not fired, they receive a cost of living raise. Based on their performance they would be given an amount of money, with no regard to percentage. The amount could be in two parts such as one for their performance and one for the performance of their group or department or the company. That would be their pay for that year.

The common way is to reward people for the rest of their work life for good jobs early in their career even if they fail to meet performance criteria and due to age or gender or other EEO points the they, in affect, have tenure.

The current way makes it impossible to catch people up to the appropriate level and is especially harmful to women who have been slighted in the past.

Dollars assigned to positions should reflect that fact that the CEO can fail if a lower paid individual fails in a critical position or time so the highest pay should not exceed a percentage of the lowest paid employee. If the lowest paid position is $15,000 per year then the CEO should not exceed "N" times, such as 100 times or $1,500,000. Position should be the only consideration and not the fact that one person is paid more than another person and you want to catch them up. If they want more money they take a different job or increase their performance rating. For new employees they might have a certain amount withheld for 6 months or so until they prove that being new does not affect performance. At the end of the six months they are paid the same base as another employee who has been there for 30 years.

Ratings for people in management or supervisory positions should consider the ratings of the people under them. For example a manager should not be rated higher than n% of the people within their area of responsibility. Of course at least two other people chosen by the HR department or someone who can be trusted should agree with the supervisors ratings of the people within their area. That goes all the way to the top.

With the current commonly accepted practices women will continue to be slighted. The basic rating system must change.

Getting DUIs Under Control

In Tennessee you will find examples where there were 30 DUIs with little or no jail time. How about a few suggestions:

Insurance Companies policies should include items such as upon an arrest for DUI, even if their was no accident, the policy cost quadruples or more or cancelled whichever the insurance company preferred. In the case of an accident, the insurance company will not pay for any medical expenses nor collision claims if the Police conclude the driver was DUI. They would agree to pay a minimum liability and work with the injured parties to sue the policy holder. And the policy would be cancelled as of the date of the accident. The wording in the policy would be such that the policy owner is agreeing to these limitations not that they are being forced upon them. Of course legions of lawyers need to be involved to make sure the limitations will be enforced.

Federal , State and Local laws should require:

Upon an arrest for for DUI the automobile is confiscated, guilty person loses their driving license for 6 months and they spend 200 hours in community service, 80 contiguous hours in jail and complete a rehab program, All of those would be within the same six months during the license suspension.

Driving on a suspended license would result in 5 years of license suspension, 1 year in jail. A second violation would required 10 years of license suspension and 5 years in jail. The next violation would be 20 years of license suspension and 10 years in jail. and on and on, These would be consecutive penalties Allowances could be made for documented proof of no contact with alcohol or drugs or bars or drug dealers for 5 years. The individual would be responsible for documentation.

A DUI with an accident would mean a lifetime license suspension. If someone is hurt 10 years in jail. If someone is killed, life in prison,

All jail sentences would be without the possibility of parole.

Federal laws would prohibit insurance companies from using DUI related expenses in the numbers they use to determine their rates to be charged to the consumer. In other words insurance companies and their stock holders would have to eat those expenses.

When the Federal and State governments and insurance companies get serious we will be able to greatly reduce such situations.

Nutty or Dangerous?

Once in a while you hear of a real nut. Ingrid Newkirk, cofounder, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is such a nut.

Her quotes include:

“Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses.”

“Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.”

“There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all mammals.”

After learning of a suicide bombing in Israel, Ms Newkirk wrote a letter to Yasser Arafat --- because a donkey was used in the bombing. “We have received many calls and letters from people shocked at the bombing in Jerusalem … in which a donkey, laden with explosives, was intentionally blown up,” she wrote to Arafat. “If you have the opportunity, will you please add to your burdens my request that you appeal to all those who listen to you to leave the animals out of this conflict?”

When asked if she would try to persuade Arafat not to blow up people too, she replied. “It’s not my business to inject myself into human wars.”

When Harvard started offering a course in animal law, Ingrid is quoted, “We’re looking for good lawsuits that will establish the interests of animals as a legitimate concern in law.”

PETA has pressured corporations to stop giving to the March of Dimes because a small percentage of its resources go to organizations that do animal experimentation.

When a child dies you can wonder if PETA is a cause…….

Without Evolution Can You Explain.....

Without evolution can you explain how all of the races of people in the world today descended from Noah and his wife? What external force would affect individual's DNA as to change eye shape such as between caucasian and oriental; as to change skin pigmentation such as between negroid and oriental and caucasian?

Just wondering....

Dewey Beats Truman!

When the media wants to know what went wrong with the reporting of the mine accident in West Virginia, they need only look in the mirror. They are so intent on beating their competition that common sense and sensitivity go out the window. Before anyone knew anything one CNN reporter asked a family member "Are you still hopeful?" In other words have you come to the conclusion your husband/son/brother/uncle whatever is DEAD? Nice going CNN.

Today news is not news it is mostly speculation and what might/could/should happen. If a newspaper or network or local station reports something the rest of the media report that a certain paper or network or station is reporting "fill in the blank." Having no idea of truth or accuracy they report because someone else is reporting. That is not news. That is garbage.

The media need to return to the days of old when sources were verified and re-verified and they did the best they could to ensure accuracy and being first was not the governing principle.

When Government Attempts To Regulate Morality

Before the 19th century, most states had no specific abortion laws. Women were able to end a pregnancy prior to viability with the assistance of medical personnel.

Beginning in Connecticut and followed by New York in 1829 over the next 20 years there were a series of laws restricting abortion, punishing providers, and, in some cases, punishing the woman who was seeking the abortion.

The first US federal law on the subject of abortion came in 1873, which permitted a special agent of the postal service to open mail dealing with abortion or contraception in order to suppress the circulation of “obscene” materials.

From 1900 until the 1960s, abortions were prohibited by law. The Kinsey report noted that premarital pregnancies were electively aborted and public and physician opinion began to be shaped by reports of the increasing numbers of unsafe illegal abortions.

In 1965, 265 deaths occurred due to illegal abortions. 20% of all pregnancy-related complications in New York and California were due to abortions. A series of US Supreme Court decisions granted rights to women and ensured their right to choice in this process. In 1965 the courts recognized a constitutional right to privacy and ruled that a married couple had a constitutional right to obtain birth control from their health care provider.

Why do you believe the way you do?

Do you expect government to convince others to believe as you believe?

Is a fetus alive if unable to survive without life support?

Is an adult alive unable to survive without life support?

See what happens when government attempts to regulate morality?

Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays; Origin of Christmas

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....

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."

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!

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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...

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,

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.

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

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...