I came across this quote today and just had to post it!!!
“The Founding Fathers established a system which meant a radical break from that which preceded it. A written constitution would provide a permanent form of government, limited in scope, but effective in providing both liberty and order. Government was not to be a matter of self-appointed rulers, governing by whim or harsh ideology. It was not to be government by the strongest or for the few. Our principles were revolutionary. We began as a small, weak republic. But we survived. Our example inspired others, imperfectly at times, but it inspired them nevertheless. This constitutional republic, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, prospered and grew strong. To this day, America is still the abiding alternative to tyranny. That is our purpose in the world—nothing more and nothing less.” —Ronald Reagan
Monday, November 26, 2007
Thursday, November 22, 2007
George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor -- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be -- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks -- for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation -- for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the tranquility [sic], union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed -- for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted -- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions -- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually -- to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed -- to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn [sic] kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord -- To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease [sic] of science among them and us -- and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York
the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
George Washington
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be -- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks -- for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation -- for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the tranquility [sic], union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed -- for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted -- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions -- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually -- to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed -- to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn [sic] kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord -- To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease [sic] of science among them and us -- and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York
the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
George Washington
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
The 2nd Amendment
I thought the following article was well worth the read. It is from the Patriot Post.
The Patriot Post and The 2nd Amendment.
The Patriot Post and The 2nd Amendment.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Vietnam vet gets '2nd tour' decades after his first one
Another great article by Katherine Kersten.
By Katherine Kersten, Star Tribune
Last update: November 11, 2007 – 11:27 PM
For 35 years, Clyde Lewandowski of St. Cloud didn't talk much about his service in Vietnam. Lewandowski served in 1968 with the Army's 6th Battalion, 33rd Artillery, which provided fire support to infantry troops. "There were too many ghosts," he says.
But this Veterans Day, things have changed. Now Lewandowski can't stop talking about Vietnam. He's found a way to purge the dark memories and reconnect with the distant land where he fought.
The transformation began in 2003, when he was rummaging in his basement and happened on an old suitcase filled with letters from his Army days. "They brought it all back -- the people I hadn't thought about for 30 years, the homesickness, the jokes we played," he said. He began to feel a tug to revisit memories he had thrust aside for decades.
His interest was sparked enough to scour his old unit's records at the National Archives in Washington and to start tracking down his former buddies. But when he ran across contact information for his closest Army friend, Ollie Bishop, he wrestled with whether to follow through. He and Bishop had shared the agony of wounded friends and the horror of being jolted awake at night by the scream of incoming rockets. Did he really want to revisit all that?
Lewandowski took a chance.
He arranged to visit Bishop at his home in Massachusetts. But when he arrived, hesitation seized him once again.
"I drove by Ollie's house and saw him on the steps," he recalled. "I drove another half mile before I decided to turn around and go back."
The two talked for hours like long-lost brothers. To Lewandowski's surprise, the bond forged years before sprang quickly to life as they pored over old pictures and reminisced about their comrades.
At an artillery reunion later that year, said Lewandowski, he and Bishop talked with other brothers-in-arms about "all the fun we'd had with the kids in Vietnam."
He couldn't forget the kids
"We'd give them gum and candy, trade things with them," he said. The vets shared photos of an orphanage they had often visited, and Lewandowski couldn't get the children's faces out of his mind.
"I said, 'if I can find an orphanage there to support, are you with me?'" They were.
In 2006, Lewandowski discovered Friends of VSO, an organization established by vets like himself to support Vinh Son Orphanages in Vietnam's Central Highlands. He signed on for a trip to Vietnam to deliver supplies. (www.friendsofvso.org) On the trip, he revisited scenes from his past -- the sandy beach where his troop ship had landed, a mountain pass near Da Nang where his convoy had come under devastating mortar fire.
"I began to see that the ghosts weren't so fearful after all," he said.
When the group reached Kon Tum, site of the orphanages, Lewandowski knew he had found what he was looking for. Vinh Son serves about 450 children. They are Montagnards, an ethnic minority so poor that parents must often leave one of a set of twins to die.
Lewandowski was overcome by the children's warmth, gratitude and kindness toward each other. They grow their own food, and the older kids constantly help the younger ones. "The kids have almost nothing, and the few things they have they want to share with you," he said. "One little girl had a barrette, and she wanted to give it to me in return for a tennis ball I gave her to play with." You Tube video
But the orphanages in the village were paradise compared with two primitive orphanages in the bush. Children there lived in bamboo huts and their water supply was a muddy river. The former GIs dug down and donated the last $1000 they had brought to enable the Catholic sisters who run the orphanages to finish digging a well and supplement the children's diet with rice for the rest of the year.
Spreading the word
Back in St. Cloud, Lewandowski has devoted himself to spreading the word about VSO, and raising money for projects that have included donating computers and sewing machines, and rebuilding a kitchen destroyed by fire. A few months ago, he obtained a $25,000 challenge grant from another St. Cloud Vietnam vet, Bruce Meyer.
Lewandowski is proud of his 1968 service in Vietnam. But he's one of those rare vets who gets a second tour of duty decades after the first. This time the tracers and napalm are gone. He sees only the wide eyes and bright smiles of the children.
Katherine Kersten • kkersten@startribune.com Join the conversation at my blog, Think Again, which can be found at www.startribune.com/thinkagain.
By Katherine Kersten, Star Tribune
Last update: November 11, 2007 – 11:27 PM
For 35 years, Clyde Lewandowski of St. Cloud didn't talk much about his service in Vietnam. Lewandowski served in 1968 with the Army's 6th Battalion, 33rd Artillery, which provided fire support to infantry troops. "There were too many ghosts," he says.
But this Veterans Day, things have changed. Now Lewandowski can't stop talking about Vietnam. He's found a way to purge the dark memories and reconnect with the distant land where he fought.
The transformation began in 2003, when he was rummaging in his basement and happened on an old suitcase filled with letters from his Army days. "They brought it all back -- the people I hadn't thought about for 30 years, the homesickness, the jokes we played," he said. He began to feel a tug to revisit memories he had thrust aside for decades.
His interest was sparked enough to scour his old unit's records at the National Archives in Washington and to start tracking down his former buddies. But when he ran across contact information for his closest Army friend, Ollie Bishop, he wrestled with whether to follow through. He and Bishop had shared the agony of wounded friends and the horror of being jolted awake at night by the scream of incoming rockets. Did he really want to revisit all that?
Lewandowski took a chance.
He arranged to visit Bishop at his home in Massachusetts. But when he arrived, hesitation seized him once again.
"I drove by Ollie's house and saw him on the steps," he recalled. "I drove another half mile before I decided to turn around and go back."
The two talked for hours like long-lost brothers. To Lewandowski's surprise, the bond forged years before sprang quickly to life as they pored over old pictures and reminisced about their comrades.
At an artillery reunion later that year, said Lewandowski, he and Bishop talked with other brothers-in-arms about "all the fun we'd had with the kids in Vietnam."
He couldn't forget the kids
"We'd give them gum and candy, trade things with them," he said. The vets shared photos of an orphanage they had often visited, and Lewandowski couldn't get the children's faces out of his mind.
"I said, 'if I can find an orphanage there to support, are you with me?'" They were.
In 2006, Lewandowski discovered Friends of VSO, an organization established by vets like himself to support Vinh Son Orphanages in Vietnam's Central Highlands. He signed on for a trip to Vietnam to deliver supplies. (www.friendsofvso.org) On the trip, he revisited scenes from his past -- the sandy beach where his troop ship had landed, a mountain pass near Da Nang where his convoy had come under devastating mortar fire.
"I began to see that the ghosts weren't so fearful after all," he said.
When the group reached Kon Tum, site of the orphanages, Lewandowski knew he had found what he was looking for. Vinh Son serves about 450 children. They are Montagnards, an ethnic minority so poor that parents must often leave one of a set of twins to die.
Lewandowski was overcome by the children's warmth, gratitude and kindness toward each other. They grow their own food, and the older kids constantly help the younger ones. "The kids have almost nothing, and the few things they have they want to share with you," he said. "One little girl had a barrette, and she wanted to give it to me in return for a tennis ball I gave her to play with." You Tube video
But the orphanages in the village were paradise compared with two primitive orphanages in the bush. Children there lived in bamboo huts and their water supply was a muddy river. The former GIs dug down and donated the last $1000 they had brought to enable the Catholic sisters who run the orphanages to finish digging a well and supplement the children's diet with rice for the rest of the year.
Spreading the word
Back in St. Cloud, Lewandowski has devoted himself to spreading the word about VSO, and raising money for projects that have included donating computers and sewing machines, and rebuilding a kitchen destroyed by fire. A few months ago, he obtained a $25,000 challenge grant from another St. Cloud Vietnam vet, Bruce Meyer.
Lewandowski is proud of his 1968 service in Vietnam. But he's one of those rare vets who gets a second tour of duty decades after the first. This time the tracers and napalm are gone. He sees only the wide eyes and bright smiles of the children.
Katherine Kersten • kkersten@startribune.com Join the conversation at my blog, Think Again, which can be found at www.startribune.com/thinkagain.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
"Thanks" just doesn't cut it.
I'm sitting here typing, waiting for today's NASCAR race to start -yes, I am a redneck- and thinking about it being Veteran's Day. Just the ability to type out what I feel, believe and think, without a government official looking over my shoulder is a wonderful feeling.
I really believe that most Americans really don't appreciate freedom. Oh sure, a lot of Americans have an idea, but I don't think they realize just how fortunate they are to live in America. How awesome freedom really is. We can do what we want, provided we don't hurt others, or impede on their freedoms. I could spew hatred on this site all day long if I truly wanted to and I would be able to.
I can also rant about our government. I can complain all day long. I can protest. I can vote!!!
Why can I do all this? Because I am an American and we in America have freedom. Why are we free? Because God has blessed us with this land. But also because of our veterans. And that is where "thanks" just doesn't seem to cut it.
The sacrifices our veterans and their families have given are beyond what many people appreciate. Dads and moms missing kids school functions, or first steps for that matter! Kids missing their parents, etc. And of course, the ultimate sacrifice.
So, on this Veterans Day, I say Thank You to all veterans and their families. Even though "Thank You" is not nearly enough...
I really believe that most Americans really don't appreciate freedom. Oh sure, a lot of Americans have an idea, but I don't think they realize just how fortunate they are to live in America. How awesome freedom really is. We can do what we want, provided we don't hurt others, or impede on their freedoms. I could spew hatred on this site all day long if I truly wanted to and I would be able to.
I can also rant about our government. I can complain all day long. I can protest. I can vote!!!
Why can I do all this? Because I am an American and we in America have freedom. Why are we free? Because God has blessed us with this land. But also because of our veterans. And that is where "thanks" just doesn't seem to cut it.
The sacrifices our veterans and their families have given are beyond what many people appreciate. Dads and moms missing kids school functions, or first steps for that matter! Kids missing their parents, etc. And of course, the ultimate sacrifice.
So, on this Veterans Day, I say Thank You to all veterans and their families. Even though "Thank You" is not nearly enough...
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Happy Birthday to the Marine Corp!!!
To the Marines and ALL those who have, and are, defending our freedom, Thank You.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Bill Clinton continues his habit of lying.
I watched Bill Clinton lie through eight years in office. I figured once he got out of office that he'd no longer need to lie, other than to defend his tenure. Well, he's at it again, lying about the Max Cleland story. Read the story here.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Proof that money doesn't buy brains
Today I bring you a story out of California. This is an article out of the LA Times. Here we have a woman that thinks that since she spent $3 million on a house, that everything should take care of itself. Or, for that matter, that everyone around her should come to her beck and call. This story is both funny and really truly sad.
Story here.
Story here.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Being overweight is now OK.
I LOVE THIS ARTICLE!!! YAY FOR FAT PEOPLE!!! Well, within reason. At any rate, for those of us who've always struggled with weight, this is good news!
Being Overweight Isn't All Bad, Study Says
Carrying Excess Pounds Does Not Increase Risk of Dying from Cancer or Heart Disease, Researchers Say
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 6, 2007; 5:17 PM
Being overweight boosts the risk of dying from diabetes and kidney disease but not cancer or heart disease, and carrying some extra pounds appears actually to protect against a host of other causes of death, federal researchers reported today.
The counter-intuitive findings, based on a detailed analysis of decades of government data about more than 39,000 Americans, supports the conclusions of a study the same group conducted two years ago that suggested the dangers of being overweight may be less dire than experts believed. Read the rest of article here.
Being Overweight Isn't All Bad, Study Says
Carrying Excess Pounds Does Not Increase Risk of Dying from Cancer or Heart Disease, Researchers Say
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 6, 2007; 5:17 PM
Being overweight boosts the risk of dying from diabetes and kidney disease but not cancer or heart disease, and carrying some extra pounds appears actually to protect against a host of other causes of death, federal researchers reported today.
The counter-intuitive findings, based on a detailed analysis of decades of government data about more than 39,000 Americans, supports the conclusions of a study the same group conducted two years ago that suggested the dangers of being overweight may be less dire than experts believed. Read the rest of article here.
When did Snopes become opinionated?
I came across an interesting discovery today. I received an email and I wanted to check its authenticity so I went to Snopes to check it out. (I go to truthorfiction.com first but they had nothing on the particular subject.) Well, Snopes has the email I was looking for, but what I read disturbed me.
All I wanted to know what whether or not the email was legit, not their opinion of the subject matter, but that's what I got! I was rather surprised, but it got me to thinking. When did they become opinionated? Was it after they got $$$ from their website? I wonder. At any rate, I will continue to only go there if truthorfiction doesn't have what I'm looking for. I find enough opinions in the media.
That is all.
All I wanted to know what whether or not the email was legit, not their opinion of the subject matter, but that's what I got! I was rather surprised, but it got me to thinking. When did they become opinionated? Was it after they got $$$ from their website? I wonder. At any rate, I will continue to only go there if truthorfiction doesn't have what I'm looking for. I find enough opinions in the media.
That is all.
A great letter regarding immigration that was never published
I received the following via an email today. It was written in response to several letters to the editor of the Orange County Register. I thought it made a really good point so I decided to post it here.
Dear Editor:
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how
this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one,
suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because
the people now in question aren't being treated the same
as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports
of entry.
Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out
to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing
to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in
1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to
come to the United States , people had to get off a ship and
stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some
would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the
ground.
They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their
new country in good and bad times. They made learning
English a primary rule in their new American households
and some even changed their names to blend in with their
new home. They had waved good bye to their birth place
to give their children a new life and did everything in their
power to help their children assimilate into one culture.
Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare,
no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the
skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to
trade for a future of prosperity.
Most of their children came of age when World War II
broke out. My father fought along side men whose
parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy ,
France and Japan None of these 1st generation
Americans ever gave any thought about what country
their parents had come from. They were Americans
fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan
They were defending the United States of America as one
people.
When we liberated France, no one in those villages
were looking for the French-American or the German
American or the Irish American. The people of France
saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that
represented one country. Not one of those immigrant
sons would have thought about picking up another
country's flag and waving it to represent who they were.
It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had
sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly
knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the
melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.
And here we are in 2007 with a new kind of immigrant
who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they
want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules,
one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of
being faithful to their mother country.
I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about.
I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in
the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil,
hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to
create a land that has become a beacon for those legally
searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled
that they are being used as an example by those waving
foreign country flags.
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of
Liberty , it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are
voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking
about dismantling the United States just yet.
(signed) Rosemary LaBonte
Dear Editor:
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how
this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one,
suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because
the people now in question aren't being treated the same
as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports
of entry.
Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out
to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing
to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in
1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to
come to the United States , people had to get off a ship and
stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some
would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the
ground.
They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their
new country in good and bad times. They made learning
English a primary rule in their new American households
and some even changed their names to blend in with their
new home. They had waved good bye to their birth place
to give their children a new life and did everything in their
power to help their children assimilate into one culture.
Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare,
no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the
skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to
trade for a future of prosperity.
Most of their children came of age when World War II
broke out. My father fought along side men whose
parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy ,
France and Japan None of these 1st generation
Americans ever gave any thought about what country
their parents had come from. They were Americans
fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan
They were defending the United States of America as one
people.
When we liberated France, no one in those villages
were looking for the French-American or the German
American or the Irish American. The people of France
saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that
represented one country. Not one of those immigrant
sons would have thought about picking up another
country's flag and waving it to represent who they were.
It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had
sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly
knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the
melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.
And here we are in 2007 with a new kind of immigrant
who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they
want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules,
one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of
being faithful to their mother country.
I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about.
I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in
the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil,
hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to
create a land that has become a beacon for those legally
searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled
that they are being used as an example by those waving
foreign country flags.
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of
Liberty , it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are
voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking
about dismantling the United States just yet.
(signed) Rosemary LaBonte
Monday, November 05, 2007
Thug kills a father of four over 40 bucks.
Here is a story of out Minneapolis. A drug dealer was standing on a street corner with another thug and they see an innocent man riding a bicycle. Apparently both of the thugs were bored so they decided to attack the man with the intention of robbing him. He had a whopping 40 bucks on him.
The nickname of Minneapolis has become Murderapolis in recent years. Here is a city that has had a very rich history of liberal leadership. The previous mayor, Sharon Sayles Belton denied all through her tenure that there was a gang problem in Murderapolis, all the while crime rates kept rising. After eight years, Murderapolis had had enough!! So they elected someone even further to the left in R.T. Rybak.
Now, after another 6 years of extreme liberal leadership, murder and crime continue to rise. So far this year we've had 41 murders. We had 60 last year. Back in 2000 they said it was "time for a change" in Murderapolis and they ousted Belton for Rybak. Perhaps it time for a change in parties.
The nickname of Minneapolis has become Murderapolis in recent years. Here is a city that has had a very rich history of liberal leadership. The previous mayor, Sharon Sayles Belton denied all through her tenure that there was a gang problem in Murderapolis, all the while crime rates kept rising. After eight years, Murderapolis had had enough!! So they elected someone even further to the left in R.T. Rybak.
Now, after another 6 years of extreme liberal leadership, murder and crime continue to rise. So far this year we've had 41 murders. We had 60 last year. Back in 2000 they said it was "time for a change" in Murderapolis and they ousted Belton for Rybak. Perhaps it time for a change in parties.
The deceit behind Global Warming
I found a good article in the UK Telegraph regarding global warming. I suggest you read it.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Mondale (Mondull) endorses Hillary
Ugh. Mondale endorses Hillary for President. Gee, thanks. Minnesota's own Walter Mondale. Possibly THE dullest human being to ever walk the face of the earth. Here was a guy when running against Reagan actually said that he would raise your taxes. The guy is a moron. Well, if I were Hillary, I'd be saying "GET OFF MY SIDE!!!"
AP Story
AP Story
Great article by George Will
I thought this was a very well written editorial. (I know, DUH! It's George Will!) Anyway, he really makes a good point. Taken from the Washington Post.
Congress's Unused War Powers
By George F. Will
Sunday, November 4, 2007; Page B07
Americans are wondering, with the lassitude of uninvolved spectators, whether the president will initiate a war with Iran. Some Democratic presidential candidates worry, or purport to, that he might claim an authorization for war in a Senate resolution labeling an Iranian Revolutionary Guard unit a terrorist organization. Some Democratic representatives oppose the president's request for $88 million to equip B-2 stealth bombers to carry huge "bunker-buster" bombs, hoping to thereby impede a presidential decision to attack Iran's hardened nuclear facilities.
While legislators try to leash a president by tinkering with a weapon, they are ignoring a sufficient leash -- the Constitution. They are derelict in their sworn duty to uphold it. Regarding the most momentous thing government does, make war, the constitutional system of checks and balances is broken.
Congress can, however, put the Constitution's bridle back on the presidency. Congress can end unfettered executive war-making by deciding to. That might not require, but would be facilitated by, enacting the Constitutional War Powers Resolution. Introduced last week by Rep. Walter B. Jones, a North Carolina Republican, it technically amends but essentially would supplant the existing War Powers Resolution, which has been a nullity ever since it was passed in 1973 over President Richard Nixon's veto.
Jones's measure is designed to ensure that deciding to go to war is, as the Founders insisted it be, a "collective judgment." It would prohibit presidents from initiating military actions except to repel or retaliate for sudden attacks on America or American troops abroad, or to protect and evacuate U.S. citizens abroad. It would provide for expedited judicial review to enforce compliance with the resolution and would permit the use of federal funds only for military actions taken in compliance with the resolution.
It reflects conclusions reached by the War Powers Initiative of the Constitution Project. That nonpartisan organization's 2005 study notes that Congress's appropriation power augments the requirement of advance authorization by Congress before the nation goes to war. It enables Congress to stop the use of force by cutting off its funding. That check is augmented by the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits any expenditure or obligation of funds not appropriated by Congress, and by legislation that criminalizes violations of the act.
All this refutes Rudy Giuliani's recent suggestion that the president might have "the inherent authority to support the troops" even if funding were cut off. Besides, American history is replete with examples of Congress restraining executive war-making. (See "Congress at War: The Politics of Conflict Since 1789," a book by Charles A. Stevenson.) Congress has forbidden:
Sending draftees outside this hemisphere (1940-41); introduction of combat troops into Laos or Thailand (1969); reintroduction of troops into Cambodia (1970); combat operations in Southeast Asia (1973); military operations in Angola (1976); use of force in Lebanon other than for self-defense (1983); military activities in Nicaragua (1980s). In 1993 and 1994, Congress mandated the withdrawal of troops from Somalia and forbade military actions in Rwanda.
When Congress authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force" against those complicit in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Congress refused to adopt administration language authorizing force "to deter and preempt any future" terrorism or aggression. The wonder is that the administration bothered to seek this language.
The administration's "presidentialists" -- including the president -- believe presidents are constitutionally emancipated from all restraints regarding core executive functions, particularly those concerning defense and waging war. Clearly they think the rejected language would have added nothing to the president's inherent powers.
Congress's powers were most dramatically abandoned and ignored regarding Korea. Although President Harry S. Truman came from a Congress controlled by his party and friends, he never sought congressional authorization to send troops into massive and sustained conflict. Instead, he asserted broad authority to "execute" treaties such as the U.N. Charter.
For today's Democrats, resistance to unilateral presidential war-making reflects not principled constitutionalism but petulance about the current president. Democrats were supine when President Bill Clinton launched a sustained air war against Serbia without congressional authorization. Instead, he cited NATO's authorization -- as though that were an adequate substitute for the collective judgment that the Constitution mandates. Republicans, supposed defenders of limited government, actually are enablers of an unlimited presidency. Their belief in strict construction of the Constitution evaporates, and they become, in behavior if not in thought, adherents of the woolly idea of a "living Constitution." They endorse, by their passivity, the idea that new threats justify ignoring the Framers' text and logic about shared responsibility for war-making.
Unless and until Congress stops prattling about presidential "usurpation" of power and asserts its own, it will remain derelict regarding its duty of mutual participation in war-making. And it will merit its current marginalization.
georgewill@washpost.com
Congress's Unused War Powers
By George F. Will
Sunday, November 4, 2007; Page B07
Americans are wondering, with the lassitude of uninvolved spectators, whether the president will initiate a war with Iran. Some Democratic presidential candidates worry, or purport to, that he might claim an authorization for war in a Senate resolution labeling an Iranian Revolutionary Guard unit a terrorist organization. Some Democratic representatives oppose the president's request for $88 million to equip B-2 stealth bombers to carry huge "bunker-buster" bombs, hoping to thereby impede a presidential decision to attack Iran's hardened nuclear facilities.
While legislators try to leash a president by tinkering with a weapon, they are ignoring a sufficient leash -- the Constitution. They are derelict in their sworn duty to uphold it. Regarding the most momentous thing government does, make war, the constitutional system of checks and balances is broken.
Congress can, however, put the Constitution's bridle back on the presidency. Congress can end unfettered executive war-making by deciding to. That might not require, but would be facilitated by, enacting the Constitutional War Powers Resolution. Introduced last week by Rep. Walter B. Jones, a North Carolina Republican, it technically amends but essentially would supplant the existing War Powers Resolution, which has been a nullity ever since it was passed in 1973 over President Richard Nixon's veto.
Jones's measure is designed to ensure that deciding to go to war is, as the Founders insisted it be, a "collective judgment." It would prohibit presidents from initiating military actions except to repel or retaliate for sudden attacks on America or American troops abroad, or to protect and evacuate U.S. citizens abroad. It would provide for expedited judicial review to enforce compliance with the resolution and would permit the use of federal funds only for military actions taken in compliance with the resolution.
It reflects conclusions reached by the War Powers Initiative of the Constitution Project. That nonpartisan organization's 2005 study notes that Congress's appropriation power augments the requirement of advance authorization by Congress before the nation goes to war. It enables Congress to stop the use of force by cutting off its funding. That check is augmented by the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits any expenditure or obligation of funds not appropriated by Congress, and by legislation that criminalizes violations of the act.
All this refutes Rudy Giuliani's recent suggestion that the president might have "the inherent authority to support the troops" even if funding were cut off. Besides, American history is replete with examples of Congress restraining executive war-making. (See "Congress at War: The Politics of Conflict Since 1789," a book by Charles A. Stevenson.) Congress has forbidden:
Sending draftees outside this hemisphere (1940-41); introduction of combat troops into Laos or Thailand (1969); reintroduction of troops into Cambodia (1970); combat operations in Southeast Asia (1973); military operations in Angola (1976); use of force in Lebanon other than for self-defense (1983); military activities in Nicaragua (1980s). In 1993 and 1994, Congress mandated the withdrawal of troops from Somalia and forbade military actions in Rwanda.
When Congress authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force" against those complicit in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Congress refused to adopt administration language authorizing force "to deter and preempt any future" terrorism or aggression. The wonder is that the administration bothered to seek this language.
The administration's "presidentialists" -- including the president -- believe presidents are constitutionally emancipated from all restraints regarding core executive functions, particularly those concerning defense and waging war. Clearly they think the rejected language would have added nothing to the president's inherent powers.
Congress's powers were most dramatically abandoned and ignored regarding Korea. Although President Harry S. Truman came from a Congress controlled by his party and friends, he never sought congressional authorization to send troops into massive and sustained conflict. Instead, he asserted broad authority to "execute" treaties such as the U.N. Charter.
For today's Democrats, resistance to unilateral presidential war-making reflects not principled constitutionalism but petulance about the current president. Democrats were supine when President Bill Clinton launched a sustained air war against Serbia without congressional authorization. Instead, he cited NATO's authorization -- as though that were an adequate substitute for the collective judgment that the Constitution mandates. Republicans, supposed defenders of limited government, actually are enablers of an unlimited presidency. Their belief in strict construction of the Constitution evaporates, and they become, in behavior if not in thought, adherents of the woolly idea of a "living Constitution." They endorse, by their passivity, the idea that new threats justify ignoring the Framers' text and logic about shared responsibility for war-making.
Unless and until Congress stops prattling about presidential "usurpation" of power and asserts its own, it will remain derelict regarding its duty of mutual participation in war-making. And it will merit its current marginalization.
georgewill@washpost.com
Saturday, November 03, 2007
The most Christian candidate
I thought this was pretty funny. I like Dobson, but I really disagree with his stand on the Republican candidates. Vote third party? Not smart. Anyway, check out the Red State Update video.
The most influential US conservatives
Here is the list of the 100 most influential conservatives in America according to the Telegraph in the UK. They have Rush at Number 5. I'm thinking he should be number 1. We are talking INFLUENCE here!
Friday, November 02, 2007
Personal responsibility
OK. I have a question for you. At what age are we responsible for our own actions? 18? 21? 46? I ask this question because of a story out of Minnesota. A 46 year old man was arrested for riding a bicycle while drunk. Apparently he was a diabetic. He died while in jail.
It really is a tragic story, but what struck me was that his mother was trying to get him his insulin while he was in jail. The story doesn't state that he asked her to bring it to him, but that his mother knew he needed it and tried getting it to him. This got me to thinking. He's 46 and his mom still needs to take care of him?
To me it's not that the jailers failed to pass on the insulin, as tragic as that may be. I'm stuck on a 46 year old diabetic going out, getting drunk and riding a bicycle and doing so as to get arrested. At 46 years old, his mom needs to take care of him! I have a hard time comprehending that. I can't help but think, "how sad".
Now the parents are blaming the jailers for their sons death, but I can't help but think, "what about his responsibility for himself?" If you know you have medical issues, I think you need to take care of yourself.
Story here
It really is a tragic story, but what struck me was that his mother was trying to get him his insulin while he was in jail. The story doesn't state that he asked her to bring it to him, but that his mother knew he needed it and tried getting it to him. This got me to thinking. He's 46 and his mom still needs to take care of him?
To me it's not that the jailers failed to pass on the insulin, as tragic as that may be. I'm stuck on a 46 year old diabetic going out, getting drunk and riding a bicycle and doing so as to get arrested. At 46 years old, his mom needs to take care of him! I have a hard time comprehending that. I can't help but think, "how sad".
Now the parents are blaming the jailers for their sons death, but I can't help but think, "what about his responsibility for himself?" If you know you have medical issues, I think you need to take care of yourself.
Story here
Marriage advice
For those who don't know me, I've been happily married for over 23 years. It's amazing we've stayed together all these years without the following advice.
Saudi Marriage 'Expert' Advises Men in 'Right Way' to Beat Their Wives
Friday, November 02, 2007
From Fox News.
Move over, Dr. Phil, there's a new relationship expert in town.
He's Saudi author and cleric, "Dr." Muhammad Al-'Arifi, who in a remarkable segment broadcast on Saudi and Kuwaiti television in September, counseled young Muslim men on how to treat their wives.
"Admonish them – once, twice, three times, four times, ten times," he advised. "If this doesn't help, refuse to share their beds."
And if that doesn't work?
"Beat them," one of his three young advisees responded.
"That's right," Al-'Arifi said.
Click here to view the segment at MEMRITV.org
He goes on to calmly explain to the young men that hitting their future wives in the face is a no-no.
"Beating in the face is forbidden, even when it comes to animals," he explained. "Even if you want your camel or donkey to start walking, you are not allowed to beat it in the face. If this is true for animals, it is all the more true when it comes to humans. So beatings should be light and not in the face."
His final words of wisdom?
"Woman, it has gone too far. I can't bear it anymore," he tells the men to tell their wives. "If he beats her, the beatings must be light and must not make her face ugly.
"He must beat her where it will not leave marks. He should not beat her on the hand... He should beat her in some places where it will not cause any damage. He should not beat her like he would beat an animal or a child -- slapping them right and left.
"Unfortunately, many husbands beat their wives only when they get mad, and when they start beating, it as if they are punching a wall – they beat with their hands, right and left, and sometimes use their feet. Brother, it is a human being you are beating. This is forbidden. He must not do this."
Take that, Match.com!
Direct link here.
Saudi Marriage 'Expert' Advises Men in 'Right Way' to Beat Their Wives
Friday, November 02, 2007
From Fox News.
Move over, Dr. Phil, there's a new relationship expert in town.
He's Saudi author and cleric, "Dr." Muhammad Al-'Arifi, who in a remarkable segment broadcast on Saudi and Kuwaiti television in September, counseled young Muslim men on how to treat their wives.
"Admonish them – once, twice, three times, four times, ten times," he advised. "If this doesn't help, refuse to share their beds."
And if that doesn't work?
"Beat them," one of his three young advisees responded.
"That's right," Al-'Arifi said.
Click here to view the segment at MEMRITV.org
He goes on to calmly explain to the young men that hitting their future wives in the face is a no-no.
"Beating in the face is forbidden, even when it comes to animals," he explained. "Even if you want your camel or donkey to start walking, you are not allowed to beat it in the face. If this is true for animals, it is all the more true when it comes to humans. So beatings should be light and not in the face."
His final words of wisdom?
"Woman, it has gone too far. I can't bear it anymore," he tells the men to tell their wives. "If he beats her, the beatings must be light and must not make her face ugly.
"He must beat her where it will not leave marks. He should not beat her on the hand... He should beat her in some places where it will not cause any damage. He should not beat her like he would beat an animal or a child -- slapping them right and left.
"Unfortunately, many husbands beat their wives only when they get mad, and when they start beating, it as if they are punching a wall – they beat with their hands, right and left, and sometimes use their feet. Brother, it is a human being you are beating. This is forbidden. He must not do this."
Take that, Match.com!
Direct link here.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Another E-coli incident
So here we have another national E-coli incident, this time involving frozen pizza.
I know I blogged this earlier, but dang it, WASH YOUR HANDS!!! It's pretty simple to stop spreading poop around. It's called washing your hands.
That is all.
I know I blogged this earlier, but dang it, WASH YOUR HANDS!!! It's pretty simple to stop spreading poop around. It's called washing your hands.
That is all.
Kansas church gets nailed!!!
I was VERY happy to read this. This nutcase, Fred Phelps (notice I refuse to call him Reverand) and his church in Kansas seem to think that God hates certain people. Sadly this screwball calls himself a Christian, to which I say, get off our side! He doesn't stand for what a Christian stands for. Christians don't hate homosexuals, we just don't approve of the lifestyle. Hate the sin, not the sinner.
Well, the church got sued by the father of a fallen Marine and the court sided with the father! Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside!
Read the story here.
Well, the church got sued by the father of a fallen Marine and the court sided with the father! Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside!
Read the story here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
