by James Carafano August 31, 2014
“I’d bet they’re asleep in New York. I’d bet they’re asleep all over America,” bemoans Rick the saloonkeeper in the classic 1942 film “Casablanca.”
As Humphrey Bogart mumbled those words on a Hollywood backlot, the world could not have been in worse shape. The swastika waved over Rick’s beloved Paris. Nazis boots were on the march everywhere. Nevertheless, “Casablanca” did a huge box office.
The story of Rick’s transformation from pacifist to patriot mirrored the shift in the national mood. In 1942, after Pearl Harbor, Americans were ready for a fight.
And fight they did. Monday, August 25 marks the 70th Anniversary of the liberation of Paris, one of the greatest symbols of the world winning back its freedom from Nazi domination.
Today, as on every occasion associated with the war, we pause to marvel at the accomplishments of the “Greatest Generation.” They are silver-haired and stoop shouldered, now. It is hard to imagine that passengers unloading from an Honor Flight (a tribute that flies veterans to Washington, D.C., to visit the national World War II memorial), were once leaping into the early morning darkness that shrouded Normandy.
Freedom’s future was won by youth. In the U.S., those between 18 and 41 were considered eligible for military service, but the average age of a combat soldier was around 26.
And it wasn’t just American youth that went to war. The first troops into Paris were units of the Free French. Their way was paved by the French Resistance, whose ranks were also filled with young men and women who fought to take freedom back.
At the time they had no idea that their generation was great or even good. Before WW II, many wondered if Americans still had the right stuff—if a GI could ever match-up to a doughboy.
The novelist James Michener, who served in the Pacific during World War II recalled, “Many observers considered us a lost generation and feared we might collapse if summed to some crucial battlefield.”
And there was measure of guilt that Americans had done too little to match the fascist menace from Germany and Japan. Army chaplain Russell Cartwright Stroup, another veteran of the Pacific war, wrote that he chose overseas service because he felt that, “as part of a generation that failed to prevent this war, I should suffer with those who are victims of our failure.”
But measure up they did. Sixteen million Americans put on a uniform. They fought on every continent except Antarctica. Almost half the U.S. economy was diverted to the war effort.
Many might say never again. By some estimates, about 75 percent of American youth are not even qualified for military service.
They also say Americans are sick of war. That America has no stomach for boots on the ground. They say America can’t afford to defend itself.
Hopefully, America’s youth will never have to liberate Paris again. But, it would be unwise to assume that this generation could not.
America has never been the same country. It has been weak and agrarian. It has been powerful and industrialized. The only common characteristic is that—whatever the era—they were all Americans. And, yet, every generation of Americans has proved to be the greatest generation. Every generation has answered the call to arms when it came.
August 30, 2014
A number of our social problems and political divisions come from the inability of people to formulate and conform to a national identity. Minorities fail to assimilate properly because they’re not taught what it means to be an American. Even non-immigrant students are sometimes confused about what is right with America, what is wrong about our history, and whether or not they should be proud of their country.
Cold shoulders from Liberals on the school board and berating from our local press are but a few of the reactions to the excellent idea a friend of mine has for using “The 5000 Year Leap” as a textbook in our local high school Civics classes. The friend, who is a member of the local school board, has introduced a plan to bring the Constitution of the United States back into classrooms by replacing inaccurate and left-leaning text books with those that more fully teach the history and context of our founding.
His enthusiasm has been met with skepticism and resistance from the entrenched lefties on the board, but little do the Liberals realize that until we return the fundamentals of Americanism to the public school system, the viability of that school system, and the children who come through it, are in doubt. I’ll happily fight alongside my friend despite rejection and barrages of berating to bring Constitutional curricula back to our local classrooms.
Proper education in the founding principles provides relatively simple answers to a plethora of questions that beset our nation. A number of our social problems and political divisions come from the inability of people to formulate and conform to a national identity. Minorities fail to assimilate properly because they’re not taught what it means to be an American. Even non-immigrant students are sometimes confused about what is right with America, what is wrong about our history, and whether or not they should be proud of their country. Too often pupils in our public schools lack the background knowledge needed to be active and conscientious citizens. Our young people are struggling with their identities as Americans because they are not educated about what America is, and where it came from. Proper education about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution has the potential to end America’s prolonged identity crisis. The genius of our Founding Documents lies in the scaffolding they provide for people to understand their relationship to God.
Yes, the Founding Documents serve as the groundwork for a secular government, but they are based upon, and their success is determined by, our ability to identify with our Creator. The archetypal American identity is a godly identity, and carries with it responsibilities that were once considered sacred. The key observance that in the past secured American youngsters’ national identity suffered a disabling blow when, in 1962, religious prayer in public schools was found unconstitutional and no longer allowed. Over the following decades the quality of Western Civilization, American History, and Civics education was eroded by revisionism, Multiculturalism, the commingling of Socialist and Atheist doctrines, and the shocking omission of key political figures and events. America’s public schools are suffering from identity confusion which has resulted in estrangement from the rugged individualism, self-sufficiency, and moral certainty of our pioneer forbears.
A poor, or distorted concept of Americanism has lead learners to view the government as the primary source of wisdom, physical support, and rights, and has given them an identity that is more bound to the collective than it is to God. The first principles of our Founding Documents place the responsibility for the life, liberty, and the property of the citizen squarely upon the shoulders of the citizen. The idea that man is free–a moral agent to act or be acted upon–responsible for his own success or failure, is the basis of American philosophy. Americanism is the idea that man is given his rights by God, and to maintain those rights he must live a godly and moral life.
The founding of America served as the beginning of the end of monarchical dictates that arbitrated the relationship between God and man. The American identity is intimately associated with the moral traits of honor, accountability, and equality under the law. As God and the Founding Principles of America have been jettisoned from public education, the ties between students and their unique and great nation have been nearly severed. The loss of national pride contributes to much of the social dissipation and depression that vexes our families and culture. Human identity is at the core of hope, happiness, and meaning. When people lose their connection with God, either by conforming to degraded stereotypes belched into living rooms and movie theaters, or because they have lost the sense that they have power over their lives, achievements, and their futures, there is little left but self-absorption, groveling, and despair.
The loss of American identity leaves a void that can be easily filled with counterfeits like European-style Socialism and cultural moral relativism (the idea that all cultures are equally good). High-quality Constitutional education will not only enhance the historical knowledge and civics savvy of American public school students, it has enormous potential to benefit the culture. A moral framework is central to the healthy emotional and social development of children, and our founding documents provide such a framework. Though irreligious, they are of the mind of God. Civilization will only be redeemed through the kind of moral revolution that reasserts individual agency, worth, and godly identity. Our economic, mental, and cultural health are doomed without such a revolution. The best weapon in this peaceful revolution is credible education in what it means to be an American, and why to be so is such an expansive and unequaled blessing.
The Constitutional education books currently recommended to the Mesa County School Board for consideration:
The 5000 Year Leap by Cleon Skousen
Our Constitution Rocks by Juliette Turner
What Would the Founding Fathers Think by David Bowman
1776 by David McCullough
Seven Miracles that Saved America by Chris Stewart
The Real George Washington by Jay A. Perry and Andrew M. Allison
by Marjorie Haun 8/30/14
August 29, 2014
Illegal aliens have been destroying wildlife habitats and delicate environmental areas along the southern border for years. Although not a new problem, it has reached devastating proportions as the surge, beginning last year, of illegals pouring into the Southwest has exploded. The Left, invested in this tsunami of new Democrat voters, has remained largely silent on the environmental impact of their new constituents. Below is a collection of stories and images chronicling the pollution, damage, and species depletion caused by the unchecked, human-caused disaster known as the “border crisis.”
Trampled Wilderness: Illegal Immigrants, Drug Traffickers Destroying Border Parks (Brownsville Herald, June 2002)
By JULIE WATSON
The Associated PressEL PINACATE BIOSPHERE RESERVE, Mexico Drug traffickers scar volcanic desert with illicit runways, while law enforcement officials chase them through once-tranquil parks. Thousands of migrants traipse across delicate backcountry areas sending campers fleeing to ranger stations, fearful of crowds trekking by their tents in the night.
Wilderness areas on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border are taking a beating from an onslaught of migrants, drug traffickers and law enforcement officials, a new study says. Some national treasures in both countries have been lost forever.
Few parks have taken a greater toll than the U.N.-designated biosphere reserve El Pinacate and Arizonas adjoining Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Last year, officials caught 200,000 migrants and 700,000 pounds of drugs in Organ Pipe alone.
Arizona’s Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, situated along its border with Mexico, has suffered irreparable harm from more than a decade of illegal aliens streaming through on their way north. Its slow-growing and fragile cacti, some hundreds of years old, are often pushed over or gouged by illegals and the coyotes and drug traffickers guiding them. Its paths are worn, strewn with filth, and the habitats of its native animal and plant species are being degraded at an alarming rate.
Public Lands Being Destroyed by Illegal Immigration
A position statement released by the Public Lands foundation on July 18, 2014 concluded:
Smuggling of controlled substances and people into the United States from Mexico has caused significant impacts to lands and resources managed by the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Tribal and State governments and private citizens along the southwest border of the United States. The impacts imperil designated Wilderness Areas, National Conservation Areas, National Monuments and other public lands. These impacts are so severe that immediate action by the Administration and Congress is required, including enactment and enforcement of a new immigration policy and allocation of sufficient resources to mitigate impacts resulting on lands within the National System of Public Lands administered by BLM.
No Safe Refuge by Roger Di Silvestro
In 2006 the National Wildlife Federation released this article detailing the destruction of habitat of endangered and species by illegal aliens and drug smugglers. It reads, in part:
Cabeza Prieta–the size of Rhode Island and 90 percent officially designated as wilderness–is one of three federally protected wildlife areas under assault along southwest Arizona’s border with Mexico. The 330,000-acre Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, which is 95 percent designated wilderness, abuts 30 miles of border, and Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, a former ranch covering 118,000 acres of native grassland, lies along 5.5 miles of border. All of these lands were set aside to protect desert wildlife and wilderness habitat. Cabeza and Organ Pipe are home to the Sonoran pronghorn, an endangered subspecies, and Buenos Aires was established in part to protect the endangered masked bobwhite quail.
Jaguars, Ocelots, Sonoran Pronghorns and other threatened species are now the brink of disappearing from southwestern border states due to decreased immigration enforcement and increased illegal movements northward from Mexico.
In 2006 Defenders of Wildlife released a publication titled, On the Line: The Impacts of Immigration Policy on Wildlife and Habitat in the Arizona Borderlands. In the Executive Summary of the document, it reads:
Beginning in the early 1990′s, the U.S. Border Patrol dramatically increased its immigration enforcement efforts in heavily populated border areas such as San Diego, California, and El Paso, Texas, essentially shifting undocumented immigration, drug trafficking, and other illegal activities from urban areas to more remote and less populated areas–especially the borderlands of Arizona. This has resulted in significant environmental degradation in some of the most pristine and valuable wildlife habitats in the nation.
Numerous wildfires started by illegal aliens
Each year wildfires are started intentionally as a diversion by coyotes and drug smugglers, and unintentionally by illegals camping in the deserts along the southwestern border. Senator John McCain (R) Arizona, in 2011 brought this to the attention of the country much to the displeasure of those who advocate open borders and illegal immigration. But a report from the Government Accountability Office documents the truth of Senator McCain’s assertions. It says:
Wildland fires can result from both natural and human causes. Human-caused wildland fires are of particular concern in Arizona–especially within 100 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border because this is a primary area of entry for illegal border crossers and GAO has previously reported that illegal border crossers have been suspected of igniting wildland fires. Over half of the land in the Arizona border region is managed by the federal government–primarily by the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service and four agencies within the Department of the Interior. These agencies collaborate with state, tribal, and local entities to respond to wildland fires. GAO was asked to examine, for the region, the (1) number, cause, size, and location of wildland fires from 2006 through 2010; (2) economic and environmental effects of human-caused wildland fires burning 10 or more acres; (3) extent to which illegal border crossers were the ignition source of wildland fires on federal lands; and (4) ways in which the presence of illegal border crossers has affected fire suppression activities. GAO reviewed interagency policies and procedures; analyzed wildland fire data; and interviewed federal, tribal, state, and local officials, as well as private citizens..
From 2006 through 2010, at least 2,467 wildland fires occurred in the Arizona border region. Of this number, 2,126, or about 86 percent, were caused by human activity.
The United States of America, once the world’s beneficent super power, fostered through its public lands policies and animal welfare statutes, a respect for the natural world, its inhabitants and their homes. Third world nations sometimes pay homage to wildlife and natures wonders, but the ethos of respect for nature is, for the most part, lost on impoverished, uneducated masses from socialist nations to whom survival supersedes all other considerations. It’s no wonder that illegal aliens, human traffickers and drug smugglers traversing our southern border leave in their wake environmental destruction, filth, and death.
As three decades of failed immigration enforcement culminates in the current wave of illegals from nearly eighty countries splashing into our states, the likelihood that this environmental horror can be stemmed is nil. The contemptible hypocrisy of the American Left who, on one hand uses environmental issues as a bludgeon against progress and Capitalism, will, on the other hand, turn a blind eye to the very real and irreversible loss of species, habitat, and natural features where illegal aliens, drug cartels, international terrorists, and future Democrat voters blaze super highways into the heartland of our once-sovereign nation.
For more information about the environmental impact of illegal aliens please check out the following:
by Marjorie Haun 8/29/14
August 28, 2014
Forrest L. Gomez, affectionately known as “Old Sarge” is a Vietnam veteran, author, and friend. Here he shares his musings on Ferguson, violence, and the meaning of life.
From the Desk of Old Sarge:
I heard it again yesterday. “Violence never solved anything.” The damned souls in Hell of Hitler and Tojo would be surprised to hear that.
On the contrary, violence of varying degrees has been part of every major solution and event in history. Mahatma Gandhi’s followers gained world-wide sympathy by enduring violence.
Violence was used on our Lord Jesus Christ to fulfill the prophecies. Leadership should be defined by selective use of violence where necessary, and containing it and punishing it wherever possible.
Does anyone remember the musical “The Music Man?” One of my favorites. Those of you in the know remember that a Professor Howard Hill creates a phony crisis in River City, Iowa (the danger of the town’s first pool table), offers to solve it by creating and instructing a boy’s band, for which he gets a commission on the musical instruments and uniforms. (His plan is to skate out afterwards, but he falls for Marian the librarian.)
Does this process sound familiar? Anyone who does even the most fundamental research knows that a black male in America is more than seventy times likely to be killed by another black male. Census figures show that the black middle class is increasing in size (no thanks to Obamanomics), but crime in black neighborhoods is also increasing.
Poverty does not cause crime, crime causes poverty, every reasonable person knows that. I heard a well-meaning black gentleman ask on the radio, “Why don’t you white folks do something about the black gangs killing each other?” Sir, I ask you…why don’t YOU do something about them? Do you not understand that the left has black culture right where they want it?
You people pontificating moral equivalency for Hamas and ISIS, get a life.
Stupid liberal statement of the week, “It’s not fair that police have better guns than crooks.”
God bless you all, this day and always.
- The Sarge
Reposted with permission of the author on Reagangirl.com 8/28/14
August 27, 2014
Pot industry flexes political muscle and politicians accept money banks won’t
From Colorado Watchdog Wire
It’s probably unusual for political contributors to thank a candidate for taking their money, but that’s what Mike Elliott, executive director for the Marijuana Industry Group, did at a pot-industry fundraiser for U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter last month.
“We really appreciate the fact we can come here and show you how much we appreciate you showing up and talking about it and giving you donations,” Elliott told Perlmutter, D-Colo., and a group of about 50 marijuana business owners. “We want to do what every other industry does and, as time goes by, the fear of the unknown is going away and more people are going to be following your footsteps.”
As Elliott spoke, organizers were collecting envelopes filled with contribution checks. Perlmutter was ready to talk about his legislation to allow the industry to bank pot proceeds, which are legal under Colorado law but still raise money laundering concerns with banks because marijuana remains illegal at the federal level.
“I want to thank everyone for being willing to step up and help me,” Perlmutter said, standing in front of the offices of Vicente Sederberg, Colorado’s major marijuana industry law firm. “I have been talking about the banking problem because you got the federal law going one direction and the state law, especially in Colorado and Washington, going the other direction.”
Attorneys disagree about pot contributions
Federal money laundering laws prohibit banks from accepting marijuana proceeds because the drug is still illegal under federal law. But federal elected officials, like Perlmutter and several other members of the Colorado delegation, increasingly are accepting contributions from marijuana business owners.
Carolyn Short, a retired lawyer who chairs Keep AZ Drug Free and opposed marijuana legalization efforts, said federal law doesn’t prohibit the contributions, but it probably should.
“I don’t think money from illegal activities, whether child porn or marijuana, should be used to fund political campaigns, and I think most people agree with me,” she said. “The whole idea behind the money laundering statute that prohibits banks from taking in the money is you don’t want to encourage or abet criminal activity.”
Other legal experts say there is no prohibition in either campaign or criminal laws that prevent politicians from accepting marijuana money — even if it’s illegal to sell pot under federal law. Like much of the burgeoning marijuana legalization push, there are gray areas and conflicting laws that politicians and regulators have yet to settle.
Federal Election Commission rules prohibit candidates from taking money from corporations, unions, national banks, government contractors and foreign entities, but do not address proceeds from a business that might operate legally in states but violate federal laws. In an email exchange, a spokeswoman wrote the FEC has not received any requests for legal guidance about marijuana contributions.
But former Denver City Attorney David Fine, who helped set up Denver’s medical marijuana regulations and now practices election law, said that is likely to change.
“It’s a novel question and one that the FEC has not opined on,” he said in a phone interview.
Richard Collins, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Colorado, said federal directives to banks and other entities after Colorado’s legalization and the First Amendment right of political speech make it acceptable for politicians to take marijuana money in states where the drug is sold legally.
“I’m confident a candidate is in the clear,” he said.
The Obama administration has told banks that they can accept marijuana money if the businesses comply with state law and make sure the drugs don’t get into the hands of children or leave the state, Collins said. Most banks have refused the deposits, determining they can’t monitor the actions of their depositors that closely.
But Collins said he doesn’t believe political candidates have to monitor their contributors.
“As long as the activity within the state is legal, the contribution is legal,” he said.
Pot political power grows
The Colorado congressional delegation, which opposed Colorado’s recreational legalization initiative in 2012, are nevertheless starting to represent their HTC-selling constituents’ needs in Washington, D.C.
In past two years, FEC records show total pot-related contributions — either from industry PACs or individuals who operate marijuana-related businesses — to Colorado federal candidates were about $20,000. It is nearly impossible to determine a comprehensive amount because only a handful of contributors note their marijuana connections on FEC forms.
But pot’s political clout is increasing. Elliott said the July fundraiser for Perlmutter collected about $20,000. FEC disclosures for that period are due until Oct. 15. And in July, Perlmutter said there was another pot-industry fundraiser before the July 1 event.
Elliott said the marijuana industry, which in Colorado is valued at about $600 million and growing, mostly focused on state races in the past, but have turned their attention to federal campaigns because of the banking issue.
“Federal banking laws make the marijuana business federally illegal, and that issue is so dire that someone will die over this issue,” he said in phone interview last week. “People in California have already died, and it’s just a matter time before it happens here. It’s a huge public safety issue.”
Colorado delegation pushes legislation to help pot industry
Perlmutter repeatedly has pushed legislation that would allow banks to accept marijuana funds where state law allows legal sales. He said it’s a public safety issue because dispensary owners who have a lot of cash and marijuana are attractive targets for robbers.
“The cash component — you know better than I do — subjects you to various armed robberies,” he told the crowd on a cool July evening in Denver. “There is always the white-collar aspect of skimming, tax evasion, but really the violent crime (aspect). We’re trying to straighten this up.”
Danielle Radovich Piper, Perlmutter’s chief of staff , said at the fundraiser the campaign does not accept cash contributions, so once the money is in bank accounts, it’s legal for them to accept.
Perlmutter’s campaign managerrefused to discuss the issue last week.
“Neither Ed or the campaign discuss fundraising activities,” Chris Kennedy wrote in an email. “The campaign fully complies with all FEC guidelines, laws and reporting deadlines.”
U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., also sponsored a bill that would help the industry. The bill would prohibit federal officials from enforcing the Controlled Substances Act in states that have legalized marijuana.
U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., has collected the most marijuana money so far, according to Watchdog.org’s review of FEC records, but that may change in the next filing. Neither Udall nor DeGette’s staff returned calls and emails seeking comment.
Perlmutter’s and DeGette’s bills haven’t made it through Congress, but Perlmutter predicted the days of marijuana prohibition in the United States are numbered.
“Prohibition is over one state at a time, but prohibition is falling by the wayside, and our job is to get so it is working,” he told supporters at the fundraiser.
Reposted with permission by Reagangirl.com on 8/27/14
August 26, 2014
We Must Act: A Standing Terrorist State in Iraq Hurts U.S.
The best way to start winning a war is to stop losing. That axiom certainly applies to what’s going on in Iraq. But, that said, there is no place for American brigades in this battle.
Yes, Americans have a huge stake in preventing al-Qaida’s cousin from setting up a brutal caliphate in Iraq. The Middle East is a crossroads of the world. If unchecked, the malevolent influence of the Islamic State could spiral into a sectarian conflict engulfing the entire region.
By some estimates, there are now more than 10,000 foreign fighters in Iraq, including more than 3,000 from the U.S. and other Western nations. These fighters may, in future, be reassigned to return home and wage terrorist campaigns. No matter how you slice it, the longer a terrorist state stands in Iraq, the bigger the problem it poses to the world and to us.
America has every reason to act. The question is: How? How best to help restore peace, stability, and the prospect of a better future to the people of Iraq? The answer to that question does not require massive American ground forces on Iraqi soil.
That’s not because Americans are “sick and tired of war.” Americans don’t like wars – and never have. Yet we fight when we have to. Americans are resilient and practical people. If there is a war to be won and our leaders lay out sensible reasons to fight and a practical, suitable and feasible way to win, Americans will march to the sound of the trumpets.
But not every crisis needs to be handled by sending in the Marines. In this case, the U.S. has practical options that fit well with our vital national interests and can help relieve the growing humanitarian crisis in Iraq.
Washington should focus on marginalizing the destructive influence of Iran, choking off the pipeline that feeds foreign fighters to the Islamic State and setting the conditions that will allow the Iraqis to take back their country.
The Iranian regime is already overstretched. With a nuclear “deal” nowhere in sight, the U.S. has every reason to reinvigorate the sanctions regime against Tehran. This will force them to end their expensive forays into Iraq.
To halt the flow of foreign fighters, the U.S. should focus on disrupting pipeline operations in Turkey and other “countries of transit” where fighters stage to move in and out of the Syria-Iraq theatre.
The rest of the solution lies in helping native assets on the ground do their jobs better. Kurdish security forces and volunteers are more than willing and capable of defending themselves.
What they need is rapid, effective support from the U.S. and other friends and allies. In the south, the Iraq military is still a force to be reckoned with.
What’s needed in both areas are air support, skilled advisors, intelligence gathering, ammo and other supplies.
The U.S. can help with all of that. And it should also keep working diplomatically to help Tehran’s sectarian, malfunctioning government get its act together.
The U.S. also needs to help nearby Jordan, which has borne the brunt of housing more than 600,000 registered refugees from Syria. Strained by that immense burden, Amman now finds itself in the crosshairs of the Islamic State. Driving those fighters from the field requires American support, but not an American invasion.
Once the dual dangers of the Islamic State and Iran are rolled back, there might well be a role for an international force in Iraq to help stabilize things while the nation rebuilds.
This is a role that U.S. forces would have played, had they not been precipitously withdrawn in 2011. The scope and composition of that international force is something a farsighted leader might want to start thinking about. But for now, Washington must focus primarily on how to stop losing.
August 25, 2014
This article was originally published on 4/13/12. It was apparent then that Obama’s unilateral arms reduction policies would be problematic. But with existential threats from the emerging Islamic State in the Middle East, Russian aggression against Ukraine, an emboldened North Korea, increasingly aggressive China, and the dissolution of our southern border, the predictions of two years ago have become the global nightmare of today.
April 13, 2012
The Obama Administration, in what amounts to unilateral arms reduction, is the cook using the same ingredients that 90 years ago would prove to create an explosive dish called World War II. The ingredients for disaster are amassed, and it appears that Barack Obama with his “nuclear utopianism” is just the chef to pull it off.
The war had killed millions, and in its aftermath the great nations of the world were in an arms race that was alarming and unprecedented. As international tensions rose in foreign lands, disarmament was regarded as the most effective way to curtail the potential outbreak of another large-scale war. The Secretary of State called leaders of the major world powers to Washington D.C. to discuss multilateral weapons reductions. Through a number of security agreements that obligated the five nations involved to participate in arms limitations programs, the participating nations might avoid another catastrophic war in the regions where conflict was most likely.
While most of the signatories abided the terms set forth by the “Disarmament Conference”, one did not. And though a small country with limited resources, the backslider would within years become brazenly militaristic; a global threat that, in the wake of the disarmament conference, would threaten to overpower other nations which had voluntarily curbed many of their own defensive capabilities.
This scenario does not involve the current Secretary of State, or contemporary saber-rattlers such as Iran and North Korea. This scenario is from 90 years ago, and the militaristic country which eventually rejected the terms of the arms limitation treaties of 1922 was Japan. If there was a recipe book handed down from prior generations that listed the ingredients for war, “disarmament” would be at the top of the list.
Dr. Keith B. Payne addresses this “past is prologue” notion in an article in The Weekly Standard of April 9-16, 2012. Keith B. Payne cites the words of George Kennan, the man who devised Cold War policy during the Truman years. Kennan called the post World War I notion that disarmament would serve to prevent future wars, “a species of wishful thinking and a vapid distraction from the serious business of responding to the international threats that culminated in World War II.” One easily imagines the “vapid” ideas that have emanated from the Obama Administration; from the ineffective “New START Treaty,” to the suicidal doctrine of “Nuclear Zero.”
In his article titled “Nuclear Utopianism: The wishful thinking of U.S. arms control,” Keith B. Payne compares the explosive nature of today’s international tensions to those circumstances which climaxed in World War II. Payne cites Russia’s recent statements that the United States is its primary military foe. He explores the unsettling reality that China is steadily improving and expanding its nuclear programs. He notes that North Korea continues to flaunt its willingness to strike at the West with nuclear weapons. Payne recounts Iran’s open declarations that Israel and the United States are targets for annihilation. And he advances the potential for future nuclear cataclysm presented by Pakistan which is has been long beset with national instability.
The Obama Administration’s “wishful thinking” takes a variety of forms, according to Payne. The assertion that nuclear arms are being reduced by the New START treaty is promoted by what he calls “contrived counting” which fails to account for whole classes of nuclear weapons. The differences between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons are glossed over. And it is very likely that Russia omits thousands of tactical nuclear weapons from its counts. A treaty designed to make inventory-taking central to a plan for keeping the world safe from nuclear war is just one example of the delusional utopianism to which Payne refers in his incisive article. The dogma of “Nuclear Zero” that has come out of our own State Department amounts to a complete dismantling of America’s nuclear arsenal, with the utopian hope that the other nations of the world—rogue aggressors included—will happily follow our good example.
The Obama Administration, in what amounts to unilateral arms reduction, is the cook using the same ingredients that 90 years ago would prove to create an explosive dish called World War II. The ingredients for disaster are amassed, and it appears that Barack Obama with his “nuclear utopianism” is just the chef to pull it off. It is clear in Dr. Keith B. Payne’s article that instead of shrinking our nuclear arsenal, the United States should be improving and expanding it. Instead of using toothless treaties to govern multilateral disarmament processes, the United States should shore up its battle-readiness and its defensive shields. Calling to mind the circumstances of the past that emboldened our enemies and made us a viable target, the United States should display military strength that only the most foolish regimes would challenge.
Payne closes his article with a additional quote from George Kennan which, for the Obama Administration, bears a powerful cautionary message; “The evil of these utopian enthusiasms was not only, or even primarily, the wasted time, the misplaced emphasis, the encouragement of false hopes. The evil lay primarily in the fact that these enthusiasms distracted our gaze from the real things that were happening.”
By Marjorie Haun 4/13/12
PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT!
August 24, 2014
While homosexuals insist that they have no choice and are attracted to the same sex because of a condition predetermined by nature, their transgender counterparts insist that their sexual identity, as determined by nature, has nothing to do with who they really are!
Those who place themselves within the universal sex anomaly acronym, “LGBTQ” (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning) have painted themselves into a paradoxical corner, without even realizing how contradictory their “initialist” narratives have become.
Homosexuality has been trickling into the American mainstream since Jack Lemmon rode in a boat off into the sunset with Joe E. Brown during the closing credits of “Some like it Hot.” Despite an abiding sense of moral repugnance among many regarding homosexuality as a lifestyle, homosexuals themselves have never been systematically attacked or discriminated against. Indeed, pop culture, the entertainment industry and media have embraced homosexuals and lesbians and done their level best to portray them as virtuous, kind, and extraordinarily valuable to society. Despite the fact that, in America, homosexuals enjoy protections provided by the rule of law and Christian kindness, they themselves have always demanded more acceptance and special accommodations.
Social scientists on the Left have pushed the dubious notion that homosexuality is a congenital complex, determined prior to birth, and that those who identify themselves as having same-sex attraction are ruled by factors outside the realm of their own choice. In other words, homosexuals have seized upon the narrative that homosexuality is an intractable, organically-based condition, fixed by nature and therefore scientifically provable.
The problem with that theory is a complete absence of empirical evidence supporting homosexuality as a natural and fixed phenomenon. Specious statistical studies, pseudo-scientific psychological inventories, and some other soft-data sorts of evidence have been introduced in attempts to prove that homosexuality is not by choice. Nevertheless, not one iota of hard, scientifically reproducible evidence exists to support the narrative. In fact, the “homosexuality is determined by nature” theory has another enemy, and it comes in the form of transgender theory.
The basic theory behind the “T” in LGBTQ, is that some individuals are born in a body which expresses something other than their authentic sexual identity. Transgender may, or may not, be a woman in a man’s body, a man in a woman’s body, or a less definitive, more fluid identity that is a combination of both, or neither, at the same time. The problem with transgender theory is again, a complete lack of empirical evidence to support that an individual can be sex other than XX or XY. Even those born with ambiguous genitalia are genetically male or female. Separate genetic mutations may be responsible for “intersex” characteristics, but it is provable that such an individual is a woman or a man. In other words, the transgender narrative says that identity is fluid, or an outright error of physical expression, neither determined by nature, nor genetically fixed. While homosexuals insist that they have no choice and are attracted to the same sex because of a condition predetermined by nature, their transgender counterparts insist that their sexual identity as determined by nature has nothing to do with who they really are! The scientific impossibility of both positions is nothing short of mind-boggling, but even more absurdly delicious is the way both positions are evidence–though not scientific–that the other is wrong!
The Left, which is the playground of LGBTQ, “climate change” science, militant feminism, socialism, and every other untenable, failed socially progressive theory ever introduced into the public square, has jettisoned true science and sound scientific methodology in favor of soft science and pseudo religious forms of “faith evidence.” The homosexual vs transgender paradox is little more than conflicting narratives; narratives designed to gain political traction and public sympathy for bizarre progressive social movements.
All of the initials in LGBTQ, ad nauseum, are either aberrations, or fabrications. And although most people who claim to live under the LGBTQ umbrella are decent and kind people who simply want to be happy, the uncomfortable truth remains, that the basis for their cultural identities is a personal choice.
by Marjorie Haun 8/24/14
August 23, 2014
“By liberty, I understand the power which every man has over his own actions, and his right to enjoy the fruits of his labor, art and industry, as far as by it he hurts not the society, or any members of it, by taking from any member, or hindering him from enjoying what he himself enjoys. The fruits of a man’s honest industry are the just rewards of it, ascertained to him by natural and eternal equity, as is his title to use them in the manner which he thinks fit: And thus, with the above limitations, every man is sole lord and arbiter of his own private actions and property…no man living can divest him but by usurpation, or by his own consent.” ~ from Cato’s Letters
There is no right to marriage. Rights are those broad, enforceable concepts which can defended in word and in fact, by law; life, liberty, property. Heterosexual men and women have no right to be married. If a single man in a country demographically short on eligible women because of decades of sex-selection abortions, such as India, asserts the right to be married, and yet lacks a consenting partner who agrees to enter into the covenant of marriage with him, who will enforce his right? Is it the role of government to initiate force upon an unwilling woman, removing ALL of her rights to self-determination, in order to enforce his right to marriage? No. It’s absurd.
Marriage between one man and one woman as designed by God and exemplified by Adam and Eve, is the crowning privilege of humanity. One must qualify for this privilege by entering into a covenant with a willing and suitable member of the opposite sex, and by making promises enforceable by law (that is until “no-fault” divorce became the norm). One must obtain a license to marry, often presenting evidence they are free of certain communicable diseases. Marriage is an institution designed to perpetuate the human family. The sexual aspect is important in marriage, but sexual attraction by itself is insufficient to qualify as marriage. Like the chemical composition of water, marriage is fixed. You cannot change its composition and still call it marriage. There is no right to marriage, and gay and lesbian sexual arrangements do not constitute marriage.
The failure of the Arizona Religious Freedom Protection bill last week illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of rights vs. privileges in our time. It is also an example of how the homosexual lobby, which has failed to make its own case to Christians and other religious traditionalists, uses the perversion of law and the force of government to further its ends.
I don’t judge an individual by whose genitalia they prefer. I judge people by their efficacy in the workplace, their decency— the content of their character. I don’t care about what people do in their sex lives. I makes no difference in how I regard a personal acquaintance or colleague. It’s not my business to know and it’s not my job to advocate for a certain sexual proclivity. Nor is it the role of government to carve out favors and exceptions, and create special status to normalize homosexuality, or to attempt to make it equivalent to marriage as designed and sanctioned by God.
“In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.” ~Madison, Federalist Papers Chapter 16
In order for government to impose the normalization of homosexuality on those who believe in the supremacy of God’s Word, it must do so with force, infringing upon individual’s rights to the property of their faith and actions; turning those who oppose homosexuality on religious grounds into servants of the very thing they find morally repugnant. By employing the force of government in the courts, administrative agencies, and legislation, to crush the freedom of Christians, Orthodox Jews, and other scriptural traditionalists who wish to think, worship, and act according to the dictates of their own consciences, the homosexual movement has created for itself a human shield of individuals, battered by Political Correctness and false shame, who must comply with its wishes, or risk losing everything.
It is not an attack on anyone when those of use who believe in the unchanging Word of God witness that He ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman as the proper structure for rearing children, and the optimum institution for human progress and increase. The Christian/Traditionalist defense of the Word of God, nuclear Family, God-sanctioned Marriage, and all timeless moral principles, is an attack on no one. But in twisting civil law and perverting the definition of rights, the homosexual lobby and its Leftist masters will punish dissenters as a thought criminals, robbing them of their rights, and making them examples of the fearsome power of the government to destroy those who disagree.
By the same token, it is not discrimination for a business to turn away a customer on the grounds they don’t want to provide a product or service they find morally disagreeable. There is no right to a service or a product from a specified business. In the free market we should be free to choose with whom we do business. Customers cannot lay claim upon the skills and property of an unwilling business without fundamentally offending the rights of the business owner. The Arizona Religious Freedom Protection bill did not pave the way for open discrimination against homosexuals, but sought to discourage discrimination against those business owners who, as a matter of conscience, wish not to participate in a transaction that furthers something they find immoral.
I challenge the LGBTQ community to make its own case outside of the courts, without the force of government, through persuasion, by presenting evidence that homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgender-ism, “questioning or queer,” are in and of themselves virtues that deserve a place in civil society aside the timeless institution of marriage. I challenge those who want to equate homosexual pairings with marriage to bring forth a reality-based, logical argument that will withstand all rhetorical questioning, to show religious Americans why these things are good for the rearing of children and how they will perpetuate happiness.
MAKE YOUR CASE! Make your case the same way Believers do, by persuasion and love unfeigned, one person at a time. God Himself was so offended by theocracy that He inspired a nation to be brought forth where no single religion ruled, but rather a secular law. The First Amendment bars the establishment of a state religion. Has homosexuality effectively become a state religion, where non-believers are punished and coerced by threats, fines, and imprisonment, to convert?
The case for civil rights was made, and eventually a vast and irresistible majority of Americans were persuaded, that all men and women are created equal regardless of skin color, nationality, dialect, faith, or station. Here is a truth that is self-evident; that each life has intrinsic value, and sovereignty–the right to be free and to access all blessings offered by the condition of being free. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable, and based upon Natural Law.
No matter how much public shaming or name calling, fines or imprisonment is brought to bear on those who live their lives and run their businesses according to the dictates of conscience, no one can conquer the Christian world, and no one one can alter the composition of marriage to suit individual tastes. I urge the LGBTQ community to turn away from group identity and mob think. Be individuals, bring your own cases before the public. IF YOUR LIFESTYLES ARE VIRTUOUS, LET THEM SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, AS DO THE REST OF US, Christian and non-Christian alike. If the LGBTQ community cannot make its own case, and must force others to conform against their will, the result with be an increasingly militarized government which targets its own citizens as enemies of the state.
by Marjorie Haun 8/23/14
August 21, 2014
Nanny of the week: The out-of-control trend of arresting non-helicopter moms
This article was originally published on Watchdog.org.
By Eric Boehm | Watchdog.org
MINNEAPOLIS — In this space each week, we try to zero in on a single politician, lawmaker or governing body using its power to limit individual freedom and choice in some way.
But, for this week, there is no singular entity or individual to blame. Instead, we highlight one of the more disturbing trends to emerge this summer — no, not Iggy Azalea songs — the widespread practice of arresting parents, usually moms, for letting their children play outdoors unattended.
How widespread? A complete survey of news stories would be too long for this space, but here’s a few prime examples.
In mid-July, Deborah Harrell of South Carolina was arrested and charged with unlawful conduct after she confessed to letting her 9-year-old daughter play at a park for an hour.
“The little girl is fine tonight, but some say an area the mother thought was safe could have turned dangerous,” intoned Deon Guillory, the reporter for ABC-6 news who first reported the story — slathering on the fear of the unknown as only local news can.
Harrell was fired from her job at McDonald’s after her arrest. The bright side of the story is that she’ll be able to go to the park with her daughter now, though the whole being-unemployed thing is probably a bit of a bummer.
But that was only the beginning.
Nicole Gainey, of Florida, was arrested on July 29 after letting her 7-year-old son walk to a nearby park by himself. The kid even had a cell phone to call for help, if it was needed.
Gainey told NBC’s Today she was “totally dumbfounded” by the incident.
“I honestly don’t think I was doing anything wrong. I was letting him go play,” she told the news program.
Gainey now faces up to five years in jail for child neglect, according to KTLA.
In Georgia, police arrested Courtney B. Tabor and charged her with three misdemeanors for getting out of her car to smoke a cigarette and leaving her three kids inside. We can only assume the police would have preferred that she light-up inside the car with her kids.
In New York, Patricia Juarez was arrested after letting her son play in a LEGO store for an hour while she shopped nearby.
Back in Florida, Ashley Richardson was arrested this week after letting her kids play alone in a park while she went to a local food bank.
And just Thursday in North Carolina, Josephine Mamie Bombo was arrested for letting her 10-year-old daughter play unattended in a local park. A 10-year old!
Just a few minutes of Internet searching will turn up more examples, and that’s only the list of incidents covered by the local news that have gained some level of national attention. There are surely many other parents being put in handcuffs for similar “crimes” that the media misses.
And, yes, parents have to be responsible for their children. It might not be exactly A-plus parenting to let your kid play in a LEGO store for an hour or walk to a park unattended, depending on the child and their age and the neighborhood and a slew of other factors.
But is it a crime? We’re skeptical. So this week’s award goes to local cops across the country who are cracking down on the scourge of unaccompanied children in public places. Their collective prize is having to put up with the world of helicopter parents they are helping to create.
Boehm can be reached at EBoehm@Watchdog.org and follow @WatchdogOrg on Twitter for more.
Posted with permission by Reagangirl.com 8/21/14