Monday, November 13, 2006

My last posting on this subject was November 1st. Now it is November 13Th and during these past 12 days we have lost ANOTHER 31 souls to the misguided "war" in Iraq and an additional 153 have been wounded! The totals are now 2848 DEAD and 21572 WOUNDED. These are REAL PEOPLE! Click on this link to see the sons and daughters and brothers and sisters that are being KILLED;

This is an URGENT crisis and there is no time for government red tape!

During those 12 days American voters have gone to the polls and rejected the current administration's "war" policy. Citizens have indicated that they want change and they want it NOW. The Republicans are floundering and many are jumping off their "ship to nowhere" with reckless abandon. Conservative radio talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh are even turning their backs and their voices. Even he could not sustain blind partisanship in the face of administration that has proven itself to be nothing more than an inept bully. Americans no longer need to worry about the "terrorists" or others that would wish us harm becoming "emboldened" should we leave Iraq because they already are emboldened! Why is this? To the extent that the military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are actually a fight with "insurgents" or "terrorists", which doesn't appear to be the worst problem (at least in Iraq), the U.S. military has not been allowed (to date) to do what they would have to do to get rid of this presence.

We keep hearing of the 140,000 plus troops that are in Iraq. How many of this amount are actually engaging the "insurgents" or terrorists"? How many are having to try and keep a lid on the sectarian "war" that is taking place throughout the country? I suspect that a larger portion of U.S. troops are mired in the latter strategy. Was the current President and all his advisers actually under the impression that the various ethnic and religious groups in Iraq were going to "magically" embrace each other and "just get along" when we took out Saddam Hussein? How could they all be so naive? I find it stunning that virtually everyone on this team was lulled into that belief or was intimidated into silence at the expense of the lives of so many of their fellow Americans. The actions taken (and not taken) by the current administration during the past four years has been shameful at best and treasonous at worst.

The Democrats have gained enough political victories in the recent election to be able to exert pressure on the Bush Administration to PAY ATTENTION and to face the FACTS of this self-imposed debacle. The Democrats MUST also be fully prepared to accept the RESPONSIBILITY of the "power" they have regained. This is NOT a time to sink into an endless series of hearings and investigations to point out what has gone wrong and who did it. We the people already know those answers! It's time to step up and be the leaders that you say you are and validate the results of our recent elections. American citizens are demanding positive and successful action and our troops DESERVE it!

Our troops are bravely "following orders" and would continue to do so indefinitely because that is their job. It is the responsibility of the civilian authority of the United States Government to figure this out and get our troops out of the shooting gallery they are in now. If our mission is to battle the "terrorists" now in Iraq or Afghanistan then give the military the orders to actually win and not just engage in a look and wait policy. The struggle between the various religious factions throughout Iraq (or Afghanistan) will NEVER be solved by US military actions and more importantly, that's not our business. The American people and the new Democratic leadership must continually separate those two issues because that is a major element toward bringing our involvement to an end. We keep hearing that we will leave as soon as the Iraqi government is able to provide effective security for Iraq. If the combined resources of the American, British and other nation's military might has shown no real sign (in close to four years) of stopping and controlling the daily violence, we must ask the obvious question. How will it be possible for Iraqi police or the Iraqi military ever be able to "protect" themselves and all the citizens of Iraq, especially when the individuals being recruited into the Iraqi forces are themselves partisan members of the sects they are supposed to control. Militias and "death squads" are more prevalent on the streets of Iraq than are the Iraqi officials. Unless there is a fundamental change in the mindset of the Iraqi people and their new government and a willingness to co-exist in their own country, it doesn't matter what "we" do or how many troops we have there or how long we stay. The ONLY thing that does continue to matter is that EVERY DAY more Americans (and Iraqi or Afghan civilians) are being killed or wounded and THAT MUST STOP!

It's Time to Think Again!

Wednesday, November 01, 2006


It's November 1st, 2006 and in 6 days the United States will conduct the mid-term elections to determine which major political party will have the majority in Congress for at least the next two years. The candidates, the media (especially the media) and all the political pundits on T.V. and the Internet are consumed with the numbers to "suggest" to us by citing endless poll results who will "win" their election.


Let me say that again;


The numbers that SHOULD matter to ALL of these candidates and media and more importantly each and every American Citizen are;

2817 and 21419

The number 2817 is the number of American military personnel that have been killed in the 1323 days since WE began our "war" in Iraq.

The number 21419 is the number of American military personnel that have been "wounded" in the 1323 days since WE began our "war" in Iraq.

While the politicians here in the U.S. beat each other up with their "war" of words and accusations and character assassination and try to "buy" our votes with empty promises to maintain or gain a seat of power in Congress more than 2 Americans are dying EVERY day and more than 16 Americans are being wounded EVERY day.

Back on August 16th I made a posting to this site called "When are WE Going to Get Mad" (which I suggest readers go back to and read again). At that time the number of American military personnel who had been killed stood at 2602 and the number of wounded stood at 19,511. In the 77 days since then 215 MORE Americans have perished and an additional 1908 have been wounded. As bad as that is an even worse shame is that in those 77 days the situation in the war zone of Iraq has gotten worse and even more dangerous for our troops exposed to the killing zone each and every day. In these 77 days the leadership of the United States continues to do nothing substantial to bring this madness to an end. The Republicans (for the most part) continue to blindly follow a confused policy "just because" and the Democrats run around complaining about the policy and direction of the "war" without any of them offering a specific and workable plan to change the course of this "war".

The REAL problem is that the current administration rumbled into Iraq without a specific and effective plan on what to do after the much touted "shock and awe" blitz undertaken to drive the regime of Saddam Hussein from power and then remained "confused" as the sectarian violence and insurgent disruption grew to today's levels. Funding has been basically rubber stamped for the past five years with almost no oversight or accountablility and the out-sourcing of many functions of "reconstruction" and supplying our military has resulted in staggering amounts of corruption from both the contractors and within the newly formed Iraqi government.

So, here we are at November 1st, 2006 and all the reasons that got us to where we are today really don't matter now. The ONLY things that do matter are coming up with a PLAN that will stop the two important numbers (deaths and wounded) from continuing to grow. The Republicans insist that America must not "cut and run" because it would embolden the "terrorists" and bring them to America to attack us here. I would submit that to the extent the "terrorists" are causing the problem in Iraq (and by the way Afghanistan), the "terrorists" are ALREADY emboldened due to the fact that the combined resources of the United States military and the British military have been unable to put them down during the past 1323 days (and longer when Afghanistan's timetable is considered). I would submit that the world at large (and especially potential enemies) has seen that the veil of invincibility previously projected by the United States has been pulled back and exposed as not real.

I would submit that a fundamental ingredient to our "winning" must be the "perception" of our willingness to bring overwhelming force to bear to achieve victory. The people we are fighting can and will continue to commit thousands and even millions of deaths to their own people as they drain our resources (people, money and our will). I would suggest at this point that we begin a deliberate and systematic relocation of all the "innocent" Iraqi civilians from the towns, villages and cities in Iraq in preparation for a massive assault on anyone left in those areas that wishes to continue fighting. The cost of this action would be enormous and many Iraqi citizens would have at least a temporary resentment but in the end this "plan" just might bring an end to the both carnage being brought to bear on the Iraqi people AND more importantly (to me) our American military personnel. It is always quite possible that just the mention of a plan like this and the sight of preparations being put into action might get the attention of the "insurgents" and those Iraqis that are just as bad or worse than the outside "terrorists" to understand that WE are now very serious about ending this situation by whatever means necessary even if it means completely destroying vast areas of the country.

If the United States and Great Britain are NOT willing to take the extreme measures mentioned in the paragraph above then ALL parties must entertain the most logical and least costly (in terms of the loss of life) option which is to divide Iraq in three basically autonomous territories made up of the Kurdish north (which has really already taken place), the Shia south and southeast (again the provincial capital Basra already commands respect) and the western and central Sunni territory. These three divisions should be monitored by a central "government" which would have authority over oil revenue distribution (especially as it relates to the Sunnis because their terrority would not be located in oil rich areas) and other interests that pertain to the whole of Iraq. This sectarian separation will end up happening anyway but the goal should be to do it officially and try to avoid the tens of thousands of future deaths which will absolutely happen if the present folly is continued. The heavily populated area in and around Baghdad where sunnis and shias and some kurds all reside will present a fundamental test. The people there must make the decision to either co-exist or relocate to their ethnic and religious territory.

If the Democrats gain "political control" of the Congress next week or gain the White House in 2008 or both they MUST come with a real plan to turn this mess around. If they don't the American people will be even more upset than they are now under the failed Republican leadership. The message to the Democrats is; "Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it". It in this case may be one of the worst nightmares they could imagine.

As we begin this month of November, 2006 please keep the numbers 2817 and 21419 in your minds as THE MOST IMPORTANT numbers. I can almost assure you that the 605,900 Americans that represent the immediate family and friends of our dead and wounded certainly believe these numbers are much more important than any political poll numbers being shown on their T.V. sets.

Just to take a moment to acknowledge the sacrifice of others, there have been 237 deaths in Iraq of members of the "coalition of the willing" nations. In case you're interested, aside from Great Britain (120) and Italy (33) the other 84 deaths were citizens of the military forces of Ukraine, Poland, Bulgaria, Spain, Denmark, El Salvador, Slovakia, Estonia, the Netherlands, Thailand, Australia, Hungary, Kazakstan, Latvia and Romania. Absent from the list of our grand coalition are Russia, France, Germany, Japan, Indonesia, Canada, Mexico and all of South America. Oh, I almost forgot. The involvement in our effort to stem the tide of world terrorism by the nations surrounding Iraq (meaning Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Turkey) is ZERO. There is also no involvement by our allies in this "war on terror", meaning Pakistan or India or any other mid east or asian country. Remember that "we the people" are being told that we are under a global threat and our military personnel are being killed everyday to protect all those nations that have chosen not to become involved.


Tuesday, October 31, 2006


As I listened to the "pretend" outrage this evening over former candidate John Kerry's remarks which he apparently intended as criticism of President Bush and some of his minions and then turned upside down by the President and all the "talking heads" of the Republican Party (including John Mc Cain who will do anything to curry favor with the "base") I was moved to raise a few questions.

Does anyone actually believe that John Kerry (or any other politician) would stand in front of national microphones and say (with conviction and fore thought) that all of our troops serving and dying in Iraq are "stupid"? On the other hand, Senator Kerry and those who write for him are surely less than brilliant for putting out a comment like this that could and was interpreted as a dig about our troops. My advice is to stop trying the subtle jokes and just present YOUR plan to fix this mess!

Can we "trust" the current group in power when it bombards the airwaves with their babble saying that Kerry (and all Democrats through "guilt by association") doesn't support the troops in Iraq when they absolutely KNOW that isn't factual? This is once again an example of diverting the real issue (that being the disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan) by trying to stir people up over the ill advised comments of an ex-presidential candidate or anyone else that calls our current direction into question.

At what point will "we the people" start demanding that United States military personnel stop being used as "politcal pawns" in our absurd election cycles? U.S. military personnel are NOT Republicans and are NOT Democrats (or any other political party)! They ARE however, individuals that are following the orders of their superiors and being placed in harm's way and bleeding and dying every day. They don't get the opportunity to ask if their daily mission came from a Republican or a Democrat and then decide if they will care it out. I would submit that 98% of our troops want one thing more than all others. They want to get this mess finished and COME HOME to their families and the "relative safety" of the American streets! They want their country and it's leaders to CARE ENOUGH about THEM to make the decisions necessary to get them out of the killing zone VERY SOON and stop making excuses for policy failures.

I have been shaking my head for close to 5 YEARS now as I watched and listened to the President of the United States of America (who at least in theory if not in practice is supposed to be the LEADER of ALL AMERICANS) and virtually every other Republican who gets in front of a microphone assert that any person (but especially any Democrat) who states any objection to "our" War policy (or pretty much any other policy) is, by inference, "un-American" and doesn't care about "the troops". This, to me, is not only an extreme insult to at least half of the American people but equally insulting to our troops! I would submit that a substantial number of our military personnel come from families that are not in the Republican party and have had to listen to the current administration infer that THEIR family members are un-American or unpatriotic because they have questioned the policies of this government. This CAN'T be good for morale!

I have also been shaking my head at the Democrats who have run around criticizing the "war" and other policies of the current administration without offering a viable plan of their own. I heard a Democratic leader the other day say that there isn't any point in offering "their plan" when they don't have the votes to make it happen. This postion is equally wrong to that of the current administration and shows that the Democrats are just as guilty of politicizing the "war" and an indication that they too, do not care as much about our troops under fire as they do about political posturing. If there are ideas or possible plans resting in the desks of Democrat leaders and any of those ideas could save the life of even one of our troops, bring them into the light of day and show that you CARE ENOUGH to do the right thing without concern for votes or political power.

To get to the main point of this posting I ask; "When do we care enough?"

When do we care enough to stop this insanity? Everyday this month, it seemed like some kind of numbers game as all the media became obsessed by the American body count. Would the death toll be "the most since" or would the death toll reach 100 for the month? THIS IS NOT A GAME!!! We are losing REAL PEOPLE with REAL FAMILIES and it needs to STOP! But as I've written in other posts, we "love" our numbers here in America and heck, we haven't even "lost" 3,000 troops yet. Our losses in Iraq to date are "minimal" when compared to Vietnam or Korea or WWII, so what's all the concern about anyway? We need to have five or ten or fifteen times the current number of dead Americans before "we the people" will get sickened enough to care, right? We also have the option of realizing that as horrific as our other "wars" were in the past, the numbers of death or destruction should not be a source of comparison to our current situation. We also have the option to test this "pro-life" philosophy circulating through this country and CARE ENOUGH (on both sides of the political aisle) about the NEXT dead soldier to commit ALL our resources to getting our young men and women OUT of harm's way. This will NOT be accomplished by continuing to "fight" this "war" in a manner well suited to the enemy (be they "insurgents", terrorists, or sectarian rival factions). It is not shameful for the current administration to just admit this and change the tactics. It is not shameful in a "war" situation to pull back and regroup and change the plan. If George Custer hadn't been so stubborn and arrogant he wouldn't have led all his men (and himself) into a slaughter that got all the soldiers killed.

The debacle in Iraq (and oh by the way Afghanistan as well) is bleeding the United States not only of irreplaceable human lives of our troops but also of huge financial resources and the reputation and "aura" of the United States of America as a respected and dominant country on this planet. When "fighting" a war against an enemy that shows even less regard for life than we do there is no end (a lesson we should have learned in Korea and Vietnam) because any thoughts of victory by attrition are fruitless. The statements of "winning" we hear from our President and others are meaningless if their definition of "winning" means that every last person we are fighting must either "give up" or is dead before "victory" is claimed. Once that premise is accepted as FACT there might be a chance of finding a different approach to this growing crisis. There are alternatives that can be employed (some of which may be viewed as harsh) and our troops deserve better than to be slowly killed in the streets of Iraq or Afghanistan.

"We the people" need to stand up and DEMAND that the so-called "leaders" of America stop playing politics and dividing us into "Red or Blue" or "Republicans or Democrats" and GET THE JOB DONE!!! The wounds to America and its people (many self-inflicted) are becoming so deep that very soon, even if we "win", it won't matter because we will have become a nation so filled with hate for our fellow citizens that we will have lost our sense of identity as Americans and as human beings.

It is Time To Think Again!

Friday, October 13, 2006


The "sneak attack" by the Senate in the late hours of their last session to effectively ban online poker, is yet another example of the unlimited hypocrisy our "leaders" (of both major parties) show in the quest for the MONEY. Since 48 of our 50 States currently allow some form of "legal" gambling, THIS bill certainly IS NOT about the "morality" of gambling. It is ONLY about the fact that the online poker sites are based offshore and therefore out of the financial control (i.e. taxes) of the United States. The gambling interests inside the U.S. (along with their financial support to our "leaders") have pressured your Government not to make gambling illegal but to set in motion steps that are a far bigger threat to OUR personal rights to decide for ourselves where and how to spend our money! The REAL danger here is that the U.S. Government has taken the step of ORDERING U.S. Banks, Credit card companies and money transfer firms to refuse or monitor OUR transactions on an otherwise valid credit card or bank account! Plus, this new bill even "shields" the banks and credit card firms from any legal action YOU (the customer) might attempt to take against them for assisting in this blantent infringement of our right to make our own decisions with our lives and our money. But, fear not citizens. AS SOON AS THE MONEY GETS RIGHT (meaning that the U.S. Government AND the U.S. gaming interests get "the deal" correct to gain a piece or all of the revenue, THERE WILL BE AN EXEMPTION made for online poker (just as there is now for horse racing and the lottery). In the end MONEY talks much louder than morality!

A sad aspect of this legislation (among many sad aspects) is that it had to be "added" onto our nation's new Port Security Act in order to "insure" it's passage and wasn't allowed to stand or fall on it's on merits (or lack of them).

I would ask readers to consider further what the "policing" effect could be due to the tactics used in this bill to "control" our spending habits. Why won't the U.S. Government be inclined to "order" our banks and credit card companies to stop us from paying for subscriptions or memberships to information sources that are deemed "dangerous" to our growth as "good Americans"? Why not? China already does this so it's not that big a stretch. If enough money is contributed any restriction is possible!

In the end, this legislation is more about controlling "we the people" than any concern about the morality of gambling. It is especially about the money. Our money AND the portion of it the U.S. government feels it simply MUST have is at the heart of this law as well.

YOUR freedom is under attack and you're not winning the war. It must be "Time to Think Again"!

Saturday, October 07, 2006


As the "leaders" of America parade themselves in front of "we the people" in the weeks before the mid-term elections and flood our TV's and radios with appearances and speeches in their desperate attempt to get our almighty vote, the most critical question is not even being asked.

In the days following the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and then during and since our attacks of Afghanistan and Iraq, our country's leadership has been pounding our senses with the single theme that we must "stay the course" and remain in a "state of war" UNTIL WE WIN. The "enemy" MUST be defeated.

The most critical question that is NOT being asked is; "EXACTLY what does WINNING mean?" I'm not talking about progress or the "taking" of a village or making it possible for some people to cast a ballot. The question is about the end of this "War" on terror (aka; evil). The media, the politicians, and we the people don't ask or answer that question because that would require facing a horrific reality and that might be disruptive to our daily lives.

I would propose that to actually face the question directly would force all of us to also face the reality that (as it has been throughout human history), there is NO winning in the fundamental "war" of perceived good vs. evil. That "war" has been and will be fought between all humans and all nations because "good and evil" is as ingrained into our concepts as our instinct to breathe and survive. Good and evil are nothing more than opinions and concepts and our "opinion" depends solely on our position at the time.

When our current President declared "War on Evil", he simply made the eternal battle of humanity, an official position of the United States of America. When our "enemies" declared "War on America", they simply made their "position" official. When the line was drawn in the sand the test began. Which side has the bigger guns? Which side has the better strategy? Which side is more willing to lose their soldiers? Which side is willing to do whatever it takes (literally) to win?

The ONLY question that faces the American people that really matters is this; "Are we willing and able to KILL EVERY SINGLE PERSON on the planet that wishes to harm us? Take a minute and let that question sink into your mind because everything else is secondary. All the strategy and all the "battles" and all the talk is really irrelevant. If "we" answer yes to this question, then let's get on with it and stop the policy of "killing us slowly". If "we" answer no to this question then we had better figure out how to bring this "war on evil" to an end before that option is taken out of our control.

Most Americans have grown up with the belief that in every contest there is a winner and a loser. All of our sporting contests work that way. Our previous "wars" dating back to the Revolution, the Civil War, WWI and WWII were brutally fought with the goal of winning. In each of these conflicts there came a point when the "war" came to an end and all sides accepted the conclusion. The enemies of those wars gradually got on with the future and in most cases have built alliances with each other. How many Americans in 1942 and 1943 would have accepted the idea that Germany and Japan would become major partners in commerce and peace? I would think almost all Americans would have dismissed that idea as treasonous at best. But, rational minds prevailed. Korea and Vietnam were both misguided "wars" (although never officially declared wars) that after over a combined 100,000 American deaths and hundreds of thousands more wounded, were eventually ended in a draw situation. For over 50 years our strategy has been to "contain" Korea and trade efforts have improved with the people of Vietnam and that great evil of Communism never did spread and take over the far East as our "leaders" of that era tried to convince us it would if we didn't "save" Vietnam. The "Evil Empire" that was the Soviet Union (contrary to all thinking for over 40 years) is now an ally of the United States (at least publicly) and none of us thought that could ever happen! The point is that America (and the world) have confronted many enemies and many "perceived" threats to our existence portrayed by our leaders as the worst enemy ever and we have survived in part because "winning" didn't necessarily mean the full and complete destruction of everyone who didn't like us.

The growing frustration that many Americans (and people around the world) have with our nation's current policy and direction is that we are not getting the answer to the question; "What does winning mean?" Well, I would suggest that "we the people" not only ask the question at every opportunity but that we DEMAND the answer! If our troops are going to continue to be killed (a few every day) and American families are going to be asked to accept the immense suffering created by this "war" then I believe it is way past time for the leadership (of both political parties) step up and "lead" us to a conclusion and start by answering that primary question without "spin" or any other evasive tactic that is so common.

A few other questions might be; 1) What exactly do these "terrorist" enemies want? 2) Is there anything short of mass annilation that can bring about a cessation of hostilities? 3) Can this situation be contained by any means other than military confrontation? 4) Does the American Military Industrial Complex actually control the U.S. Government enough to prevent all efforts to slow its agenda down? 5) If there is a God, whose "God" is correct and why?

I will end this post with the hope that some of you will at least think about our situation and then face the reality and the choices we have right now. We either must commit ourselves and our country to an all out effort to kill everyone (whom we perceive as even a potential enemy) OR we must develop policies and strategies to "contain" our enemies (both perceived and real) because this "evil" we are fighting will always be among us in one form or another until we finally destroy our species completely.


Tuesday, September 26, 2006

A few weeks ago I made a posting concerning the "perceived" intent of our "Founding Fathers" versus their "actual" intent as they created the basis for our Government and its relationship to religion.

In order to provide fairness to this subject I would now refer readers to the following link ; , which is a beautiful piece indeed that also displays some statements attributed to a few of our Founders that, if accurate, appear to contradict some of their own historical quotations from my August 30th posting.

The piece is well worth watching in any case.

Friday, September 15, 2006


I am writing this post with my mind spinning wildly. We must be getting close to the bottom of the rabbit hole. I would like to believe that there are other people out there that are still able to connect some of the dots.

Let's list some basic thoughts and then play the connection game.

The United States has been "engaged" in a "War on Drugs" for over 30 years (officially).

The United States is also involved in a "War on Terrorism".

It is an accepted fact that a major source of funding for terrorist movements around the world is from the proceeds of the drug trade.

After America was attacked on September 11th, 2001, our Government determined that Afghanistan was a most likely source and location of those who caused so much death and destruction.

Afghanistan is also the source of 90% of the opium for the entire planet.

A major tactic announced by the current administration (and prior ones) in fighting our "war" against terrorism has been to follow the money and cut off sources of terrorist funding whenever and wherever possible.

In late 2001 and into 2002, the United States took military action in Afghanistan, toppled (?) the infamous Taliban, arranged a new government, "saved" millions of Afghan citizens from the brutality they had endured, and forced the Al Queda group into the mountains and across the border to their "safety zone" in Pakistan (without killing or capturing or preventing the escape of those DIRECTLY responsible for the attack on America), and oh by the way, put ourselves in a PERFECT position do win a major battle in our supposed "war" on drugs by being at the very heart of the world's opium supply source.

Billions and billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent going around in circles during our "war" on drugs.

The recent major upswing in the activities of the rejuvenated Taliban forces in Afghanistan and the bumper crop of opium this year (which is the major source of funds for that group) are absolutely connected.

In the 1990's in America, there were between 10,000 and 19,000 deaths EACH YEAR attributed to heroin and those numbers have only grown during the past five years.

As of July, 2005, the population of Afghanistan was 29,928,987.

The per capita income of the citizens of Afghanistan right now is $293 PER YEAR!.

The United States has spent billions of taxpayer dollars in the "fight" in Afghanistan and now has over 20,000 military personnel (plus over 20,000 NATO forces) at risk in that country each and every day with no end in sight.

In 2004, it is estimated that 1.2% of the population of the United States reported heroin use at least once in their lives. That represents over 3 MILLION people whose lives (and their families lives) have been diminished, destroyed, or ended altogether.

The "cost" to America and its citizens directly caused by heroin must be in the billions each year and really no dollar amount can be placed on the social destruction being caused.

Money from the worldwide sale of opium being grown in Afghanistan at this very moment is funding not only the Taliban movement but Al Queda both in Afghanistan AND Iraq and elsewhere around the world and ALL our military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to be in harms way EVERY day partly because of our refusal or inability to cut off the flow of opium in Afghanistan when it is right in front of our face!

At this point I must ask you; "What's wrong with this picture?"

Is the United States actually committed to attaining victory in the long and costly "War on Drugs" or not?

Is the United States actually committed to winning the ongoing and costly "War on Terror" or not?

Is the United States actually committed to the health and welfare of its citizens whose lives are being destroyed EVERY DAY because of the availability of heroin and other addictive drugs or not?

I ask again; "Are we crazy?"

Here's an idea. Remember I mentioned that the population of Afghanistan a year ago was just under 30 million people and that the average annual income for each and every person in that country is just under $300? The math shows that this represents $9,000,000 (or about six weeks of costs we are now spending in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting our great war(s). Burn ALL the poppy fields and simply pay each and every person in Afghanistan their $300 each year and the impact on the ability of the terrorist movements and the benefits to the American people and the world would be immediate and decisive!

Our President and our Congressional leaders should be ashamed and be held accountable for continuing our acceptance and "tacit" approval for the free flow of opium from Afghanistan to all parts of the world. There is NO political "spin" that can explain these actions. Any argument about how "devastating" the elimination of the opium production would be for Afghanistan is absurd, especially when compared to the millions of people being destroyed or dying from this scourge that is heroin and the lives of our troops being destroyed in part from the money raised through the opium drug trade or the immense cost to all Americans due to the health and legal costs involved. This "appeasement" in Afghanistan is just part of a pattern and can be compared in many ways to our inaction in the equally important situation of border security. The "free" flow of drugs from our southern border and other points of entry and our failure to stop it in over 30 years is just not acceptable any longer.

As you listen to our President or other "leaders" stand in front of you at political events or on your TV's and tell you how committed they are to winning these wars and providing YOU with a secure and safe America, it is VERY IMPORTANT to remember the details of this post and then decide if you really believe "we" are actually trying to WIN these two connected wars. When the President tells you of the danger and the imminent threats and that the Administration is "committed" to doing "whatever is necessary" to win, please THINK! Ask the questions and DEMAND the truth!

Our "new" allies are; 1) Afghanistan the supplier of 90% of the world's opium supply. 2) Iraq, where we are mired in a winless strategy of internal warfare and whose leader is now aligning himself with the leadership of Iran (our next war) and 3) Pakistan whose leadership cannot or will not eliminate the terrorist haven that exists within their borders and won't allow us to attempt it and gives "tacit" approval to the Taliban movement. With "friends" like these who needs enemies?

Two GREAT wars. Can we actually win them? I would suggest yes, but certainly NOT with our current strategies. We MUST eliminate the production of opium in Afghanistan no matter what the people or government of that country says. We MUST demand that Pakistan allow us to clean up the terrorist presence there if they are unwilling or unable to do so and if they don't they MUST be considered our enemy rather than our friend! We MUST take steps to eliminate the "insurgent" presence in Iraq by first separating the "innocent citizens" from the "bad guys" and then if necessary, leveling each and every area where they are hiding. We must take steps to secure the borders of Iraq from Syria and Iran which might require thousands and thousands more troops. We MUST demand a change in the daily lifestyle of all citizens in Iraq with respect to travel (especially cars and trucks) for whatever time period necessary to stop all the car and truck bombings. The citizens and Government of Iraq MUST be willing to make sacrifices and stand up for THEIR country NOW. If the United States of America actually wants to WIN and survive then it's time to stop all the useless talk and spin and GET THE JOB DONE! If we do not, then our only course of action is to leave the area, build up our defenses here at home and wait. The main thing is that the gameplan needs to be changed because our actions (or inactions) are only showing our many enemies that we either cannot defeat them or are unwilling to do so. In that part of the world, "perception" means a lot!


Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Did the Founding Fathers promote Christianity or other religious doctrines when they created the United States Constitution and our Government?

There is (and has been) a well organized movement to convince modern day Americans that our Nation was founded on and more importantly promoted the "Christian" beliefs that are so prevalent in today's debate. THE FACTS HOWEVER, DO NOT SUPPORT THIS POSITION.

Historians have determined that less than 10% of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations.

The Founding Fathers rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy, although they did support the free exercise of any religion. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette and many others were actually members of the Freemason Society that welcomed anyone as long as they believed in a Supreme being.

The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. There were no genuine evangelicals at the Convention.

A few of the myths about George Washington came from Mason Weems' book, "Life of Washington". The famous cherry tree story came from this book but has NO basis in fact. Weems wrote that Washington was a devout Christian, yet Washington's own diaries show that he rarely attended Church. He wrote thousands of letters and the name of Jesus Christ never appeared.

Most Christians do not consider Thomas Jefferson a Christian. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Jefferson believed in materialism, reason and science.

John Adams had his feelings and wrote in 1787-88;
The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

James Madison has been called the "Father of the Constitution" but made no push for Christianity. In 1785 he wrote;

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

Benjamin Franklin was not a follower of organized religion.

Thomas Paine, the most influential writer in early America wrote;

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. "
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity.

The Constitution itself mentions religion ONLY twice and both times in an exclusionary context. The 1st Amendment says; "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" and Article VI, Section 3 says; "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States".

The "zealots" in our modern society that continue their attempts to "speak" for the Fonders or invoke their opinion of what the Founders "meant" are JUST PLAIN WRONG! The misguided and persistent attempts by this group and their political followers to embed the "doctrines of ANY single religion" and the attempt to assign credibility to their position by invoking the "beliefs" of the Founding Fathers should be adamently rejected by thinking Americans. The position lacks TRUTH! The design and intent of our system of Government was, is and should be quite the opposite.

A question to consider might be; "If the doctrines of a specific "Christian" religion (or any other for that matter) did become a functional part of the United States Government, how would it be possible for the wide variety and diversity of "religious practices" to continue to exist within our borders?

Free Americans must maintain the COMPLETE separation of Church and State (as it was intended) and never allow the Government of the United States to be compromised in the "name of religion" by anyone or any group. Our very survival as a Nation may rest on this issue!


Sunday, August 20, 2006


Recently the National Archives, National History Day and U.S. News and World Report co-sponsered a national survey called "The People.s Vote". Americans had an opportunity to cast their votes for their picks of the most influential documents in American history. For whatever reason the decision was made to exclude any documents after 1965 so the results are confined in that way, not that there have been too many "influential" documents in the past 41 years.

The top 10 most influential documents as determined by the national vote are;

1) Delclaration of Independence (1776) (29,681 votes)
2) Constitution of the United States (1787) (27,070 votes)
3) Bill of Rights (1791) (26,545 votes)
4) Louisiana Purchase Treaty (1803) (13,417 votes)
5) Emancipation Proclamation (1863) (13,086 votes)
6) 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; women's right to vote (1920)
(12,282 votes)
7) 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; Abolition of slavery (1865)
(11,789 votes)
8) Gettysburg Address (1863) (9,939 votes)
9) Civil Rights Act (1964) (9,860 votes)
10) Social Security Act (1935) (8,157 votes)

Well, those are the top 10 MOST influential documents (as voted for through "The People's Vote). Are they the ones YOU would choose? Among the other 90 entries in the top 100 list are; the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1868) which essentially defined the "rules" for citizenship in the United States of America and finished 13th in the voting.. The Treaty of Paris (1783) that finished 22nd in the voting might be under rated with respect to it's influence since it was the document that "officially" ended the Revlutionary War in terms of being "recognized" by England as the sovereign nation of the United States of America.

With no disrespect to the voters, I would raise this point. How much more influential could anything be than the "Articles of Conferdation" (1777) that established the official presence of the United States of America? This document was the written foundation for all that followed in America and yet finished only 15th in the voting. I'm going to post another "radical" point of view concerning the Articles of Confederation and the premise that the very "history" of the United States isn't what most people believe it is, so watch for that.

At any rate, this was an interesting survey. If you wish to see the entire vote of the "top" 100 most influential documents, check out; and click on "the people's vote. You could also consider documents since 1965 that you believe should be included in the top 100.

Time To Think Again

Thursday, August 17, 2006


The Democrats need to stop complaining and tell us their Plan. If the Democratic Party actually wants to gain political victory this coming November and again in 2008 they need to stop all the character attacks and whining about the policies of the current leadership. Instead "We the People" need to hear specific plans to solve the most pressing problems that are threatening our nation. Just criticizing those currently in power while not telling us what YOU would do isn't good enough. There is too much at stake. The failures of the current Administration are many. Things can be fixed. The question is, are there enough courageous Democrats to actually get the job done. Americans need to be inspired again. We are willing to make the necessary sacrifices to get back to a safe and prosperous country. The need for a group of leaders willing to actually lead and not just cower to the money of the special interest and dole out empty promises is great. We have certainly had enough of that in recent years.

If all of our lives are truly at risk and in peril every day then it's past time to step up and offer your solutions now. If someone has a sound idea for correction of any of the many issues we currently face and is unwilling to bring them out because of some "fear" that an actual solution might result before the election or that someone else might get some credit for it, then that person or Party does not deserve to be in a leadership role. The issues we face MUST transcend politics! Both sides seem only to want to tear the "other side" down at every opportunity and in the process have divided the citizens of the United States in ways not seen since our own Civil War. The selfish quest for power and control by BOTH of the major political parties at the expense of working together and actually solving our troubles has, in fact, made our nation more vulnerable than it has been, well, maybe ever.

In theory, all elected officials are placed into office to do the peoples business and work to protect ALL citizens of the this country. The "theory" isn't working and if it doesn't soon, the nation our forefathers worked so hard to create will fall from our own failures and attacks from within with little input from the "real" enemy we all keep hearing about.

If the Democrats wish to show Americans that they are actually capable of protecting this nation then step up and tell us how you would do it. If you are truly committed to securing our borders and ports then INSIST that it happen RIGHT NOW! Stop discussing any other issue or conducting any other government business until measures are taken to provide real security with NO considerations to business interests, voting blocks or international opinion. The Republicans in power at the moment have already proven they are NOT committed to this goal because in almost five years since the infamous attack on American soil, "they" have not had the courage to actually solve our homeland security problems that could actually be solved in a very short amount of time.

It's time to put up or shut up. The Republican "right" has been allowed to hijack "God" and hijack the military and hijack "patriotism" by creating an atmosphere similar to the stated policy that President Bush has used when talking about foreign nations which is; "if you're not on "our" side then you're the enemy". The horrible part of that line of thinking is that it has been applied to fellow American citizens and there is a real "war" being waged right here at home that could be worse for America than any of the outside threats.

It is TIME TO THINK AGAIN my fellow citizens. What's the plan?


The "talking points" memos circulating through the cable news shows and talk radio shows, especially those connected to the current administration have stepped up the emphasis on just how serious the "threat" of terrorism is and just how "afraid" we should all be right now. This tactic is what kept this Party in power in the 2002 Congressional elections and the 2004 Presidential and Congressional elections, so it is certainly a good strategy to use it again. It might very well succeed again.

The main point of raising the question; "How serious is this?" is that since another massive attempt is being made to convince us (voters) that the "threat" is VERY SERIOUS, and could be "imminent" (a word used quite often to justify our entry into Iraq 1247 days ago). Well, there are a few things wrongs with this picture.

I have no doubt whatsover that there is a real and growing element "out there" that is dedicated to bringing death and chaos to the United States of America. This is a circumstance that has existed in one form or another for many decades (certainly pre-dating the threat from "Muslim extremists"). Throughout all these years, America continued growing and doing business and creating the avenues for the current breed of evil-doers to leave their training camps or homelands and come into America with little obstruction. That is the "fault" of leaderships from both political parties because dispite the growing signals the "trouble" was "over there". When the atrocity of September 11, 2001 happened right here in America many were shaken to the core. There was outrage and a burning anger and a commitment to "get them". Due to the roulette wheel that sometimes controls American politics it just happened that George Bush, a Republican was our President when the attack happened. He rightly proclaimed that he would commit all necessary resources to find and take out those responsible for the attacks. The vast majority of Americans were in support of that commitment (regardless of Party) and I would suspect that most still are.

After determing that it was in Afghanistan that we would find and destroy the evil ones that did the deed on 9/11, we attacked and in the process took the infamous Taliban out of control in that desperate country. We made some significant "hits" on Al Qaeda and their training camps. We had them on the run and they ran into the mountains and across the border into Pakistan.

Here is where I have to stop and make a few observations and ask a few questions.

In the aftermath of 9/11 our President made some very firey speeches stating his position (and therefore America's position as long as this Administration is in office). Among the major subjects in many of those speeches was the clear statement; "Any nation that knowingly harbors or aids terrorists will be considered terrorists themselves and expose themselves to the consequences of those actions" (or something very similar to that wording). In the planning leading up to our invasion of Afghanistan a deal of some kind was struck with the current government of Pakistan "allowing" the U.S. to fly over their airspace but would not allow any U.S. military personnel to enter Pakistani soil. At the time that may have been politically and militarily expedient except for one major thing. Al Qaeda and thousands of other "terrorists" fled into Pakistan and became untouchable by U.S. forces. We did not close the back door before bursting through the front door! But that's not the current issue.

For the past four years this administration and our current President have stood before the American people and promoted Pakistan as one of our strongest allies in our "war on terror" while in full knowledge and apparent acceptance of the fact that there are probably more "terrorists" and more importantly those we hold directly responsible for the attacks of 9/11 are being harbored IN PAKISTAN! The obvious question is Why? If America (specifically our current President) is truly commited to eradicating the leadership of Al Qaeda and many other known enemies of the U.S. and the very individuals who consistently threaten further acts of violence and destruction, how is it even remotely possible that "we" (meaning not only our government but all our citizens) continue to accept this situation? As the President has stated over and over; "you're either with us or you're against us". It is amazing that in this very real struggle we allow a "safety zone" like we used to have as kids playing the game "tag". No matter what Pakistan's internal politics or issues are they cannot continue to get a pass on this issue.

Having disrupted the Taliban and temporarily forcing Al Qaeda into the mountains and or into Pakistan our military (now fired up) was left with no one to fight. An enemy without a homeland is not the type of enemy our military is best suited to engage. So this Administration turned our attention on a prior adversary, Saddam Hussein. There were massive attempts first to connect Iraq to the attacks of 9/11, then came the build up of fear of WMD's that were surely there in mass quantities and were surely being readied for use against America because after all, Saddam hated the United States. The use of words like "imminent threat" (as opposed to just a threat) and "mushroom clouds" over U.S. soil were used day after day to justify our invasion of Iraq. Our country was successfully worked into a frenzy of fear so that a majority of Americans began to believe it all. We believed that Iraq and Al Qaeda were close allies and that Iraq "probably was" involved with the 9/11 attacks. American bought it all and about March 19th 2003 we engaged the U.S. military to "save ourselves" from what was surely an imminent attack. I'm not going to get into the details of the debacle we find ourselves in 1247 days later in this posting but suffice it to say things have not turned out as we were assured they would.

Back to the central point of this posting. We have been told from 9/11 on how serious the threat is from radical extremists. Currently we are being told this with even greater frequency. Our President has made hundreds of statements during the past five years that the protection and security of America and the American people is the most important goal of his Administration. These statements beg the question; "How serious is this?"

IF, and it is a growing "if" the threat to America is even close to being as serious as we are expected to believe, how is it even remotely possible that after five years our borders have not been controlled? How is even remotely possible that our ports have not been fully controlled? How is it even remotely possible that dramatic changes have not been made in our programs of student and other "visitor" visas? Either the "threat" is not as imminent as we are being told OR the current leadership should be censored for allowing the interests of business or other special interest groups to supersede the imminent threat to the citizens of the United States! You cannot have it both ways Mr. President. We are either in real and dire jeopardy or we're not. So, if we are (and this isn't just campaign tactics), then do your job and secure our borders and ports and change whatever rules of entry need to be changed and let the results of those necessary actions fall where they may. The American people are resilient and willing to make sacrifices for the truth. If people are plotting to eliminate us then let's go get the job of eliminating them finished and not even worry about what other nations will think or do. We are after all the "super power", right? We must stop playing the game their way and allowing safety zones to our enemies and we must close off the ways they can bring the battle here and it had better be now.

Time To Think Again

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Controversy surrounds the 14th Amendment
CONTROVERSY SURROUNDS 14th AMENDMENT; DATELINE 1866-1868!!The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in Section 1; "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law". There are four additional sections in the 14th Amendment that will not be discussed in this post.As leaders in the Congress of 2006 begin to discuss and debate a possible change to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution I thought it might be interesting to look back to its inception and the extreme controversy that surrounded its passage and the assertion of some that unconstitutional means were employed by the Congress of 1866 to "force" passage of what could very well be our most important Amendment because it defined "citizenship" in this country.The 14th Amendment was proposed and ultimately ratified basically as support for the 13th Amendment (ratified in 1865) which abolished the practice of slavery in the United States. A main goal of the 14th Amendment was to define citizenship and provide Constitutional protection to "freedmen" residing primarily in the defeated southern States. As context the 13th Amendment was ratified by 7 southern States and certifed that those States were, at the time, full member States of the union.Now for the controversy. In 1866 there were 37 States in the Union. After the 14th Amendment was submitted to the States by the Secretary of State on June 16th, 1866 a total of 15 States (or 40%) rejected the proposed Amendment. These rejections occurred between June 16th, 1866 and March 24th, 1868. The argument being that final ratification should have been deemed unconstitutional because there was not a three fourths vote in favor of the Amendment. In order to combat the rejection, Congress took extraordinary measures to turn the loss into a victory for the advocates of the 14th Amendment. Through a series of maneuvers known as the Reconstruction Acts, Congress made it possible to remove with "military force", the legally constitued State legislatures of 10 southern States. Some of these States went to court to gain relief but again through a series of legal maneuvers a decision on the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts was avoided. As a result essentially puppet legislatures were put in place in these States. Seven of these States carried out "military orders" and ratified the 14th Amendment (as a note; 6 of the 7 had previously ratified the 13th Amendment with the legislatures later removed to insure passage of the 14th).An argument can be (and has been) made that the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was never legally ratified and came into existence only because of numerous constitutional violations against several States.It is important to remember as the current debate progresses that the original motivation for the 14th Amendment was as much about protecting the rights of former slaves as it was about defining who would be considered an American citizen. Regardless of the opposition passage of the Amendment as a protective reinforcement to the 13th Amendment was not only necessary but correct. In the context of the question about children born in the United States from a parent who is in the country illegally, the premise that anyone born on American soil automatically becomes an American citizen can be questioned and probably should be questioned. The 14th Amendment was never designed to allow citizenship through an illegal act. There are already a few "exceptions" to the citizenship rule. They include; children born to foreign diplomats; children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States; and Native Americans born on tribal lands. The idea that children born from the illegal entrance to the United States should also be excluded from American citizenship may also have merit to reduce the controversy surrounding what actions should be taken when (or if) the parent(s) illegal status is discovered and what happens to the innocent child if the parents face deportation according the the law.The 14th Amendment is too important for it's meaning to be diluted by the purposeful actions of illigal immigrants and the resulting exploitation of the children. A program of actual control of our borders and reduction of the numbers of illegal immigrants inside the United States would certainly relieve much of the pressure on this discussion but the 14th Amendment should also not be subjected to manipulation or abuse.Time to Think

As "We" have now reached the 1246 day mark since we invaded Iraq I feel I must ask this question. I'm not even going to get into the politics or real motives for our presence in Iraq (which are many and very complex) but rather want to focus on today and the tomorrows we face.

I should point out before continuing that I am NOT someone who would be labeled a "Conservative" and I am NOT what would be labeled a "Liberal". I am, however, an American citizen with family roots in this country that goes back 386 years. I have no particular interest in any organized political party. If one must use a label, I suppose, Independent Citizen would sum my position best. I try not to view any issue or proposal through the prism of "Party Line", but rather on the merits and the sense of it. That said, let's return to the question.

A look at some numbers. September 11, 2001 brought our nation a confirmed count of 2,948 deaths at the hands of "terrorists". This horrendous day affected millions of Americans and others around the world. I would estimate that there was a more immediate effect on AT LEAST 73,700 people that at 25 per death would represent the victims immediate family and other relatives and closest friends. That number may be very conservative but the point will be made. The events of 9/11 took place 1,800 days ago. The lives of those affected will, of course, never be the same. Our Government went to the extreme of creating a federal fund that offered a large "settlement" to the families of the victims essentially because the deaths were due to "terrorist" attack. This was a decision that still needs further justification.

From all appearances, "WE" got mad in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.

More numbers.

As of today, August 16, 2006, a "reported" 2,602 American military personnel have met their demise (virtually all at the hands of "terrorist" or "insurgents" or as they are more recently called "death squads") and an additional (reported) 19,511 have been wounded. Using the same 25 per victim rate I used when referring to the 9/11 victims, 65.050 immediate family members, relatives and closest friends have had their lives dramatically and forever changed. When the wounded number is included the total swells to 552,825!


The continuing reasoning we receive from the current administration is simply unacceptable. Every day we are asked to be patient. We are told that it is imperative that we remain engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan "until we win". We are well past the point of demanding to know exactly what that statement means! Does it mean that every single individual or group now in Iraq or Afghanistan that wishes to and is willing to harm or kill our militiary personnel must be eliminated before we can claim that we have "won"? Does it mean that all those wishing our demise in the ENTIRE WORLD must either give up their "fight" or attitudes toward America or be killed before we can claim we have "won"? If either of these two possibilities are even close, then it is also well past time to stop this "limited" engagement we are now doing.

The current process of "killing us slowly" is exactly the kind of "war" our "extremist" enemy wants us to fight because they realize that not only can they sustain the fight but they also know that "we" cannot "win" in the end. No matter what we do (well almost) we will be incapable of attaining an absolute victory. This is a religious struggle, a cultural struggle, and a power struggle that is so ingrained in the hearts and minds of a huge number of people throughout the region and the world (and is growing daily) that makes the idealistic wish that we want to "change the hearts and minds" of the "oppressed" people in that region by bringing to them the "gift" of Democracy (whether they want it or not) an astounding example of absurdity. It won't ever happen!

The current process of "killing us slowly" is also for equally absurd reasons "acceptable" to the American people. While an actual comparison to the Vietnam "conflict" cannot be made yet (mainly because the casuality numbers haven't grown high enough) our collective mentality seems to be similiar as we "accept" the daily body count numbers that filter into our lives a few at a time. We seem to file them away like we would stock levels or minutes of usage on our cell phones. They are not making us MAD! The turning point for the American people to begin to realize the hopelessness of attaining "victory" in Vietnam was the ever increasing body count and the fact that we saw it on our televisions night after night. One ploy of the current administration has been to effectively keep the sight of the flag covered caskets or the devastated family member out of the public eye, a very clever tactic. We (in the collective) have alway been fairly passive to the loss of our best and brightest when it happens a few at a time. History has shown, on the other hand, that events like the attack on Pearl Harbor or the attacks of 9/11 (and a very few others in our history) bring us to the point of actually getting MAD. Why is this? Is not the life of even one soldier (or civilian) just as important when the person is killed alone as the lives of hundreds or thousands that are killed at the same time? Isn't the collective deaths of 2,602 individuals enough to generate some real American anger? Will "we" become MAD when the death toll reaches 3,000? 4,000? 5,000. 10,000? What will it take?

Again, without getting into the reasons or merits of our current presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, the fact is that we are there. The fact is that Americans are being killed (or wounded) on a daily basis and have been for 1246 days (longer when our date of entry into Afghanistan is considered). The question is how long are we going to continue a "limited" or "police action" posture in this "War"? Are we mired again in a "war" of attrition (as we were in Korea and Vietnam) Are we truly committed to winning? While certainly not an advocate for war, I do believe that if the United States is going to be involved in a "war" then it must be waged with only one goal and that is to do whatever it takes to WIN. We MUST put a higher level of sanctity on each and every life and stop putting out troops in what amounts to a shooting gallery every day. We must stop being concerned with the effects of an all out effort to eradicate this elusive enemy. If that means completely destroying whole towns or villages in order to save Ameican lives, then so be it. Towns and villages can be rebuilt; American lives cannot! The practice of the "terrorists" or "insurgents" of "hiding" among the "civilians" must be addressed and altered. The American Government must make the necessary decision to evacuate the innocents (at whatever the inconvenience and cost) and then eliminate the enemy even if it means eliminating the structures that hide them. Enough is enough! We cannot continue to fight a "war" without the full commitment and authorization to our military to win! I doubt that any rational and effective military commander does not share in that premise.

Would it be unpopular? Probably so. Would it get "ugly" for awhile? No doubt. But in the end, the more important question must be; What value does America place on the lives of our troops and citizens in general? Political correctness must not enter into these necessary decisions. The clear choices are that we must either pull out of this self made combat zone(s) or take the steps to finish it! Any choice that simply continues the "stay the course" path of the past months and now years is not only morally wrong and is creating a needless waste of so many of our troops and countless civilians in the nations we now occupy, is simply NOT ACCEPTABLE!

While this "war" is being waged on foreign soil, why aren't American "mad" that our own internal security issues have not been solved? Come on people, this is real! Over 300 BILLION U.S. tax dollars have been spent "rescuing" citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think that the problem of American homeland security could have been radically improved for that amount of money? Over 6 BILLION each and every month (by the estimates being published) is being spent in Iraq and Afghnistan and the number is only growing. That's all well and good and a nice humanitarian gesture. Are "we", the American people entiteld or deserving of at least an equal amount of financial commitment in order to secure OUR safety?


1246 days - 2,602 killed AND COUNTING!

Time to Think Again! What do you think?

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

A theory or an ideal implemented (or continued) without reason or common sense is a dangerous practice indeed.

Monday, August 14, 2006


In my previous posting I discussed what I believe to be a fundamental flaw to the reading of the second Amendment to the United States Constitution. My opinion is based primarily on the lack of emphasis on the beginning of the words of the Amendment which says; "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". When the writers of this Amendment formed this wording there was a specific purpose. One of the major concerns was the fear that the newly created Federal Government would abuse its power and authority to the detriment of the individual States. The States which were prevented by "Federal" law to maintain "standing armies" had no choice except to rely on citizen militias to at least in theory protect their sovereignty from an oppressive national government.

The question of whether the wording of the language stating; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" was the natural text that would follow the preface wording concerning "a well regulated militia" or was in fact intended to give the right of each and every person (citizen) the right to keep and bear as many "arms" as they chose is one that could and will likely be debated for decades to come.

While the historical relevance dating back to English doctrines in support of individual rights to own and maintain weapons is well grounded and was most likely carried into the discussions for the creation of the Second Amendment, it should also be noted that all these documents were created in the late 18th century when not only the population of the United States was, according to the first federal census taken on August 2, 1790, estimated to be 3,929,214 "countable" people, which is only about 1.3% of the current U.S. popultion AND the "arms" or weapons available to and used by individuals at the time of ratification of the Amendments was extremely primitive (to say the least) when compared to the modern weapons available to all citizens today. As an example, legislation was enacted on May 8,1792 that provided federal standards for the organization of the militia. Section 1 states in part that; "every citizen enrolled in a State militia, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball, or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot pouch and powder horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle and shall appear so armed when called into service".

Even if the "right" of individual people to bear and keep arms as of 1789 is conceded, it seems that the relevance in the world of the 21st century, the vastly improved technology, the dramatic change from an agrarian to an industrial society and a population approaching 300,000,000 is almost non existent. Could the creators of the Constitution and the initial Amendments possibly have considered the future effects of the Second Amendment if applied to conditions over 200 years into their future? If so, is it at all reasonable that these great and wise men would have proceeded with the documents as they were written? Another thought is to consider if the creators of the U.S. Constitution would even have thought their efforts and documents would even survive over 200 years or would they have made the natural assumption that future leaders would certainly have made the necessary changes as conditions in the world around them changed?

One of the primary tenets and indeed reasons for the existence of Government (and mentioned throughout the most important of our documents) is to provide for the general welfare of the citizens of the country. An argument could then be made that it is the distinct responsibilty of both the Federal and State Governments to revisit the validity of the Second (and possibly other) Amendment when viewed with the knowledge that there are well over 100 million weapons in the hands of a civilian population and that reality could very well place the "general welfare" of all citizens in jeopardy because the active use of these weapons on an unsuspecting public is strictly in the hearts and minds of those "bearing the arms". Despite the written document, some measure of reason and common sense must come into play at some point.


Wednesday, August 09, 2006


"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

I realize that this Amendment has been defined and redined and litigated and argued about for decades. The money and therefore political influence that has been used to "sell" the idea that this Amendment should allow a virtually unlimited amount of guns (of increasing fire power) to flood our society (and 300 million population) in the 21st century is a truly obscene concept. By simply reading the full text it seems apparent what the actual intent of the Amendment was when it went into effect.

After studying the formation of the U.S. Constitution and the minutes and letters associated with the Conventions that took place throughout the creation of the "sacred" documents that are still the "guiding light" over 200 years later, the "founding fathers and those who actually debated and put forth the text, were only concerned about the "protection" of the individual States from a National or Federal Government intruding (by force) on the rights and survival of each State. An interesting side note is that during the debate and passage of the 14th Amendment in 1866, there was in fact a "military" takeover of the State legislatures of 7 southern States in order to insure passage of that important Amendment. That aside, the debate and decision for the text of the Second Amendment was not centered around the concept that all individuals should be able to "keep and bear" a limitless amount of "arms" that had nothing to do with the support of a "well regulated militia". Those honored individuals certainly would have had no reasonable expectation of the outrageous number of unnecessary weapons that would end up in citizens possession so far into the future, and based on the caution and care they attempted when creating all the documents and considering the character of those individuals, it is a huge stretch of the imagination to believe that they would have promoted the situation we have today.

If the actual intent of the Amendment was solely to state and secure the "right" of "the people" to "keep and bear arms", why wasn't the Amendment simply written as; The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"? The answer is that the Amendment was not created with the last part alone as it's primary intent. There was a specific reason that the text of the Second Amendment began; "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". The reason (as noted above) was to provide for an organized militia to assist each free State a protection from the national government. Since the "security of a free State" relative to any threat from the Federal Government doesn't exist in the 21st century (at least not yet), the reality is (and has been for many years) that the Second Amendment is actually a mute and irrelevent document.

The Second Amendment, like so many of the our original (though well intrended) doctrines, is outdated and has very little practical application in a society and a world so vastly different from the one that existed when it was created. At some point, a case for reason must take center stage and the "myth" that has been perpetrated by groups like the NRA and many others may be exposed. The U.S. Constitution has withstood the test of time in fine fashion to be sure, but it has also been manipulated and abused and mis-interpreted to dangerous levels by individuals or groups for their own political or personal motivations. This was also one of the great fears the writers of the documents had while debating the text and the "future" as seen in the late 18th century. If intelligent and concerned citizens of the United States of America circa 2006 actually believe that the "right" to a limitless amount of "arms" (guns) should be a sacred "right" after fully considering the impact and effect this "right" has had and continues to have on the lives (and deaths) of so many people, then a new vote and a new Amendment should be initiated to validate this belief as of this time and not be held hostage to an outdated and questionable document from so long ago.

It really is Time To Think AGAIN!