By Tim Gibbons: Published by High Plains View, September 26, 2008.
“And he saith unto them, 'Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, 'Caesar's'. Then saith he unto them, 'Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.” - Matthew 22:20-21
“All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution.” - Language proposed by Thomas Jefferson for the Virginia Constitution, 1776.
Freedom of religion, an interesting concept and one that has not been explored enough or with nearly the required amount of rational argument and debate.
We have long been taught, especially in religious circles that every man, woman and child has the right to worship and practice their religion as they see fit. But what happens when one man's beliefs cause hardship to another?
If one is looking for an example of this look no further than tax exemption for churches. Churches have long been exempt from taxes, however, it was the income tax laws and the exemptions for churches from these taxes in 1913 that have led to where we are now.
It was estimated in 2006 Congressional budget records that the exemptions for churches cost the government as much as $500 million in tax revenue a year, shifting much of that burden onto other tax payers. [Should Churches be Tax-Exempt? - written by Kathy Gill, About.com Guide to US Politics, March 25, 2008]
But this doesn't even take into account the taxes lost on donations to the church. Say an individual gives an amount of $500 to his or her church over the course of the year. If that individual is in the 30 percent tax bracket and writes off the contribution then that is $150 that the government doesn't get.
In other words, it could be argued that the individual gave the church $350 and the U.S. Government gave $150. Magnify this by the supposedly 159 million Christians who are estimated to live in America [American Religious Identification Survey 2001 – conducted by The Graduate Center of the City University of New York] and it doesn't take an Einstein to see that there is a lot of money floating around the steps of God's temple.
“And they came to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves. And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. And he taught, saying unto them, 'Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? But ye have made it a den of thieves'.”. - Gospel of Mark 11:15-17
Under IRS tax code, churches are automatically considered tax exempt and unlike other 501(c)3 organizations, they are not required to provide documentation to this effect, nor are they required to reveal their finances. Want a perfect place to launder money and support terrorists, build a church.
Now, the government is not keen on losing money so who gets stuck with the bill? That's right, everyone dumb enough not to start their own church.
“If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be to start his own religion.” - attributed to Ron Hubbard, founder of the Church of Scientology.
The next question to be asked is what does the Holy Bible make of this, 'tax exemption'. Everyone who has grown up in Sunday School knows that we are to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's. There are those who would claim that this statement is ambigious at best and that it could mean that believers are to render themselves and possessions to God and no one else, let the unsaved heathen support Caesar.
However, this doesn't take into consideration the first part of the passage in Matthew: “'Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?' But Jesus knowing their evil intent, said, 'You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax..' They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, 'Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?' 'Caesar's' they replied. Then he said to them 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.'” - Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 20, verses 17-21
Now, who's portrait is it on the one dollar bill? How about the five? The ten? Twenty? Fifty? Hell, let's go for broke, on who's face is on the hundred dollar bill. Is it Jesus? Nope, Benjamin Franklin.
“How many observe Christ's birthday! How few, his precepts! O, tis easier to keep Holidays than Commandments.” - Benjamin Franklin.
If Jesus did not consider his disciples above taxation, indeed one of his miracles involved providing the Apostle Peter with enough money to pay his taxes, then why does the Church feel that they can use the money of Uncle Sam to please Almighty God?
“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves...This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are Gods' servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes, if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” - Book of Romans 13:1-2, 6-7 (NIV)
The Bible is very clear on this subject, the church should render to the government what is the government's, a.k.a., money. And as long as the servants of God continue to use the currency of an earthly kingdom they need to abide by that kingdom's laws.
The churches in this country use American roads, American schools, American utilities, American services and American tax breaks and exemptions. If God were willing to chip in with a grant now and then, I wouldn't argue the point as much. However, until He takes a break from killing Muslims in the Middle East and starts handling domestic issues, then should not His children show appreciation for the nation that provides for their needs and protects their sons and daughters from invasion?
“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.” - 1 Peter 2:13-14 (KJV)
American currency belongs to Uncle Sam. Humanity, created in the image and after the likeness of God, belongs to the creator or creative force, whatever your beliefs.
If one where truly zealous about promoting their faith, then they should journey into the deserts like John the Baptist, there to eat lotus flowers, honey and locust (yes, that's right, grasshoppers) and in their shelters constructed of God's earth and clothed in the skins of animals that God has provided they can be those pure voices in the wilderness, proclaiming, “prepare ye the way of the Lord!”.
Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is dedication to one's faith. If all the religious leaders in America gave up their tax free, government supported castles and retired to the wilderness where they taught those who came to seek them, “be perfect as I [Jesus] am perfect”, I might actually have respect for the them. Until then, they are just another group of petty tyrant carving their livings out of the backs of hard working men and women who have been duped into believing that paying taxes to Uncle Sam is evil, but using Uncle Sam's money to pay God is okay. Isn't this what is meant by, “robbing Peter to pay Paul”?
And what about those of us who practice our beliefs in private? Are we to be penalized because we don't give our hard earned American money to a religious aristocracy who exists aloof and separate from humanity?
Just like the dark ages of Europe, it is the hard working peasants who support the religious institutions.
I'm sorry, but didn't our Founding Fathers’ fight and die to overthrow a tyrant? It wasn't God who liberated America, ii was the dream of men. And our Founding Fathers were from a wide variety of religious beliefs: Protestants, Catholics and Presbyterians fought and died alongside Deists and Freemasons. All were united in the common goal of Freedom for all men regardless of faith.
“We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in.” - Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 4, September 11, 1777.
“When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.” - Benjamin Franklin (Poor Richard's Almanac, 1754)
Caesar is calling God: maybe it's time to give back what you owe.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
In Defense of Life and Choice: A look at the issues behind abortion
By Tim Gibbons: Published by High Plains View, September 19, 2008
“Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” - Thomas Paine
“I declare to you that woman must not depend upon the protection of man, but must be taught to protect herself, and there I take my stand.” -Susan B. Anthony
Sanctity of life and the rights of the unborn, once again abortion has come to the forefront of this year's presidential election. There are those who say that abortion is wrong, those that say it is a protected right and those who's opinion falls somewhere in between.
I must admit I have mixed views on the subject; growing up in a devout and legalistic Christian home I was all for the banning of all forms of abortion. Since I was a man this was, actually, quite easy for me to say as I would never be under the burden of carrying a child. And so for my teenage years and early adult life I proudly flew the banner of pro-life in defense of the sanctity of the unborn.
Sanctity...an interesting word that is often used in the halls of theology and religion. A rallying cry for those who stand against the evils of the world in Western Society. A passioned and feverish appeal to all righteous men and women to stand firm in their beliefs and convictions!
But, what does it mean to sanctify something? According to the dictionary, sanctification is the act of setting apart and making something holy. To entitle to reverence or respect.
According to the religious right, the Holy Bible does make reference to predestination of unborn children and God forming a child in the womb. And while these references are in the Bible there is no warning on ending a pregnancy, however, this same Bible, offers a strong argument on the rights of children from the mouth of Jesus himself, in the Gospels.
“And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” - Matthew 18:5-6
So answer me this...why do we have more than 100,000 people in Southern Colorado willing to sign a petition to make a fetus a person, but we have barely a handful of people who will go to bat for their children's 4-H program in El Paso County? We condemn women for “killing” the unborn, but we barely do a thing to those men who view pornography of women and children. We listened to impassioned pleas to stop violating the rights of the unborn as clergy sexually violate children behind closed doors and husbands cast lusting looks at other women. Since when did the rights of the unborn become more sacred than the rights of the living?
“Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” - Matthew 19:13 & 14
Jesus, himself, makes no mention of the unborn, but he is adamant in his condemnation of those who would harm a living, breathing child. Likewise, he was harsh in his rebuke of those who let their eyes and hearts wander...
“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” - Matthew 5:28.
How can we have a respect, a reverence for the “unborn”, when we don't even come close to applying that same reverence for life to the rest of humanity? Fathers who abandon their children to chase a new set of legs. Parents who pursue their dreams and aspirations while leaving their children behind at home to raise themselves and find their way through the confusing world without a guiding hand to help them. Is it any wonder then, when a child rejects the fatherly influence of God? Who wants a father who is never there?
To deny a woman the right to end a pregnancy due to rape, incest or danger to her health is no different from the patriarchal and religious tyranny exercised in medieval Europe. We might “save” the child's life, but what life will that child have? It will forever stand as a reminder to the woman of a time when her life was destroyed. And what of the man who did the act? As our laws stand now, he need not worry about paying child support. All he has to do is serve his time before he is back on the streets destroying the next set of lives.
I find it hard to reconcile a belief that no woman has the right to end an unwanted pregnancy when men are not held accountable for their promiscuity and sexual addictions. Abortion is not the problem, ladies and gentlemen, rather an unwillingness among men to take responsibility for their actions and a willingness from those same men to condemn women for acting like the chattel religion has told them to be, is the real problem.
If the religious right and the pro-life movement is serious in their attempts to stop the alleged problem of abortion, then it is up to them to take a good hard look at themselves, stop judging others and remove the plank from their eye.
We need to stop condemning women, or at the very least, condemn women and men equally, after all, it takes two to tango and it takes two people, not one, to create life.
Women have long faced the wrath of the religious community for daring to end a pregnancy, why is that same condemnation not shown to the men who got them that way? Why are men patted on the back for a sexual conquest and women condemned for the same act?
Is abortion right or wrong? I don't know, and as a man I am hesitant to take one side or the other as I will not be faced with the decision of whether or not to end a pregnancy. But, as a man, I can take the stand and make the decision that will ensure no woman has to have an abortion on my account.
“Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” - Thomas Paine
“I declare to you that woman must not depend upon the protection of man, but must be taught to protect herself, and there I take my stand.” -Susan B. Anthony
Sanctity of life and the rights of the unborn, once again abortion has come to the forefront of this year's presidential election. There are those who say that abortion is wrong, those that say it is a protected right and those who's opinion falls somewhere in between.
I must admit I have mixed views on the subject; growing up in a devout and legalistic Christian home I was all for the banning of all forms of abortion. Since I was a man this was, actually, quite easy for me to say as I would never be under the burden of carrying a child. And so for my teenage years and early adult life I proudly flew the banner of pro-life in defense of the sanctity of the unborn.
Sanctity...an interesting word that is often used in the halls of theology and religion. A rallying cry for those who stand against the evils of the world in Western Society. A passioned and feverish appeal to all righteous men and women to stand firm in their beliefs and convictions!
But, what does it mean to sanctify something? According to the dictionary, sanctification is the act of setting apart and making something holy. To entitle to reverence or respect.
According to the religious right, the Holy Bible does make reference to predestination of unborn children and God forming a child in the womb. And while these references are in the Bible there is no warning on ending a pregnancy, however, this same Bible, offers a strong argument on the rights of children from the mouth of Jesus himself, in the Gospels.
“And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” - Matthew 18:5-6
So answer me this...why do we have more than 100,000 people in Southern Colorado willing to sign a petition to make a fetus a person, but we have barely a handful of people who will go to bat for their children's 4-H program in El Paso County? We condemn women for “killing” the unborn, but we barely do a thing to those men who view pornography of women and children. We listened to impassioned pleas to stop violating the rights of the unborn as clergy sexually violate children behind closed doors and husbands cast lusting looks at other women. Since when did the rights of the unborn become more sacred than the rights of the living?
“Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” - Matthew 19:13 & 14
Jesus, himself, makes no mention of the unborn, but he is adamant in his condemnation of those who would harm a living, breathing child. Likewise, he was harsh in his rebuke of those who let their eyes and hearts wander...
“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” - Matthew 5:28.
How can we have a respect, a reverence for the “unborn”, when we don't even come close to applying that same reverence for life to the rest of humanity? Fathers who abandon their children to chase a new set of legs. Parents who pursue their dreams and aspirations while leaving their children behind at home to raise themselves and find their way through the confusing world without a guiding hand to help them. Is it any wonder then, when a child rejects the fatherly influence of God? Who wants a father who is never there?
To deny a woman the right to end a pregnancy due to rape, incest or danger to her health is no different from the patriarchal and religious tyranny exercised in medieval Europe. We might “save” the child's life, but what life will that child have? It will forever stand as a reminder to the woman of a time when her life was destroyed. And what of the man who did the act? As our laws stand now, he need not worry about paying child support. All he has to do is serve his time before he is back on the streets destroying the next set of lives.
I find it hard to reconcile a belief that no woman has the right to end an unwanted pregnancy when men are not held accountable for their promiscuity and sexual addictions. Abortion is not the problem, ladies and gentlemen, rather an unwillingness among men to take responsibility for their actions and a willingness from those same men to condemn women for acting like the chattel religion has told them to be, is the real problem.
If the religious right and the pro-life movement is serious in their attempts to stop the alleged problem of abortion, then it is up to them to take a good hard look at themselves, stop judging others and remove the plank from their eye.
We need to stop condemning women, or at the very least, condemn women and men equally, after all, it takes two to tango and it takes two people, not one, to create life.
Women have long faced the wrath of the religious community for daring to end a pregnancy, why is that same condemnation not shown to the men who got them that way? Why are men patted on the back for a sexual conquest and women condemned for the same act?
Is abortion right or wrong? I don't know, and as a man I am hesitant to take one side or the other as I will not be faced with the decision of whether or not to end a pregnancy. But, as a man, I can take the stand and make the decision that will ensure no woman has to have an abortion on my account.
What happened to the First Amendment?
By Tim Gibbons: Published by High Plains View, September 12, 2008.
Excluding those who are dead or have been living off-world for the last few weeks, pretty much all of us in the United States have seen the media circus surrounding the new Vice President nomination for the Republican Party, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
The swirl of questions and inquires around the newly minted Palin is only natural, after all we've already seen Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama make history this year and it seems that the Republicans are doing their part to keep the historians busy in the coming years with the first ever nomination of a woman to the Vice President position.
What isn't quite in keeping with tradition is the firm rebuke from the political camp of John McCain telling reporters and the media to, “back off” VP nominee Palin and stop attacking her lack of experience, family and politics...this coming from the party that has long condemned Obama for his lack of experience, use of family and political orientation.
“It used to be that a lot of those smears and the crap on the Internet stayed out of the newsrooms of serious journalists,” said Steve Schmidt, McCain's campaign manager in response to reports on questionable aspects of Palin's character.
Speaking of smears, here's a good one written by Palin shortly after accepting the VP nomination: “I cannot tell you how special last night was for me and how enthused I am to be John McCain's running mate,” Palin wrote in a campaign e-mail, “Unfortunately, as you've seen this week, the Obama/Biden Democrats have been vicious in their attacks directed toward me, my family and John McCain. The misinformation and flat-out lies must be corrected.”
In point of fact, Barack Obama's campaign did not issue any such attacks and Palin's statement was later found to be false. When asked about Palin's pregnant daughter during an interview, Obama was quite adamant that, “Let me be as clear as possible: I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people's families are off limits and people's children are especially off limits.”
He went on later and stated that, “Our people were not involved in any way [with the alleged smear campaign against Palin] in this and they will not be. And if I ever thought that it was somebody in my campaign that was involved in something like that, they'd be fired.” (Here's an interesting question, why didn't McCain issue a similar statement when Obama's family was being scrutinized?)
Now, let's look at the flip side: Despite the McCain camps denouncing of the media for probing into Palin's personal life, they themselves have taken virtually every opportunity to show Palin's family off, be it through photo ops, a heart warming scene with Palin's pregnant daughter and the boy who got her that way shaking hands with McCain or Palin's seven-year-old daughter telling people to vote, “for my mommy and John McCain,” on the web.
So it would seem that it's wrong to ask questions about Palin's family, politics and experience, but it's okay to bash Obama for everything, including an innocent fist bump with his wife on television.
All of this begs the question, since when did a Vice President nominee become immune to questioning?
We human beings are curious creatures and want to know about those in authority over us. Considering the relative newness of Palin to the national stage we, as the American people, want to know more. Not just about who she is as a political figure, but what is she like as a person. Is her political persona different from her private one? Does she follow one code in the day and another at night? These are questions we want answers to. And why shouldn't we have those answers?
If McCain and Palin are elected into office, the current Alaskan governor will be the president's right handwoman and the one to take over if he kicks the bucket or is otherwise unable to discharge his duties. Don't the American people have the right to know who they might be trusting to sit at the helm of the most powerful nation on the earth?
If Palin is truly able to handle the strains and requirements of the job than I say, “you go girl.” However, we won't be able to make that determination until we know Palin. And now, we have the McCain camp saying that the press can't ask questions about Palin and that they need to stop with their negative coverage.
Excuse me...I know we press types can be obnoxious, hence my preference for referring to myself as, “the local First Amendment pain in the a**”. But, think about this for a minute, what would happen if the press wasn't allowed to question? How strong would America be if the people were told that they could only believe one thing and not another? That is not liberty, that is tyranny.
“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” -Thomas Jefferson
My ancestors came over on the Mayflower, my great grandfathers fought in the American Revolution and in virtually every major conflict our Nation has had. One of my grandfather's served aboard the USS Mississippi during World War II, the other one served with the Reserve Army Corp of Engineers during Korea, my father was a sonar tech aboard an escort destroyer during Vietnam and had it not been for a life-threatening reaction to vaccinations, I, too, would have joined the Armed forces and proudly carried my flag into the midst of battle. So please do not tell me that it is, “unpatriotic” or “inappropriate”, to question those running for office.
Our predecessors, founding fathers and family have earned each of us the right and the grave responsibility to question those in authority over us. If this were not true, we would still be a British colony.
America needs a president who will unite us together in a common cause, who will bring our men and women in uniform safely home and stop sending them into costly conflicts with questionable goals and who will help our economy to get back on it's feet.
The media frenzy surrounding the election of our Commander-in- Chief serves a dual purpose: One, it explores and reveals every aspect of the candidates lives and two, shows us how they handle the pressure of negative press and attention. And quite frankly, if McCain and Palin can't handle the same type of scrutiny that Obama has had to endure, than maybe they need to get out of the kitchen.
“A nation under a well regulated government, should permit none to remain uninstructed. It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.” -Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” First Amendment, United States Constitution, ratified 1791
Excluding those who are dead or have been living off-world for the last few weeks, pretty much all of us in the United States have seen the media circus surrounding the new Vice President nomination for the Republican Party, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
The swirl of questions and inquires around the newly minted Palin is only natural, after all we've already seen Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama make history this year and it seems that the Republicans are doing their part to keep the historians busy in the coming years with the first ever nomination of a woman to the Vice President position.
What isn't quite in keeping with tradition is the firm rebuke from the political camp of John McCain telling reporters and the media to, “back off” VP nominee Palin and stop attacking her lack of experience, family and politics...this coming from the party that has long condemned Obama for his lack of experience, use of family and political orientation.
“It used to be that a lot of those smears and the crap on the Internet stayed out of the newsrooms of serious journalists,” said Steve Schmidt, McCain's campaign manager in response to reports on questionable aspects of Palin's character.
Speaking of smears, here's a good one written by Palin shortly after accepting the VP nomination: “I cannot tell you how special last night was for me and how enthused I am to be John McCain's running mate,” Palin wrote in a campaign e-mail, “Unfortunately, as you've seen this week, the Obama/Biden Democrats have been vicious in their attacks directed toward me, my family and John McCain. The misinformation and flat-out lies must be corrected.”
In point of fact, Barack Obama's campaign did not issue any such attacks and Palin's statement was later found to be false. When asked about Palin's pregnant daughter during an interview, Obama was quite adamant that, “Let me be as clear as possible: I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people's families are off limits and people's children are especially off limits.”
He went on later and stated that, “Our people were not involved in any way [with the alleged smear campaign against Palin] in this and they will not be. And if I ever thought that it was somebody in my campaign that was involved in something like that, they'd be fired.” (Here's an interesting question, why didn't McCain issue a similar statement when Obama's family was being scrutinized?)
Now, let's look at the flip side: Despite the McCain camps denouncing of the media for probing into Palin's personal life, they themselves have taken virtually every opportunity to show Palin's family off, be it through photo ops, a heart warming scene with Palin's pregnant daughter and the boy who got her that way shaking hands with McCain or Palin's seven-year-old daughter telling people to vote, “for my mommy and John McCain,” on the web.
So it would seem that it's wrong to ask questions about Palin's family, politics and experience, but it's okay to bash Obama for everything, including an innocent fist bump with his wife on television.
All of this begs the question, since when did a Vice President nominee become immune to questioning?
We human beings are curious creatures and want to know about those in authority over us. Considering the relative newness of Palin to the national stage we, as the American people, want to know more. Not just about who she is as a political figure, but what is she like as a person. Is her political persona different from her private one? Does she follow one code in the day and another at night? These are questions we want answers to. And why shouldn't we have those answers?
If McCain and Palin are elected into office, the current Alaskan governor will be the president's right handwoman and the one to take over if he kicks the bucket or is otherwise unable to discharge his duties. Don't the American people have the right to know who they might be trusting to sit at the helm of the most powerful nation on the earth?
If Palin is truly able to handle the strains and requirements of the job than I say, “you go girl.” However, we won't be able to make that determination until we know Palin. And now, we have the McCain camp saying that the press can't ask questions about Palin and that they need to stop with their negative coverage.
Excuse me...I know we press types can be obnoxious, hence my preference for referring to myself as, “the local First Amendment pain in the a**”. But, think about this for a minute, what would happen if the press wasn't allowed to question? How strong would America be if the people were told that they could only believe one thing and not another? That is not liberty, that is tyranny.
“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” -Thomas Jefferson
My ancestors came over on the Mayflower, my great grandfathers fought in the American Revolution and in virtually every major conflict our Nation has had. One of my grandfather's served aboard the USS Mississippi during World War II, the other one served with the Reserve Army Corp of Engineers during Korea, my father was a sonar tech aboard an escort destroyer during Vietnam and had it not been for a life-threatening reaction to vaccinations, I, too, would have joined the Armed forces and proudly carried my flag into the midst of battle. So please do not tell me that it is, “unpatriotic” or “inappropriate”, to question those running for office.
Our predecessors, founding fathers and family have earned each of us the right and the grave responsibility to question those in authority over us. If this were not true, we would still be a British colony.
America needs a president who will unite us together in a common cause, who will bring our men and women in uniform safely home and stop sending them into costly conflicts with questionable goals and who will help our economy to get back on it's feet.
The media frenzy surrounding the election of our Commander-in- Chief serves a dual purpose: One, it explores and reveals every aspect of the candidates lives and two, shows us how they handle the pressure of negative press and attention. And quite frankly, if McCain and Palin can't handle the same type of scrutiny that Obama has had to endure, than maybe they need to get out of the kitchen.
“A nation under a well regulated government, should permit none to remain uninstructed. It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.” -Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” First Amendment, United States Constitution, ratified 1791
On the War
By Tim Gibbons: Published by High Plains View, September 5, 2008.
Two weeks ago, I compared the success of the First Persian Gulf War with the failings of the current war in Iraq. Last week, we discussed the validity of “preventive warfare”. And now, with the Presidental elections drawing near, let's look at what our two hopefuls, Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama have to say on the war in Iraq.
John McCain
“It is obvious that a president's first priority is to take whatever steps necessary to ensure the security of our nation, but hand in hand with that has to be a restoration of trust and confidence in government.”
“I've heard him (Ron Paul) now in many debates talking about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq, and how it's failed. And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II.”
“I think that clearly my fortunes [in the election] have a lot to do with what's happening in Iraq, and I'm proud of that,” he told CNN.
Senator John McCain has been a strong supporter for the conflict in Iraq calling it, “the central front of the war on terror.” He has even stated that he would not be opposed to seeing American forces in Iraq for the next 100 years, provided, “Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”
When asked if he, as president, would reject the Bush doctrine of preemptive war, McCain responded, "I don't think you could make a blanket statement about pre-emptive war, because obviously, it depends on the threat that the United States of America faces.”
A question posed to McCain on the Today show asked if he knew when American troops could start to return home, McCain responded: “No, but that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq.”
At 71-years-old, McCain will be the oldest person to take the office of President if he wins. He graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1958 and became a naval aviator. In 1967 he was shot down, badly injured and held as a prisoner of war by the Vietnamese until 1973. He retired from the Navy as a captain in 1981 and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives by the State of Arizona, in 1982. He served two terms and was then elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986 and has continued to serve in this capacity.
Barack Obama
“We have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives. Thousands more have been maimed and injured as a consequence and are going to have difficulty putting their lives back together again. This has undermined our security. In the meantime, Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.”
“Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer.”
Senator Barack Obama has been a strong advocate for ending American presence in Iraq, “I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden – as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security,”.
Reasons for the withdrawal include the huge burden to the taxpayers and the government which is spending $9- $10 billion a month on the war. Obama also is concerned that the build up in Iraq has compromised America's ability to respond to other crisis', such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and rising concerns in South America.
When asked if the president could disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops, Obama replied, “No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of U.S. troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.”
During the Chicago Foreign Affairs Council, April 23, 2007, Obama stated that, “Our country's greatest military asset is the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. When we do send our men and women into harm's way, we must also clearly define the mission, prescribe concrete political and military objectives, seek out advice of our military commanders, evaluate the intelligence, plan accordingly, and ensure that our troops have the resources, support and equipment they need to protect themselves and fulfill their mission.”
Obama was born on August 4, 1961 and is the junior United States Senator from Illinois. He graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School where he served as the president of the Harvard Law Review.
He has practiced as a civil rights attorney from 1997 to 2004 and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. He is the first African American to receive a major party's presumptive nominee for President of the United States.
The War
To date the current Iraqi War has cost the American people the lives of 4,143 brave soldiers and thousands more wounded. The bill for the war totals $845 billion in taxpayer dollars and an additional loss of approximately $3 trillion to our American economy.
Of the two major goals the Bush Administration had in going to war with Iraq, (Destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction and Establish a Democratic Government in Iraq), both have been answered.
As of May 2006, Iraq had a constitution and a democratic government in place. On April 9, 2008, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told President Bush that Iraqi security forces were capable of maintaining and protecting Iraqi infrastructure and American troops should be pulled out as the situation allows.
Despite claims to the contrary, no evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) have been discovered, neither was there any evidence before the war that they existed. Most of the reports on the presence of WMD's, were later proven to be falsified by the Bush administration.
The question before Americans this election is simple: Keep the war going or end it? What's the right decision? You be the judge.
Two weeks ago, I compared the success of the First Persian Gulf War with the failings of the current war in Iraq. Last week, we discussed the validity of “preventive warfare”. And now, with the Presidental elections drawing near, let's look at what our two hopefuls, Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama have to say on the war in Iraq.
John McCain
“It is obvious that a president's first priority is to take whatever steps necessary to ensure the security of our nation, but hand in hand with that has to be a restoration of trust and confidence in government.”
“I've heard him (Ron Paul) now in many debates talking about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq, and how it's failed. And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II.”
“I think that clearly my fortunes [in the election] have a lot to do with what's happening in Iraq, and I'm proud of that,” he told CNN.
Senator John McCain has been a strong supporter for the conflict in Iraq calling it, “the central front of the war on terror.” He has even stated that he would not be opposed to seeing American forces in Iraq for the next 100 years, provided, “Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”
When asked if he, as president, would reject the Bush doctrine of preemptive war, McCain responded, "I don't think you could make a blanket statement about pre-emptive war, because obviously, it depends on the threat that the United States of America faces.”
A question posed to McCain on the Today show asked if he knew when American troops could start to return home, McCain responded: “No, but that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq.”
At 71-years-old, McCain will be the oldest person to take the office of President if he wins. He graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1958 and became a naval aviator. In 1967 he was shot down, badly injured and held as a prisoner of war by the Vietnamese until 1973. He retired from the Navy as a captain in 1981 and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives by the State of Arizona, in 1982. He served two terms and was then elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986 and has continued to serve in this capacity.
Barack Obama
“We have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives. Thousands more have been maimed and injured as a consequence and are going to have difficulty putting their lives back together again. This has undermined our security. In the meantime, Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.”
“Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer.”
Senator Barack Obama has been a strong advocate for ending American presence in Iraq, “I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden – as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security,”.
Reasons for the withdrawal include the huge burden to the taxpayers and the government which is spending $9- $10 billion a month on the war. Obama also is concerned that the build up in Iraq has compromised America's ability to respond to other crisis', such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and rising concerns in South America.
When asked if the president could disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops, Obama replied, “No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of U.S. troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.”
During the Chicago Foreign Affairs Council, April 23, 2007, Obama stated that, “Our country's greatest military asset is the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. When we do send our men and women into harm's way, we must also clearly define the mission, prescribe concrete political and military objectives, seek out advice of our military commanders, evaluate the intelligence, plan accordingly, and ensure that our troops have the resources, support and equipment they need to protect themselves and fulfill their mission.”
Obama was born on August 4, 1961 and is the junior United States Senator from Illinois. He graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School where he served as the president of the Harvard Law Review.
He has practiced as a civil rights attorney from 1997 to 2004 and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. He is the first African American to receive a major party's presumptive nominee for President of the United States.
The War
To date the current Iraqi War has cost the American people the lives of 4,143 brave soldiers and thousands more wounded. The bill for the war totals $845 billion in taxpayer dollars and an additional loss of approximately $3 trillion to our American economy.
Of the two major goals the Bush Administration had in going to war with Iraq, (Destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction and Establish a Democratic Government in Iraq), both have been answered.
As of May 2006, Iraq had a constitution and a democratic government in place. On April 9, 2008, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told President Bush that Iraqi security forces were capable of maintaining and protecting Iraqi infrastructure and American troops should be pulled out as the situation allows.
Despite claims to the contrary, no evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) have been discovered, neither was there any evidence before the war that they existed. Most of the reports on the presence of WMD's, were later proven to be falsified by the Bush administration.
The question before Americans this election is simple: Keep the war going or end it? What's the right decision? You be the judge.
“Heil, Bush??”
By Tim Gibbons: Published by High Plains View, August 29, 2008.
“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator,” -Adolf Hitler
“Those who fight in God's cause will be victorious.” - Saddam Hussein
“If any foreign minister begins to defend to the death a ‘peace conference’, you can be sure his government has already placed its orders for new battleships and airplanes.” -Joseph Stalin
“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.” -George W. Bush.
Peaceful war? Preventive war? Holy war? Government Intelligence?! Can we stop contradicting ourselves!?!
Despite the questionable aspects and characteristics of a peaceful, preventive (preemptive) war, President Bush and his administration maintain that American's have been waging such wars since our beginning as a nation. The Indian wars and massacres are a perfect example of American led preemptive strikes. So was the questionable Mexican War in 1848 which led to a, what would be considered today, 'unpatriotic' statement by a United States Representative by the name of Abraham Lincoln:
“Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.”
Preemptive strikes have long been the unquestioned domain of the ruthless, the desperate and the tyrants.
“A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war.
I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.... It seems to me that when, by definition, a term is just ridiculous in itself, there is no use in going any further.
There are all sorts of reasons, moral and political and everything else, against this theory, but it is so completely unthinkable in today's conditions that I thought it is no use to go any further.” -Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Both President Eisenhower and President Harry S. Truman ruled out preventive war against Stalin in the years following World War II. Even more spectacular was the refusal of President John F. Kennedy to launch a preemptive strike on Soviet forces in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Despite strong recommendations by his Joint Chiefs of Staff, President Kennedy preferred to rely upon diplomacy to resolve the issue. It was later discovered that Russian forces in Cuba had tactical nuclear weapons and the authorization to use them on invading Americans. Kennedy's refusal to resort to warfare probably averted a nuclear disaster.
There have, however, been those individuals in history who have had no qualms about preventive warfare.
“When Barbarossa commences, the world will hold its breath and make no comment.” - Adolf Hitler
Operation Barbarossa was the code name given to the German invasion of the Soviet Union during the early part of World War II. German propaganda reported that the Russians were planning an attack on Hitler's Third Reich and the only way to stop it was a preemptive strike against the sub-human Russians.
The reports of Russian aggression were false, a pretext invented by the Germans to justify their violation of their Non-Aggression Pact with Russia. Along that same vein, consider the 935 false statements issued by the Bush administration between 2001 and 2003 regarding the build up of arms and terrorist activities in Iraq (Center for Public Integrity). Then as now, false reports and propaganda are still the best way to start a war.
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” -Adolph Hitler
“You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror,” -George W. Bush, interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006.
Legal scholars generally agree that preventive war and aggression are virtually the same. And aggression is considered, “the supreme crime” in international law. Even commentators as diverse as Dwight Eisenhower and Noam Chomsky have argued that accepting one preventive war would open the floodgates to all preventive wars, thereby reducing the world to “the law of the jungle”, where the strongest wins. Critics argue this 'war-at-will' society creates an environment where war can be easily justified.
Already we can see the effects, most notably among power hungry tyrants, such as Saddam Hussein, and religious fanatical groups like Al Qaeda. Hussein had no problems invading Kuwait in 1990, Al Qaeda rejoiced when their attack against the Trade Centers and Pentagon succeeded. Now the question comes, has our American government stooped to their level?
Our American soldiers have a long and proud history of defending our freedoms since that historic day in 1775 when the American Minutemen fired “the shot heard round the world”. While our soldiers might not have always been the best trained and/or armed, especially during the first part of our nation's history, the argument could easily be made that they were by far more tenacious than their foes.
The immortal cries of, “I have not yet begun to fight!” “Remember the Alamo!” “Retreat! Hell we just got here!” “Come on you sons-of-bitches, you want to live forever?!”, still echo through the halls and barracks of our American fighting men and women.
“But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate – we can not hallow – this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.” - Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address.
Our American soldiers have never failed to give their all for their country. Even in Vietnam, despite the incompetence and war mongering of the politicians, our American soldiers fought the communist threat to a standstill and it wasn't until three years after the last American left Vietnam that the communists attacked again.
Now we see the same thing happening in Iraq, the muddled goals of the politicians squandering the fighting talent of our soldiers. Take away the deserts and add the jungles and it's starting to look like Vietnam all over again.
The body count for our forces in Iraq is 4,143 and climbing, and for what purpose? Weapons of Mass Destruction have not been found and there is strong evidence that they never existed. An Iraqi democratic government and constitution have been in place since 2006. And in April of 2008, the Iraqi Prime Minister informed President Bush that the Iraq security forces were capable of handling the security of the nation and that American troops could begin withdrawing.
Our troops are still there and now there are moves by the Bush camp to extend our stay in Iraq past the 2008 deadline imposed by the United Nations.
Politicians started a war they had no business starting. Politicians have willingly sent American soldiers to their death without explaining why they are doing it, other than some vague references to the war on terror and our Christian duty. That our forces have made any progress is due entirely to the bravery and abilities of our American soldiers and not the desk driving politicians that sent them there.
“The welfare of the people, in particular, has always been the alibi of tyrants.” -Albert Camus
It's time to bring our soldiers home, Mr. President. Or, is there something else we should know about?
“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator,” -Adolf Hitler
“Those who fight in God's cause will be victorious.” - Saddam Hussein
“If any foreign minister begins to defend to the death a ‘peace conference’, you can be sure his government has already placed its orders for new battleships and airplanes.” -Joseph Stalin
“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.” -George W. Bush.
Peaceful war? Preventive war? Holy war? Government Intelligence?! Can we stop contradicting ourselves!?!
Despite the questionable aspects and characteristics of a peaceful, preventive (preemptive) war, President Bush and his administration maintain that American's have been waging such wars since our beginning as a nation. The Indian wars and massacres are a perfect example of American led preemptive strikes. So was the questionable Mexican War in 1848 which led to a, what would be considered today, 'unpatriotic' statement by a United States Representative by the name of Abraham Lincoln:
“Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.”
Preemptive strikes have long been the unquestioned domain of the ruthless, the desperate and the tyrants.
“A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war.
I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.... It seems to me that when, by definition, a term is just ridiculous in itself, there is no use in going any further.
There are all sorts of reasons, moral and political and everything else, against this theory, but it is so completely unthinkable in today's conditions that I thought it is no use to go any further.” -Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Both President Eisenhower and President Harry S. Truman ruled out preventive war against Stalin in the years following World War II. Even more spectacular was the refusal of President John F. Kennedy to launch a preemptive strike on Soviet forces in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Despite strong recommendations by his Joint Chiefs of Staff, President Kennedy preferred to rely upon diplomacy to resolve the issue. It was later discovered that Russian forces in Cuba had tactical nuclear weapons and the authorization to use them on invading Americans. Kennedy's refusal to resort to warfare probably averted a nuclear disaster.
There have, however, been those individuals in history who have had no qualms about preventive warfare.
“When Barbarossa commences, the world will hold its breath and make no comment.” - Adolf Hitler
Operation Barbarossa was the code name given to the German invasion of the Soviet Union during the early part of World War II. German propaganda reported that the Russians were planning an attack on Hitler's Third Reich and the only way to stop it was a preemptive strike against the sub-human Russians.
The reports of Russian aggression were false, a pretext invented by the Germans to justify their violation of their Non-Aggression Pact with Russia. Along that same vein, consider the 935 false statements issued by the Bush administration between 2001 and 2003 regarding the build up of arms and terrorist activities in Iraq (Center for Public Integrity). Then as now, false reports and propaganda are still the best way to start a war.
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” -Adolph Hitler
“You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror,” -George W. Bush, interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006.
Legal scholars generally agree that preventive war and aggression are virtually the same. And aggression is considered, “the supreme crime” in international law. Even commentators as diverse as Dwight Eisenhower and Noam Chomsky have argued that accepting one preventive war would open the floodgates to all preventive wars, thereby reducing the world to “the law of the jungle”, where the strongest wins. Critics argue this 'war-at-will' society creates an environment where war can be easily justified.
Already we can see the effects, most notably among power hungry tyrants, such as Saddam Hussein, and religious fanatical groups like Al Qaeda. Hussein had no problems invading Kuwait in 1990, Al Qaeda rejoiced when their attack against the Trade Centers and Pentagon succeeded. Now the question comes, has our American government stooped to their level?
Our American soldiers have a long and proud history of defending our freedoms since that historic day in 1775 when the American Minutemen fired “the shot heard round the world”. While our soldiers might not have always been the best trained and/or armed, especially during the first part of our nation's history, the argument could easily be made that they were by far more tenacious than their foes.
The immortal cries of, “I have not yet begun to fight!” “Remember the Alamo!” “Retreat! Hell we just got here!” “Come on you sons-of-bitches, you want to live forever?!”, still echo through the halls and barracks of our American fighting men and women.
“But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate – we can not hallow – this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.” - Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address.
Our American soldiers have never failed to give their all for their country. Even in Vietnam, despite the incompetence and war mongering of the politicians, our American soldiers fought the communist threat to a standstill and it wasn't until three years after the last American left Vietnam that the communists attacked again.
Now we see the same thing happening in Iraq, the muddled goals of the politicians squandering the fighting talent of our soldiers. Take away the deserts and add the jungles and it's starting to look like Vietnam all over again.
The body count for our forces in Iraq is 4,143 and climbing, and for what purpose? Weapons of Mass Destruction have not been found and there is strong evidence that they never existed. An Iraqi democratic government and constitution have been in place since 2006. And in April of 2008, the Iraqi Prime Minister informed President Bush that the Iraq security forces were capable of handling the security of the nation and that American troops could begin withdrawing.
Our troops are still there and now there are moves by the Bush camp to extend our stay in Iraq past the 2008 deadline imposed by the United Nations.
Politicians started a war they had no business starting. Politicians have willingly sent American soldiers to their death without explaining why they are doing it, other than some vague references to the war on terror and our Christian duty. That our forces have made any progress is due entirely to the bravery and abilities of our American soldiers and not the desk driving politicians that sent them there.
“The welfare of the people, in particular, has always been the alibi of tyrants.” -Albert Camus
It's time to bring our soldiers home, Mr. President. Or, is there something else we should know about?
A hundred hours versus a hundred years
By Tim Gibbons. Published by High Plains View on August 22, 2008.
“At this moment, our brave servicemen and women stand watch in that distant desert and on distant seas, side by side with the forces of more than 20 other nations. They are some of the finest men and women of the United States of America. And they're doing one terrific job. These valiant Americans were ready at a moment's notice to leave their spouses and their children, to serve on the front line halfway around the world. They remind us who keeps America strong: they do. In the trying circumstances of the Gulf, the morale of our service men and women is excellent. In the face of danger, they're brave, they're well trained and dedicated.
A soldier, Private First Class Wade Merritt of Knoxville, Tennessee, now stationed in Saudi Arabia, wrote his parents of his worries, his love of family, and his hope for peace. But Wade also wrote, 'I am proud of my country and its firm stance against inhumane aggression. I am proud of my army and its men. I am proud to serve my country.' Well, let me just say, Wade, America is proud of you and is grateful to every soldier, sailor, marine and airman serving the cause of peace in the Persian Gulf.” - President George H.W. Bush before a joint session of Congress, September 11, 1990
The Persian Gulf War began on August 2, 1990 with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Two hundred eleven days later, including 38 days of preparatory bombing and a 100 hour ground campaign, Kuwait was freed by a coalition of 34 nations, led by the United States.
The war was one of the most successful engagements fought by the United States and far from suffering the 30,000 to 40,000 causalities that had been estimated by the Pentagon, the United States and her allies suffered only 380 casualties, 293 of which were American (146 killed in combat, 148 killed in out-of-combat accidents).
It was truly one of our finest hours and while many criticized that Saddam Hussein was not captured, the reasoning for this was summed up in 1992 by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney,
“I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.
And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”
Now, 17 years later, we find ourselves in the exact situation that President George Bush, Senior, and his staff were trying to avoid: a long, bloody holding action known as the Operation Enduring Freedom.
Since its start in March 19, 2003, the United States has suffered 4,143 confirmed deaths as of August 19, 2008. To date the United States government and her citizens have spent approximately $845 billion and climbing with the total cost to the U.S. economy estimated at $3 trillion.
Compare this to the $61.1 billion that America spent in the first Persian Gulf War and that was with a build up of 540,000 troops, nearly twice the number of troops that invaded Iraq the second time.
Consider also, that despite the reports by President George W. Bush and his administration, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) have never been found, neither was there a strong connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
In January, 2005, the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) reported that they had, “not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003.” David Kay, the head of ISG resigned his position in January 23, 2004, stating he didn't believe WMD would be found in Iraq, “I don't think they existed,” Kay commented. “What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties.”
The Center for Public Integrity reported that, between 2001 and 2003, the Bush Administration made a total of 935 false statements concerning the intelligence about WMD, terrorist links to Al Qaeda and the threat Iraq posed to America. Even for an American President that is a lot of mistakes.
One also must consider that at the end of the first Persian Gulf War, Iraq, which had been one of the most progressive and well-armed Arab nations, was decimated, suffering not only the loss of an estimated 22,000 soldiers (U.S. Air Force report), but the loss of 11 major power stations and 119 substations with six more major stations damaged. At the end of the war, electricity production was at four percent of its pre-war levels. Bombs destroyed the utility of all major dams, most major pumping stations and many sewage treatment plants, turning Iraq from one of the most advanced Arab countries into one of the most backward. Telecommunications equipment, port facilities, oil refineries and distribution, railroads and bridges also were destroyed.
This situation had improved very little in Iraq by the second conflict, due to the trade sanctions imposed upon them by the United Nations and the continued patrolling and bombing by American planes in the no-fly zones that were established between the wars.
Based on the ISG and intelligence from the CIA and other intelligence agencies in other nations, Iraq had an interest in developing their WMD program but did not have the resources, nor the ability to develop it, thanks in a large part to the sanctions and monitoring of United Nation inspectors.
The question then remains, why the war on terrorism in Iraq? They were still shattered from the first Gulf War and the constant flyovers and bombings that proceeded between the wars. They had no WMD's as their program was a fatality of the first war and the sanctions that followed. Al Qaeda had only a slight influence, far less than they wielded in Afghanistan or Pakistan according to military and CIA reports. Even Saudi Arabia, our ally, had more connections to Bin Laden than Iraq. So why whip a dead dog?
The only other reason given for the war was the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq. As of October 15, 2005, the Iraqi Constitution was ratified. Elections were held in December of the same year and the Iraq National Assembly took office on May 20, 2006.
On April 9, 2008, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told President Bush that Iraqi security forces were capable of fulfilling their duties and U.S. troops should be pulled out as the situation allows. Two days later, Bush responded that he was not ready to order further troop withdrawals from Iraq and his administration has pursued extending the UN authorization for the continued presence of the American- led coalition in Iraq. Currently, the UN authorization requires that all coalition forces be removed by the end of 2008.
It could be argued that the job is done, the battle won. So why aren't our troops coming home? Senator John McCain seemed to have the answer at a town hall meeting at Derry, New Hampshire in January of this year...
Question posed: “President Bush has talked about our troops staying in Iraq for 50 years...”
McCain (interrupting): “Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”
Tell little Johnny not to wait up, it doesn't look like daddy's coming home this year.
“At this moment, our brave servicemen and women stand watch in that distant desert and on distant seas, side by side with the forces of more than 20 other nations. They are some of the finest men and women of the United States of America. And they're doing one terrific job. These valiant Americans were ready at a moment's notice to leave their spouses and their children, to serve on the front line halfway around the world. They remind us who keeps America strong: they do. In the trying circumstances of the Gulf, the morale of our service men and women is excellent. In the face of danger, they're brave, they're well trained and dedicated.
A soldier, Private First Class Wade Merritt of Knoxville, Tennessee, now stationed in Saudi Arabia, wrote his parents of his worries, his love of family, and his hope for peace. But Wade also wrote, 'I am proud of my country and its firm stance against inhumane aggression. I am proud of my army and its men. I am proud to serve my country.' Well, let me just say, Wade, America is proud of you and is grateful to every soldier, sailor, marine and airman serving the cause of peace in the Persian Gulf.” - President George H.W. Bush before a joint session of Congress, September 11, 1990
The Persian Gulf War began on August 2, 1990 with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Two hundred eleven days later, including 38 days of preparatory bombing and a 100 hour ground campaign, Kuwait was freed by a coalition of 34 nations, led by the United States.
The war was one of the most successful engagements fought by the United States and far from suffering the 30,000 to 40,000 causalities that had been estimated by the Pentagon, the United States and her allies suffered only 380 casualties, 293 of which were American (146 killed in combat, 148 killed in out-of-combat accidents).
It was truly one of our finest hours and while many criticized that Saddam Hussein was not captured, the reasoning for this was summed up in 1992 by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney,
“I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.
And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”
Now, 17 years later, we find ourselves in the exact situation that President George Bush, Senior, and his staff were trying to avoid: a long, bloody holding action known as the Operation Enduring Freedom.
Since its start in March 19, 2003, the United States has suffered 4,143 confirmed deaths as of August 19, 2008. To date the United States government and her citizens have spent approximately $845 billion and climbing with the total cost to the U.S. economy estimated at $3 trillion.
Compare this to the $61.1 billion that America spent in the first Persian Gulf War and that was with a build up of 540,000 troops, nearly twice the number of troops that invaded Iraq the second time.
Consider also, that despite the reports by President George W. Bush and his administration, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) have never been found, neither was there a strong connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
In January, 2005, the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) reported that they had, “not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003.” David Kay, the head of ISG resigned his position in January 23, 2004, stating he didn't believe WMD would be found in Iraq, “I don't think they existed,” Kay commented. “What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties.”
The Center for Public Integrity reported that, between 2001 and 2003, the Bush Administration made a total of 935 false statements concerning the intelligence about WMD, terrorist links to Al Qaeda and the threat Iraq posed to America. Even for an American President that is a lot of mistakes.
One also must consider that at the end of the first Persian Gulf War, Iraq, which had been one of the most progressive and well-armed Arab nations, was decimated, suffering not only the loss of an estimated 22,000 soldiers (U.S. Air Force report), but the loss of 11 major power stations and 119 substations with six more major stations damaged. At the end of the war, electricity production was at four percent of its pre-war levels. Bombs destroyed the utility of all major dams, most major pumping stations and many sewage treatment plants, turning Iraq from one of the most advanced Arab countries into one of the most backward. Telecommunications equipment, port facilities, oil refineries and distribution, railroads and bridges also were destroyed.
This situation had improved very little in Iraq by the second conflict, due to the trade sanctions imposed upon them by the United Nations and the continued patrolling and bombing by American planes in the no-fly zones that were established between the wars.
Based on the ISG and intelligence from the CIA and other intelligence agencies in other nations, Iraq had an interest in developing their WMD program but did not have the resources, nor the ability to develop it, thanks in a large part to the sanctions and monitoring of United Nation inspectors.
The question then remains, why the war on terrorism in Iraq? They were still shattered from the first Gulf War and the constant flyovers and bombings that proceeded between the wars. They had no WMD's as their program was a fatality of the first war and the sanctions that followed. Al Qaeda had only a slight influence, far less than they wielded in Afghanistan or Pakistan according to military and CIA reports. Even Saudi Arabia, our ally, had more connections to Bin Laden than Iraq. So why whip a dead dog?
The only other reason given for the war was the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq. As of October 15, 2005, the Iraqi Constitution was ratified. Elections were held in December of the same year and the Iraq National Assembly took office on May 20, 2006.
On April 9, 2008, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told President Bush that Iraqi security forces were capable of fulfilling their duties and U.S. troops should be pulled out as the situation allows. Two days later, Bush responded that he was not ready to order further troop withdrawals from Iraq and his administration has pursued extending the UN authorization for the continued presence of the American- led coalition in Iraq. Currently, the UN authorization requires that all coalition forces be removed by the end of 2008.
It could be argued that the job is done, the battle won. So why aren't our troops coming home? Senator John McCain seemed to have the answer at a town hall meeting at Derry, New Hampshire in January of this year...
Question posed: “President Bush has talked about our troops staying in Iraq for 50 years...”
McCain (interrupting): “Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”
Tell little Johnny not to wait up, it doesn't look like daddy's coming home this year.
A moment of reflection
By Tim Gibbons: Published by the High Plains View, August 15, 2008.
August 15 is a rather interesting day in history.
On this day in 1920, the Polish defeated the Red Army in the Battle of Warsaw. Twenty five years later, August 15, 1945, the Japanese surrendered, ending World War II. And, while not as spectacular, this year, August 15, witnessed the first anniversary of our paper, the High Plains View.
Coming to the realization that I had been writing and helping to design a weekly paper for fifty-two issues suddenly made me feel quite old, despite only being 24.
My involvement in the paper was actually not of my doing and when Toni, aka Mom, had first approached me about doing a paper, I said, “that's nice,” and made it clear that I was content to keep working as a fencer and barn builder for the time being.
Mom said she accepted this and then, not a week later, she asked me if I could help her with setting up the templates on the computer. With no thought given to ulterior motives, I said, “Yes.”
The next thing I knew, I was being assigned stories and eventually started working as a reporter full time. The curse of sneaky mothers.
Regardless of what people think, reporting isn't a piece of cake...well maybe fruit cake. From the long hours proofing and writing to the running to cover events and the inevitable hiccups such as power failures, flat tires and getting lost in Ramah (a story I regaled our readers with in a previous issue), the newspaper world rarely offers a dull moment.
But, at the same time, I wouldn't trade this last year for anything. I've had the chance to share in peoples’ lives and experience our prairie in a way few people could.
I have seen the worst that man has to offer and I've seen the best. It never ceases to amaze me that the people we place upon the pedestal are most often the most crooked and those who hide in the shadows are the most honorable.
A hero doesn't need a soap box, a person of valor doesn't need an audience and an honest individual doesn't need an image. The true heroes of our prairie are the people who get up everyday and work to make this world a better place, even if that work consists only of give a smile and warm welcome to the people they meet.
“Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius, and a lot of courage, to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein.
After a year of writing, I am more convinced than ever that mankind is not defined by the trappings in their lives but by their humanity, how they treat their fellow human beings. Religion, color, creed or nationality are nothing if they are held by a tyrant and it is often those that preach the loudest who are the ones trying to hide the most.
If we as a species are to become more than what we are, we must pursue peace, tolerance and understanding. How can we say we are divine creatures when we so willingly steal, cheat and kill our fellow man? Must we continue to judge our fellows because they are a different color, a different culture or pray to a different god?
This day, instead of judging your neighbor help them. Rather than spreading gossip, point out the good of your fellows. And take no offense at the questions of others, especially if they be children.
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.” -Thomas Jefferson
Our nation was founded upon man's reason, his tolerance and his desire for equality. In the end it is not the politicians, the critics, or even the religious that matter. The credit for our great nation must go to those men and women who have put the responsibility of our Republic upon their shoulders, not out of blind zeal but deliberate purpose.
If our forefathers could make a conscious decision to fight for the right of every man, woman and child to be free, then should we not make that conscious decision to do good, rather than evil. The lazy fool and the tyrant have this in common, they care only for themselves and their image.
As a final note, always remember, that the race does not belong to the self-proclaimed heroes, the politicians, the swift of foot or the leaders of man, nor does it belong to the god- fearing. The race, ladies and gentlemen, belongs to those individuals who are too damn stubborn to quit.
This is our heritage as humans and our tradition as American citizens.
August 15 is a rather interesting day in history.
On this day in 1920, the Polish defeated the Red Army in the Battle of Warsaw. Twenty five years later, August 15, 1945, the Japanese surrendered, ending World War II. And, while not as spectacular, this year, August 15, witnessed the first anniversary of our paper, the High Plains View.
Coming to the realization that I had been writing and helping to design a weekly paper for fifty-two issues suddenly made me feel quite old, despite only being 24.
My involvement in the paper was actually not of my doing and when Toni, aka Mom, had first approached me about doing a paper, I said, “that's nice,” and made it clear that I was content to keep working as a fencer and barn builder for the time being.
Mom said she accepted this and then, not a week later, she asked me if I could help her with setting up the templates on the computer. With no thought given to ulterior motives, I said, “Yes.”
The next thing I knew, I was being assigned stories and eventually started working as a reporter full time. The curse of sneaky mothers.
Regardless of what people think, reporting isn't a piece of cake...well maybe fruit cake. From the long hours proofing and writing to the running to cover events and the inevitable hiccups such as power failures, flat tires and getting lost in Ramah (a story I regaled our readers with in a previous issue), the newspaper world rarely offers a dull moment.
But, at the same time, I wouldn't trade this last year for anything. I've had the chance to share in peoples’ lives and experience our prairie in a way few people could.
I have seen the worst that man has to offer and I've seen the best. It never ceases to amaze me that the people we place upon the pedestal are most often the most crooked and those who hide in the shadows are the most honorable.
A hero doesn't need a soap box, a person of valor doesn't need an audience and an honest individual doesn't need an image. The true heroes of our prairie are the people who get up everyday and work to make this world a better place, even if that work consists only of give a smile and warm welcome to the people they meet.
“Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius, and a lot of courage, to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein.
After a year of writing, I am more convinced than ever that mankind is not defined by the trappings in their lives but by their humanity, how they treat their fellow human beings. Religion, color, creed or nationality are nothing if they are held by a tyrant and it is often those that preach the loudest who are the ones trying to hide the most.
If we as a species are to become more than what we are, we must pursue peace, tolerance and understanding. How can we say we are divine creatures when we so willingly steal, cheat and kill our fellow man? Must we continue to judge our fellows because they are a different color, a different culture or pray to a different god?
This day, instead of judging your neighbor help them. Rather than spreading gossip, point out the good of your fellows. And take no offense at the questions of others, especially if they be children.
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.” -Thomas Jefferson
Our nation was founded upon man's reason, his tolerance and his desire for equality. In the end it is not the politicians, the critics, or even the religious that matter. The credit for our great nation must go to those men and women who have put the responsibility of our Republic upon their shoulders, not out of blind zeal but deliberate purpose.
If our forefathers could make a conscious decision to fight for the right of every man, woman and child to be free, then should we not make that conscious decision to do good, rather than evil. The lazy fool and the tyrant have this in common, they care only for themselves and their image.
As a final note, always remember, that the race does not belong to the self-proclaimed heroes, the politicians, the swift of foot or the leaders of man, nor does it belong to the god- fearing. The race, ladies and gentlemen, belongs to those individuals who are too damn stubborn to quit.
This is our heritage as humans and our tradition as American citizens.
Is there an Atheist in the Cockpit?
By Tim Gibbons: Published in the High Plains View August 8, 2008.
Psst, hey did you hear the latest? An airline company has a policy that forbids having a Christian pilot and co-pilot on the same flight just in case the rapture comes and takes them both away, causing the plane to crash! Isn't that wild!...
...okay, so maybe this story about this airline company isn’t true, and it isn't the newest thing on the urban legend circuit, but, I have to admit it was one I laughed the hardest on while reading.
Urban legends, also known as, untrue or unverifiable stories have become so common place that the average person probably hears several over the course of a week.
Most urban legends come from a variety of sources and generally prey upon human emotion. In a real sense, an urban legend is gossip gone bad.
Take for example the slew of e-mails concerning Senator Barak Obama being a radical Muslim, sworn into office on the Quran, being endorsed for President by the Ku Klux Klan, holding a phone upside down, descriptions of Obama's connection to political events in Kenya and more. All of these rumors are wide spread and all are completely false, untrue and made-up.
Yet despite having proof that most of these rumors are false, many Americans still believe them.
There’s another legend that started back in the 1960s about the razor blades in Halloween candy.
Despite numerous warnings issued by police and state agencies there has NEVER been a reported case of such a thing happening. Then why do people believe it?
Urban legends and rumors tend to stick because they either: a) invoke a strong emotion such as loathing, compassion, horror or lust; b) we are bombarded with so much information that we tend to accept as fact information that comes from a friend and/or “authoritative” source; and c) a legend provides justification for thinking the way we do.
Let's explore these one by one, starting with emotion. Human beings being emotional creatures, a story that touches something within our soul, be it positive or negative will be viewed with a strong sense of interest.
Take for example the legend concerning a pregnant couple who named their child after the husband's father who died while saving individuals during the September 11 attacks.
While there were many heroes that day and many were wearing the garb of the New York City Fire Department, this particular story about the grandson of one Jake Matthews never happened. There is no record of such an individual having died in the tower attacks.
This story, like so many other legends, invokes strong emotions, in this one it touches upon the aspect of hero worship and finding a glimmer of light in the wake of a terrible tragedy.
The problem with stories like these, is that while they may be inspiring, they detract from the efforts of the real heroes, those unsung men and women who gave their lives in the service of their fellows.
Often we will accept a story at face value, especially if it comes from a friend or some, “authoritative” source such as the media after all, “They couldn't print it if it wasn't true.” All one has to do is pick up a tabloid at the grocery story in order to see that not everything the media prints is gold.
The best way to avoid falling into the snare of an Urban Legend is research.
Websites like www.snopes.com are wonderful resources for not only providing information on stories both true and false, but also help one learn how to spot an urban legend on their own. The main problem is with the amount of information and data the average American receives on a daily basis, few people feel that they have the time to research a particular story. It is simply easier to accept it as fact and pass it on.
This leads us to the third and perhaps most damning reason for believing an urban legend, justification for a set of mind.
Take for example some of these tales: NASA scientists discover a lost day in time; Siberian scientists drill a hole into hell; a petition drive to stop a “homosexual” Jesus film; and my favorite, Atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair is circulating yet another one of her anti-Christian petitions.
All four of these are false. In the case of NASA, there is absolutely no way to PROVE that there is a lost day in time, this assumption is based upon a poor understanding of science and wild rumor. Same with drilling a hole to hell, no such event took place and, as far as we know, the earth remains solid, not hollow.
A movie about a homosexual Jesus, while keeping in line with the quality Hollywood is putting out these days, is false. No such movie is being planned, nor has ever been planned.
And finally, that pesky O'Hair and her constant war against Christian values. While O'Hair was heavily involved in banning organized prayer from public schools and championing for a separation of church and state that is about as far as it goes.
As for RM-2493, the petition that many claimed would ban religion broadcasting, the actual measure was merely designed to ensure that channels reserved for educational purposes would only be used for education. It did not put a restriction on religious broadcasting, but simply ensured that educational channels would remain such.
Despite the weight of evidence against such legends and rumors, they are perhaps the most widely circulated and quoted stories out there. The reason is simply, it provides justification. In the case of NASA and Siberia it proves that even science and scientists must bow down and acknowledge the almighty power of God. The homosexual Jesus and O'Hair provide proof of the depravity of the world and the persecution of the Christian faith respectively.
Let's consider another Urban Legend, this one during the Middle Ages. In the end this series of rumors and legends left thousands dead across Europe and America including several of my ancestors. I'm speaking of the witch trials.
Contrary to the propoganda distributed by the Church at that time, witches were anything but evil. The word witch comes from the old English word wicca, itself a concept descended from the ancient Druid Ovates, aka, healers. The Druids are perhaps the oldest organized culture and society discovered, predating the arrival of the Hebrews by thousands of years.
The word witch is quite literally translated as healer. Ancient and medieval witches were well versed in herbal and spiritual healing. Cannibalism wasn't practiced and black magic was rarely practiced prior to the appearance of Christianity. Witches were simply healers who believed in peace and harmony.
That we view witches with fear and suspicion is an example of an urban legend out of control. A legend built not on fact, but superstition. This superstition caused the death of thousands of innocent people, persecuted for having a different faith.
So the next time you get ready to hit the forward button on your email, ask yourself, “would I stake my life on this story.” If not, maybe its better off to delete it.
“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.” - Albert Einstein
Psst, hey did you hear the latest? An airline company has a policy that forbids having a Christian pilot and co-pilot on the same flight just in case the rapture comes and takes them both away, causing the plane to crash! Isn't that wild!...
...okay, so maybe this story about this airline company isn’t true, and it isn't the newest thing on the urban legend circuit, but, I have to admit it was one I laughed the hardest on while reading.
Urban legends, also known as, untrue or unverifiable stories have become so common place that the average person probably hears several over the course of a week.
Most urban legends come from a variety of sources and generally prey upon human emotion. In a real sense, an urban legend is gossip gone bad.
Take for example the slew of e-mails concerning Senator Barak Obama being a radical Muslim, sworn into office on the Quran, being endorsed for President by the Ku Klux Klan, holding a phone upside down, descriptions of Obama's connection to political events in Kenya and more. All of these rumors are wide spread and all are completely false, untrue and made-up.
Yet despite having proof that most of these rumors are false, many Americans still believe them.
There’s another legend that started back in the 1960s about the razor blades in Halloween candy.
Despite numerous warnings issued by police and state agencies there has NEVER been a reported case of such a thing happening. Then why do people believe it?
Urban legends and rumors tend to stick because they either: a) invoke a strong emotion such as loathing, compassion, horror or lust; b) we are bombarded with so much information that we tend to accept as fact information that comes from a friend and/or “authoritative” source; and c) a legend provides justification for thinking the way we do.
Let's explore these one by one, starting with emotion. Human beings being emotional creatures, a story that touches something within our soul, be it positive or negative will be viewed with a strong sense of interest.
Take for example the legend concerning a pregnant couple who named their child after the husband's father who died while saving individuals during the September 11 attacks.
While there were many heroes that day and many were wearing the garb of the New York City Fire Department, this particular story about the grandson of one Jake Matthews never happened. There is no record of such an individual having died in the tower attacks.
This story, like so many other legends, invokes strong emotions, in this one it touches upon the aspect of hero worship and finding a glimmer of light in the wake of a terrible tragedy.
The problem with stories like these, is that while they may be inspiring, they detract from the efforts of the real heroes, those unsung men and women who gave their lives in the service of their fellows.
Often we will accept a story at face value, especially if it comes from a friend or some, “authoritative” source such as the media after all, “They couldn't print it if it wasn't true.” All one has to do is pick up a tabloid at the grocery story in order to see that not everything the media prints is gold.
The best way to avoid falling into the snare of an Urban Legend is research.
Websites like www.snopes.com are wonderful resources for not only providing information on stories both true and false, but also help one learn how to spot an urban legend on their own. The main problem is with the amount of information and data the average American receives on a daily basis, few people feel that they have the time to research a particular story. It is simply easier to accept it as fact and pass it on.
This leads us to the third and perhaps most damning reason for believing an urban legend, justification for a set of mind.
Take for example some of these tales: NASA scientists discover a lost day in time; Siberian scientists drill a hole into hell; a petition drive to stop a “homosexual” Jesus film; and my favorite, Atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair is circulating yet another one of her anti-Christian petitions.
All four of these are false. In the case of NASA, there is absolutely no way to PROVE that there is a lost day in time, this assumption is based upon a poor understanding of science and wild rumor. Same with drilling a hole to hell, no such event took place and, as far as we know, the earth remains solid, not hollow.
A movie about a homosexual Jesus, while keeping in line with the quality Hollywood is putting out these days, is false. No such movie is being planned, nor has ever been planned.
And finally, that pesky O'Hair and her constant war against Christian values. While O'Hair was heavily involved in banning organized prayer from public schools and championing for a separation of church and state that is about as far as it goes.
As for RM-2493, the petition that many claimed would ban religion broadcasting, the actual measure was merely designed to ensure that channels reserved for educational purposes would only be used for education. It did not put a restriction on religious broadcasting, but simply ensured that educational channels would remain such.
Despite the weight of evidence against such legends and rumors, they are perhaps the most widely circulated and quoted stories out there. The reason is simply, it provides justification. In the case of NASA and Siberia it proves that even science and scientists must bow down and acknowledge the almighty power of God. The homosexual Jesus and O'Hair provide proof of the depravity of the world and the persecution of the Christian faith respectively.
Let's consider another Urban Legend, this one during the Middle Ages. In the end this series of rumors and legends left thousands dead across Europe and America including several of my ancestors. I'm speaking of the witch trials.
Contrary to the propoganda distributed by the Church at that time, witches were anything but evil. The word witch comes from the old English word wicca, itself a concept descended from the ancient Druid Ovates, aka, healers. The Druids are perhaps the oldest organized culture and society discovered, predating the arrival of the Hebrews by thousands of years.
The word witch is quite literally translated as healer. Ancient and medieval witches were well versed in herbal and spiritual healing. Cannibalism wasn't practiced and black magic was rarely practiced prior to the appearance of Christianity. Witches were simply healers who believed in peace and harmony.
That we view witches with fear and suspicion is an example of an urban legend out of control. A legend built not on fact, but superstition. This superstition caused the death of thousands of innocent people, persecuted for having a different faith.
So the next time you get ready to hit the forward button on your email, ask yourself, “would I stake my life on this story.” If not, maybe its better off to delete it.
“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.” - Albert Einstein
Goddesses and Warriors: A case for Matriarchy
By Tim Gibbons: Published in the High Plains View, August 1, 2008.
“If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice, or representation.” -Abigail Adams
“I declare to you that woman must not depend upon the protection of man, but must be taught to protect herself, and there I take my stand.” -Susan B. Anthony
Last week I focused on some of the evils associated with a patriarchal society. This week, I will focus on matriarchy, both the misconceptions and potential benefits.
For starters, matriarchy is women led, not dominated. The problem that seems to be evident in our view of matriarchy is that most researchers believe that unless a society was dominated by women, it could not have been a true matriarchy. This argument is based upon the fact that in a patriarchy, not only is it male led, but the men dominate the society. Ergo, it is believed that in order for a matriarchy to exist it must be female dominated.
This is not the case, for the simple reason that it is virtually impossible to have female dominated society, or at least it is impossible for such a society to exist for any length of time.
However, it is very possible to have a female led society, or a society in which the leadership of women plays a very large part. And despite claims to the contrary there have been several societies in which, the females did lead.
Many of these societies can be found among some of the Native American cultures (Cherokee, Iroquois, Pueblo), cultures outside America (Tibetans, Samoa and Tonga) and older societies (Etruscan, Ancient Egypt).
The reason this domination by the fairer sex is so rare is due to the psychological make up of the woman versus that of the male.
Recent studies have shown that differences between the brain of a man and the brain of a woman are so radically different that many scientists are contemplating the concept that the male and female brain must be viewed as two completely different organs.
“The mere fact that a structure is different in size suggests a difference in functional organization,” - Dr. Larry Cahill on the difference regional sizes of male and female brains. Dr. Cahill is part of the Centre for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory at the University of California.
“There is no unisex brain...girls arrive already wired as girls, and boys arrive already wired as boys.” - The Female Brain, written by Louann Brizendine, a neuropsychiatriast at the University of California.
On average, men's minds are more concerned with competition, both with themselves and with others. This concern is more important even than preserving or maintaining themselves. This competitive drive, coupled with a man's strength of will, is what causes him to push the envelope and has led to many of the marvels of technology that we have today.
Women, on the other hand, are more focused on preservation, both for themselves and for their children. Self-preservation in a woman is very strong, but it is not the narcissistic drive that is unfortunately common in men. This preservation is more based upon a desire to live so that a woman can continue to provide for herself, her fellow humans or her children.
Which concept is more beneficial to society? That man is strong willed is not wrong, but when that will and competitive drive is not tempered by discipline and a desire to serve, it becomes very destructive.
A man without discipline cares little for the pathways that his children must one day walk. Indeed, he cares little about anything save satisfying his thirsts and lusts for that day.
This same will, when disciplined, forces the man to focus on the future and requires that his life be lived for the betterment of himself and his fellow humans.
“For a man to conquer himself is the first and noblest of all victories.” -Plato
The problem with patriarchy, especially when dominated by religion, is that man has no reason to temper his passions and drive. He is allowed, and even encouraged, to live his life for himself. Women and children are reduced to possessions and the environment simply becomes one more thing to conquer. Patriarchy increases the likelihood of war as men vie for the possessions of other men.
Matriarchy, by its very nature, forces man to temper his will. Notice I did not say submit or reject his status as a man. Men are proud creatures and to ask us to deny our will is akin to slavery, the result can be seen through history, men who are denied their will as men become either broken, dispirited or tyrants.
“A table, a chair, a bowl of fruit and a violin; what else does a man need to be happy?” -Albert Einstien
The question then arises, how can man's will be tempered without being broken? The answer, man needs to believe and devote himself to a higher cause. This cause cannot be some unseen god, because then the 'higher calling' is little more than man's justification for his action.
The cause that compels a man to be better than what he is, that is where the tempering of will and the emergence of nobility comes from.
Our Founding Fathers discovered such a cause in their pursuit of liberty. A father finds that cause in the love for his children, not a love that displays the child as a trophy, but the love that says there is no price that I would not pay to help my child, be it sacrifices in my career, my time or even my life.
It is easy for a father to say he would die for his children, but how many can turn off the television and just play with them?
This brings us now to the relationship of men and women in matriarchy. Perhaps the best example I can give for this is ballroom dance. While the first inclination is to say that ballroom dance is patriarchal in nature because the man leads, this statement shows a lack of understanding of dance.
In dance, man leads and woman follows. This is not due to the inferiority of the woman, quite the opposite. Because, while the man leads, his sole purpose is to frame the beauty of the woman he dances with. Thus, he takes his will, his competitive drive and tempers it so that it serves the woman in his arms.
If the man is doing his job correctly in dance, no one will notice him, but rather they will be astounded by the beauty of the woman.
For her part, the woman accepts the leadership of the man, not as a subordinate, but as a partner, allowing man his will and at the same time allowing herself to bring forth her inner beauty. That she can do so is because the man has created an environment in dance, in which the woman feels absolute safety. She can be whatever she wills, unafraid of what others think. Man serves the woman, woman honors the man.
“Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction.” -Albert Einstein
This is the beauty of matriarchy in that while it is woman led, there is an equality among the sexes. Man becomes a warrior, protecting and providing for the family. Woman becomes the head, nurturing and raising her family. There is little care given to who is, 'in charge', the focus will naturally shift to the raising of the next generation.
Maybe this concept is nothing more than the pipe dream of simple fool. But, on the other hand, it's just crazy enough to work.
“If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice, or representation.” -Abigail Adams
“I declare to you that woman must not depend upon the protection of man, but must be taught to protect herself, and there I take my stand.” -Susan B. Anthony
Last week I focused on some of the evils associated with a patriarchal society. This week, I will focus on matriarchy, both the misconceptions and potential benefits.
For starters, matriarchy is women led, not dominated. The problem that seems to be evident in our view of matriarchy is that most researchers believe that unless a society was dominated by women, it could not have been a true matriarchy. This argument is based upon the fact that in a patriarchy, not only is it male led, but the men dominate the society. Ergo, it is believed that in order for a matriarchy to exist it must be female dominated.
This is not the case, for the simple reason that it is virtually impossible to have female dominated society, or at least it is impossible for such a society to exist for any length of time.
However, it is very possible to have a female led society, or a society in which the leadership of women plays a very large part. And despite claims to the contrary there have been several societies in which, the females did lead.
Many of these societies can be found among some of the Native American cultures (Cherokee, Iroquois, Pueblo), cultures outside America (Tibetans, Samoa and Tonga) and older societies (Etruscan, Ancient Egypt).
The reason this domination by the fairer sex is so rare is due to the psychological make up of the woman versus that of the male.
Recent studies have shown that differences between the brain of a man and the brain of a woman are so radically different that many scientists are contemplating the concept that the male and female brain must be viewed as two completely different organs.
“The mere fact that a structure is different in size suggests a difference in functional organization,” - Dr. Larry Cahill on the difference regional sizes of male and female brains. Dr. Cahill is part of the Centre for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory at the University of California.
“There is no unisex brain...girls arrive already wired as girls, and boys arrive already wired as boys.” - The Female Brain, written by Louann Brizendine, a neuropsychiatriast at the University of California.
On average, men's minds are more concerned with competition, both with themselves and with others. This concern is more important even than preserving or maintaining themselves. This competitive drive, coupled with a man's strength of will, is what causes him to push the envelope and has led to many of the marvels of technology that we have today.
Women, on the other hand, are more focused on preservation, both for themselves and for their children. Self-preservation in a woman is very strong, but it is not the narcissistic drive that is unfortunately common in men. This preservation is more based upon a desire to live so that a woman can continue to provide for herself, her fellow humans or her children.
Which concept is more beneficial to society? That man is strong willed is not wrong, but when that will and competitive drive is not tempered by discipline and a desire to serve, it becomes very destructive.
A man without discipline cares little for the pathways that his children must one day walk. Indeed, he cares little about anything save satisfying his thirsts and lusts for that day.
This same will, when disciplined, forces the man to focus on the future and requires that his life be lived for the betterment of himself and his fellow humans.
“For a man to conquer himself is the first and noblest of all victories.” -Plato
The problem with patriarchy, especially when dominated by religion, is that man has no reason to temper his passions and drive. He is allowed, and even encouraged, to live his life for himself. Women and children are reduced to possessions and the environment simply becomes one more thing to conquer. Patriarchy increases the likelihood of war as men vie for the possessions of other men.
Matriarchy, by its very nature, forces man to temper his will. Notice I did not say submit or reject his status as a man. Men are proud creatures and to ask us to deny our will is akin to slavery, the result can be seen through history, men who are denied their will as men become either broken, dispirited or tyrants.
“A table, a chair, a bowl of fruit and a violin; what else does a man need to be happy?” -Albert Einstien
The question then arises, how can man's will be tempered without being broken? The answer, man needs to believe and devote himself to a higher cause. This cause cannot be some unseen god, because then the 'higher calling' is little more than man's justification for his action.
The cause that compels a man to be better than what he is, that is where the tempering of will and the emergence of nobility comes from.
Our Founding Fathers discovered such a cause in their pursuit of liberty. A father finds that cause in the love for his children, not a love that displays the child as a trophy, but the love that says there is no price that I would not pay to help my child, be it sacrifices in my career, my time or even my life.
It is easy for a father to say he would die for his children, but how many can turn off the television and just play with them?
This brings us now to the relationship of men and women in matriarchy. Perhaps the best example I can give for this is ballroom dance. While the first inclination is to say that ballroom dance is patriarchal in nature because the man leads, this statement shows a lack of understanding of dance.
In dance, man leads and woman follows. This is not due to the inferiority of the woman, quite the opposite. Because, while the man leads, his sole purpose is to frame the beauty of the woman he dances with. Thus, he takes his will, his competitive drive and tempers it so that it serves the woman in his arms.
If the man is doing his job correctly in dance, no one will notice him, but rather they will be astounded by the beauty of the woman.
For her part, the woman accepts the leadership of the man, not as a subordinate, but as a partner, allowing man his will and at the same time allowing herself to bring forth her inner beauty. That she can do so is because the man has created an environment in dance, in which the woman feels absolute safety. She can be whatever she wills, unafraid of what others think. Man serves the woman, woman honors the man.
“Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction.” -Albert Einstein
This is the beauty of matriarchy in that while it is woman led, there is an equality among the sexes. Man becomes a warrior, protecting and providing for the family. Woman becomes the head, nurturing and raising her family. There is little care given to who is, 'in charge', the focus will naturally shift to the raising of the next generation.
Maybe this concept is nothing more than the pipe dream of simple fool. But, on the other hand, it's just crazy enough to work.
An unnatural obsession: A case against Patriarchy
By Tim Gibbons: Published in the High Plains View July 25, 2008.
“Woman ought to serve her husband as unto God, affirming that in no thing hath woman equal power with man...affirming that woman ought to be repressed.” -Saint Augustine
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” (Holy Bible, Book of First Timothy 2:11-13)
“Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could.” - Abigail Adams
Patriarchy, or father (male) ruled society has been the social norm in our modern world and the last several thousand years of history. It has brought forth marvels of engineering, science and technology.
But, on the dark side of the equation, it has brought forth violence, war, slavery and oppression.
Consider these statistics:
Research suggests that an act of domestic violence occurs every 15 minutes and claims a woman's life every 21 days.
The FBI reports that domestic violence is the leading cause of injury among women ages 15 to 44.
Studies show that 85% of all domestic violence victims are female compared to only 15% of men. 22% of surveyed women report physical violence by an intimate partner compared with 7.4% of men.
Some have argued that such statistics are not accurate because men are afraid to speak out against their abusive wives...we men may be strong, silent types, but we are not that quiet.
"We think it is important to note that there have been the same kind of studies done in many countries. There is cross-cultural verification that women are more violent than men in family settings. When behavior has cross-cultural verification it means that it is part of human nature rather than a result of cultural conditioning. Females are most often the perpetrators in spousal violence in most cultures that have been studied to date. That leads many professionals to conclude that there is something biological about violent females in family situations. Researchers are now exploring the role of the 'territorial imperative' as a factor in women's violence against men. Women see the home as their territory. Like many other species on the planet, we humans will ignore size difference when we experience conflict on our own territory. So, the scientific results that reveal the violence of American women are not unique to our culture, and do not indicate a special pathology among American women. World wide, women are more violent than men in family settings." - Revs. Sam Sewell of Family Resources & Research.
Women face a greater danger of rape with 17.6% of women reporting that they were the victims of completed or attempted rape with only 3% of men reporting the same.
“If you should take your wife in adultery, you may with impunity put her to death without a trail – but if you should commit adultery or indecency, she must not presume to lay a finger on you, nor does the law allow it.” Cato the Censor.
Much of this research has come to light in recent times as earlier women had few, if any, rights to due process and equality under law. Traditionally the husband was judge, jury and executioner and could do with his family what suited him without fear of reprisal.
More damning than the patriarchy itself is the inclusion of male dominated religions, especially the monotheistic beliefs, most of which were created only within the last two thousand years. Despite the wide variation and interpretations of a single male god, all these beliefs agree on one thing, man is superior, woman inferior.
Within the guidelines of religion, man is “ordained by God” as priest and ruler of his home and is often viewed to have direct link to God.
“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” (Holy Bible, Book of Ephesians 5:22-24)
“Men are the maintainers of women, with what Allah has made some of them to excel others and with what they spend out of their wealth. So the good women are obedient, guarding the unseen [husband's rights] as Allah has guarded.” (The Holy Quran, Chapter 4, Part 5, Verse 34a).
The problem with this “god ordained authority” is that there is no check and balance in place to govern the man. While many men claim they are following, “the will of God”, in actually they are merely following their own interpretations of what THEY believe God would have them do.
Psychologically, men are far more aggressive and competitive than women. While a woman's main psychological drive is based upon preservation and nurturing, especially if she is a mother, men value competition even over self-preservation.
While such a competitive nature is not wrong, unless it is disciplined and tempered it will be destructive. Such is the case with the patriarchy, man is supreme and needs to recognize no authority other than himself or the guy who proves to be tougher.
This has also lead to an unhealthy obsession with self in most men, more commonly known as narcissism. Narcissism is the scientific term for a psychological condition in which there exists an excessive self-love.
Is it any wonder that so many religious men turn to sexuality outside of the home, including pornography, man's love of self turns into a lust which can only be satisfied in fantasy.
Narcissism breeds narcissism until we have, as is evident in most religious communities, not only individuals obsessed with themselves, but whole societies based upon obsessive self love.
In his book, “The Culture of Narcissism”, Christopher Lasch, a historian and social critic, described 'social narcissism' as one in which every activity and relationship is defined by the hedonistic need to acquire the symbols of spiritual wealth, this becoming the only expression of rigid, yet, covert, social hierarchies.
Woe be it to the woman or child who makes their husband or father appear less than spiritual. Patriarchy has indeed advanced man's technology, but the question that must be asked is; at what cost?
“Woman ought to serve her husband as unto God, affirming that in no thing hath woman equal power with man...affirming that woman ought to be repressed.” -Saint Augustine
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” (Holy Bible, Book of First Timothy 2:11-13)
“Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could.” - Abigail Adams
Patriarchy, or father (male) ruled society has been the social norm in our modern world and the last several thousand years of history. It has brought forth marvels of engineering, science and technology.
But, on the dark side of the equation, it has brought forth violence, war, slavery and oppression.
Consider these statistics:
Research suggests that an act of domestic violence occurs every 15 minutes and claims a woman's life every 21 days.
The FBI reports that domestic violence is the leading cause of injury among women ages 15 to 44.
Studies show that 85% of all domestic violence victims are female compared to only 15% of men. 22% of surveyed women report physical violence by an intimate partner compared with 7.4% of men.
Some have argued that such statistics are not accurate because men are afraid to speak out against their abusive wives...we men may be strong, silent types, but we are not that quiet.
"We think it is important to note that there have been the same kind of studies done in many countries. There is cross-cultural verification that women are more violent than men in family settings. When behavior has cross-cultural verification it means that it is part of human nature rather than a result of cultural conditioning. Females are most often the perpetrators in spousal violence in most cultures that have been studied to date. That leads many professionals to conclude that there is something biological about violent females in family situations. Researchers are now exploring the role of the 'territorial imperative' as a factor in women's violence against men. Women see the home as their territory. Like many other species on the planet, we humans will ignore size difference when we experience conflict on our own territory. So, the scientific results that reveal the violence of American women are not unique to our culture, and do not indicate a special pathology among American women. World wide, women are more violent than men in family settings." - Revs. Sam Sewell of Family Resources & Research.
Women face a greater danger of rape with 17.6% of women reporting that they were the victims of completed or attempted rape with only 3% of men reporting the same.
“If you should take your wife in adultery, you may with impunity put her to death without a trail – but if you should commit adultery or indecency, she must not presume to lay a finger on you, nor does the law allow it.” Cato the Censor.
Much of this research has come to light in recent times as earlier women had few, if any, rights to due process and equality under law. Traditionally the husband was judge, jury and executioner and could do with his family what suited him without fear of reprisal.
More damning than the patriarchy itself is the inclusion of male dominated religions, especially the monotheistic beliefs, most of which were created only within the last two thousand years. Despite the wide variation and interpretations of a single male god, all these beliefs agree on one thing, man is superior, woman inferior.
Within the guidelines of religion, man is “ordained by God” as priest and ruler of his home and is often viewed to have direct link to God.
“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” (Holy Bible, Book of Ephesians 5:22-24)
“Men are the maintainers of women, with what Allah has made some of them to excel others and with what they spend out of their wealth. So the good women are obedient, guarding the unseen [husband's rights] as Allah has guarded.” (The Holy Quran, Chapter 4, Part 5, Verse 34a).
The problem with this “god ordained authority” is that there is no check and balance in place to govern the man. While many men claim they are following, “the will of God”, in actually they are merely following their own interpretations of what THEY believe God would have them do.
Psychologically, men are far more aggressive and competitive than women. While a woman's main psychological drive is based upon preservation and nurturing, especially if she is a mother, men value competition even over self-preservation.
While such a competitive nature is not wrong, unless it is disciplined and tempered it will be destructive. Such is the case with the patriarchy, man is supreme and needs to recognize no authority other than himself or the guy who proves to be tougher.
This has also lead to an unhealthy obsession with self in most men, more commonly known as narcissism. Narcissism is the scientific term for a psychological condition in which there exists an excessive self-love.
Is it any wonder that so many religious men turn to sexuality outside of the home, including pornography, man's love of self turns into a lust which can only be satisfied in fantasy.
Narcissism breeds narcissism until we have, as is evident in most religious communities, not only individuals obsessed with themselves, but whole societies based upon obsessive self love.
In his book, “The Culture of Narcissism”, Christopher Lasch, a historian and social critic, described 'social narcissism' as one in which every activity and relationship is defined by the hedonistic need to acquire the symbols of spiritual wealth, this becoming the only expression of rigid, yet, covert, social hierarchies.
Woe be it to the woman or child who makes their husband or father appear less than spiritual. Patriarchy has indeed advanced man's technology, but the question that must be asked is; at what cost?
The Shotgun that stopped a Railroad
By Tim Gibbons: Published in the High Plains View July 18, 2008.
The time: 1879. The place: Raton Pass along the Colorado - New Mexico border. To railway giants lay poised to take possession of the pass in order to gain the trade routes of New Mexico and the Southwest. The Denver & Rio Grande (D&RG) with its founder General William Palmer at the helm, had managed to beat their competitors, the Santa Fe Railway to the mouth of the pass. All that remained was to gain the approval of the current owner of the land, Dick Wootton, an old mountain man who ran a toll road over Raton Pass with the blessing of the Colorado and New Mexico territorial governments.
In an effort to gain the right of way, each railroad dispatched an agent to meet with Wootton. While the D&RG agent stopped in town to secure lodging, confident of success, the Santa Fe man rushed out to Wootton's house and, after a long time of negotiation, secured the right of way over the pass for the Santa Fe Railroad.
Angered at this turn of events, the D&RG workers armed themselves and prepared to duke it out with the Santa Fe workers, who had also armed themselves.
In the end, despite his lead, Palmer conceded defeat and pulled out of the project. One armed property owner managed to halt one of the fast growing rail lines in Colorado.
Fast forward 129 years and we suddenly find ourselves present day with the looming threat of toll roads and railways threatening to steal our land and livelihood.
Eminent domain is running rampant and unchecked. And cries of outrage are answered with, “It's all for the greater good.”
“If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute.” -Thomas Paine
But more than the greed of the government, it is the apathy, fear and ignorance of the people that is proving our greatest foe. Men and women come before elected officials crying and complaining about how greatly they will be inconvenienced, hoping to appeal to the humanity of the government.
All this is done while ignoring the fact that government is always a monstrous beast with an insatiable appetite. And unless it is kept in fear of the people it governs, it will soon resort to tyranny.
Is it any wonder then, that with so few Americans participating in government and so many rich lobbyists leaning on the arms of our senators and representatives that the needs of the people has become less important in recent years?
Tearful pleas will no more undo the wrongs that have been done than blind hope that the government will repent of its ways and restore our rights.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” - Declaration of Independence
Let us cease our tears and bitter cries and instead take up the law and wisdom as our sword and shield. Dick Wootton struck a deal with the Santa Fe that would provide him with $50 a month and groceries and free train tickets for his wife for the rest of her life.
What is to stop the armed farmers and ranchers of our Southern Colorado from demanding that not only must the government provide just compensation, but that the government, in return for taking our lands must pay additional monthly tolls for the loss of our ability to provide for our pursuit of happiness.
Tears have no effect, but our United States Constitution and our Declaration of Independence declare that all men have the right to pursue happiness and that this inalienable right can never be taken from us.
Colorado Constitution, Article II,
Section 1
“Vestment of political power. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.”
Section 2
“People may alter or abolish form of government ¬ proviso. The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.”
Section 3
“Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.”
The right to happiness rests solely in the hands of the citizens of Colorado. We have the right to demand of the government that they not impede upon this right. And if the “greater good” requires the sacrifice of the people, then the government is commanded to make just compensation.
Constitution of the United States of America, 5th Amendment, ratified 12-15-1791
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Colorado Constitution, Article II, Section 15
“Taking property for public use ¬ compensation, how ascertained. Private property shall not be taken or damaged, for public or private use, without just compensation. Such compensation shall be ascertained by a board of commissioners, of not less than three freeholders, or by a jury, when required by the owner of the property, in such manner as may be prescribed by law, and until the same shall be paid to the owner, or into court for the owner, the property shall not be needlessly disturbed, or the proprietary rights of the owner therein divested; and whenever an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be really public shall be a judicial question, and determined as such without regard to any legislative assertion that the use is public.”
Those who do not defend their freedoms shall loose them. We country folk have always defended our right to property, even our right to live with the gun. It has been our way and our heritage. And it makes sense, the only power a tyrant respects, is the power that can dethrone him. What better way to dethrone the tyrants than a group of armed civilians united in a common cause to protect their freedom and their rights.
It is time to put the fear of god into our politicians and government, “When the government fears the people there is liberty, when the people fear the government there is tyranny.” -Thomas Jefferson.
The time to unite is now! Let us lay aside petty differences and come together in defense of our right to choose our own lives, to pursue our happiness.
Does it matter what god we serve or which president we vote for? We are all Americans, whether by birth or proclamation. But how can we call ourselves free when we are unwilling to fight for it? How can the course of our nation be changed if good men cower in fear?
Our government no longer fears the people and for good reason, we have proven time and again our cowardice and our unwillingness to unite. Greater than the cry of freedom, it is prejudice and the hatred of our fellow man that keeps our nation in bondage.
There is no god in America save Liberty and there is no king save the Law. Our founding father's came from a variety of different religious backgrounds. But instead of engaging in petty arguments, they allowed each other the right to serve God as they pleased and instead united themselves in a common goal, that of freedom.
Any petty tyrant can sit upon his garbage heap or sweat stained pew and proclaim himself king. Where are the men who would lay aside such tarnished crowns and instead take up the standard that proclaims all men free?
To Arms! To Arms! Let all able bodied men rally to Freedom's cry!
The time: 1879. The place: Raton Pass along the Colorado - New Mexico border. To railway giants lay poised to take possession of the pass in order to gain the trade routes of New Mexico and the Southwest. The Denver & Rio Grande (D&RG) with its founder General William Palmer at the helm, had managed to beat their competitors, the Santa Fe Railway to the mouth of the pass. All that remained was to gain the approval of the current owner of the land, Dick Wootton, an old mountain man who ran a toll road over Raton Pass with the blessing of the Colorado and New Mexico territorial governments.
In an effort to gain the right of way, each railroad dispatched an agent to meet with Wootton. While the D&RG agent stopped in town to secure lodging, confident of success, the Santa Fe man rushed out to Wootton's house and, after a long time of negotiation, secured the right of way over the pass for the Santa Fe Railroad.
Angered at this turn of events, the D&RG workers armed themselves and prepared to duke it out with the Santa Fe workers, who had also armed themselves.
In the end, despite his lead, Palmer conceded defeat and pulled out of the project. One armed property owner managed to halt one of the fast growing rail lines in Colorado.
Fast forward 129 years and we suddenly find ourselves present day with the looming threat of toll roads and railways threatening to steal our land and livelihood.
Eminent domain is running rampant and unchecked. And cries of outrage are answered with, “It's all for the greater good.”
“If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute.” -Thomas Paine
But more than the greed of the government, it is the apathy, fear and ignorance of the people that is proving our greatest foe. Men and women come before elected officials crying and complaining about how greatly they will be inconvenienced, hoping to appeal to the humanity of the government.
All this is done while ignoring the fact that government is always a monstrous beast with an insatiable appetite. And unless it is kept in fear of the people it governs, it will soon resort to tyranny.
Is it any wonder then, that with so few Americans participating in government and so many rich lobbyists leaning on the arms of our senators and representatives that the needs of the people has become less important in recent years?
Tearful pleas will no more undo the wrongs that have been done than blind hope that the government will repent of its ways and restore our rights.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” - Declaration of Independence
Let us cease our tears and bitter cries and instead take up the law and wisdom as our sword and shield. Dick Wootton struck a deal with the Santa Fe that would provide him with $50 a month and groceries and free train tickets for his wife for the rest of her life.
What is to stop the armed farmers and ranchers of our Southern Colorado from demanding that not only must the government provide just compensation, but that the government, in return for taking our lands must pay additional monthly tolls for the loss of our ability to provide for our pursuit of happiness.
Tears have no effect, but our United States Constitution and our Declaration of Independence declare that all men have the right to pursue happiness and that this inalienable right can never be taken from us.
Colorado Constitution, Article II,
Section 1
“Vestment of political power. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.”
Section 2
“People may alter or abolish form of government ¬ proviso. The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.”
Section 3
“Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.”
The right to happiness rests solely in the hands of the citizens of Colorado. We have the right to demand of the government that they not impede upon this right. And if the “greater good” requires the sacrifice of the people, then the government is commanded to make just compensation.
Constitution of the United States of America, 5th Amendment, ratified 12-15-1791
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Colorado Constitution, Article II, Section 15
“Taking property for public use ¬ compensation, how ascertained. Private property shall not be taken or damaged, for public or private use, without just compensation. Such compensation shall be ascertained by a board of commissioners, of not less than three freeholders, or by a jury, when required by the owner of the property, in such manner as may be prescribed by law, and until the same shall be paid to the owner, or into court for the owner, the property shall not be needlessly disturbed, or the proprietary rights of the owner therein divested; and whenever an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be really public shall be a judicial question, and determined as such without regard to any legislative assertion that the use is public.”
Those who do not defend their freedoms shall loose them. We country folk have always defended our right to property, even our right to live with the gun. It has been our way and our heritage. And it makes sense, the only power a tyrant respects, is the power that can dethrone him. What better way to dethrone the tyrants than a group of armed civilians united in a common cause to protect their freedom and their rights.
It is time to put the fear of god into our politicians and government, “When the government fears the people there is liberty, when the people fear the government there is tyranny.” -Thomas Jefferson.
The time to unite is now! Let us lay aside petty differences and come together in defense of our right to choose our own lives, to pursue our happiness.
Does it matter what god we serve or which president we vote for? We are all Americans, whether by birth or proclamation. But how can we call ourselves free when we are unwilling to fight for it? How can the course of our nation be changed if good men cower in fear?
Our government no longer fears the people and for good reason, we have proven time and again our cowardice and our unwillingness to unite. Greater than the cry of freedom, it is prejudice and the hatred of our fellow man that keeps our nation in bondage.
There is no god in America save Liberty and there is no king save the Law. Our founding father's came from a variety of different religious backgrounds. But instead of engaging in petty arguments, they allowed each other the right to serve God as they pleased and instead united themselves in a common goal, that of freedom.
Any petty tyrant can sit upon his garbage heap or sweat stained pew and proclaim himself king. Where are the men who would lay aside such tarnished crowns and instead take up the standard that proclaims all men free?
To Arms! To Arms! Let all able bodied men rally to Freedom's cry!
Hang Together or Hang Seperately
By Tim Gibbons: Published in the High Plains View, July 4, 2008.
What was the purpose of our American Revolution? For what did our Founding Father risk life and property to gain? Monetary value causes men to do many things, but rarely to fight so long and nobly. Religious zeal is good for genocides and suicide bombers, but little else. So what was the Revolution’s purpose?
“But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.” - John Adams
“Freedom had been hunted round the globe; reason was considered as rebellion; and the slavery of fear had made men afraid to think. But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing.” –Thomas Paine
Our Founding Father’s were not motivated by religious zeal, though many were devout men. Nor were they compelled to war for monetary gain. But rather, believed so firmly in the right of man to choose his own destiny that no price, be it their life or all they owned, was too high.
“They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” –Benjamin Franklin
Not only did the founders of our nation come from a variety of different backgrounds, including, clergymen, lawyers, doctors, merchants and educators, they came from a diverse religious background as well.
Many of the founding fathers were Freemasons and/or Episcopalian/Anglican. Other faiths included, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Deists, Quaker, Dutch Reformed, German Reformed, Lutheran, Catholic, Protestant, Huguenot, Unitarian, Methodist and Calvinist.
Yet, despite these differences in faith and opinion, they united in pursuit of a common goal: Liberty.
“Such were the men unto whose keeping, as instruments of Providence, the destinies of America were for the time intrusted; and it has been well remarked, that men, other than such as these,--an ignorant, untaught mass, like those who have formed the physical elements of other revolutionary movements, without sufficient intellect to guide and control them--could not have conceived, planned, and carried into execution, such a mighty movement, one so fraught with tangible marks of political wisdom, as the American Revolution...” - B. J. Lossing, Signers of the Declaration of Independence
This Liberty was not blind freedom, allowing a man to do whatever he pleased, but rather placed the responsibly of government into the hand’s of the people. The average citizen was now required to see to the provisions of his nation, and while he did elect individuals to represent him in government, those elected were answerable to the Constitution and the people it protected.
The separation of church and state was not meant to keep religion under thumb, but rather, to give every individual the right to choose their own path.
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself.” – Thomas Paine
In the end, the Liberty of man was deemed more important than the promotion of a particular sect of faith. Unity was desired above the interpretations of God.
As Benjamin Franklin once said during the Revolutionary War, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
Only through unity of the people can America remain free and independent. And this unity must come at the cost of supremacy. No Union can survive unless all men stand equal in the eyes of the Creator and in the eyes of each other.
What was the purpose of our American Revolution? For what did our Founding Father risk life and property to gain? Monetary value causes men to do many things, but rarely to fight so long and nobly. Religious zeal is good for genocides and suicide bombers, but little else. So what was the Revolution’s purpose?
“But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.” - John Adams
“Freedom had been hunted round the globe; reason was considered as rebellion; and the slavery of fear had made men afraid to think. But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing.” –Thomas Paine
Our Founding Father’s were not motivated by religious zeal, though many were devout men. Nor were they compelled to war for monetary gain. But rather, believed so firmly in the right of man to choose his own destiny that no price, be it their life or all they owned, was too high.
“They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” –Benjamin Franklin
Not only did the founders of our nation come from a variety of different backgrounds, including, clergymen, lawyers, doctors, merchants and educators, they came from a diverse religious background as well.
Many of the founding fathers were Freemasons and/or Episcopalian/Anglican. Other faiths included, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Deists, Quaker, Dutch Reformed, German Reformed, Lutheran, Catholic, Protestant, Huguenot, Unitarian, Methodist and Calvinist.
Yet, despite these differences in faith and opinion, they united in pursuit of a common goal: Liberty.
“Such were the men unto whose keeping, as instruments of Providence, the destinies of America were for the time intrusted; and it has been well remarked, that men, other than such as these,--an ignorant, untaught mass, like those who have formed the physical elements of other revolutionary movements, without sufficient intellect to guide and control them--could not have conceived, planned, and carried into execution, such a mighty movement, one so fraught with tangible marks of political wisdom, as the American Revolution...” - B. J. Lossing, Signers of the Declaration of Independence
This Liberty was not blind freedom, allowing a man to do whatever he pleased, but rather placed the responsibly of government into the hand’s of the people. The average citizen was now required to see to the provisions of his nation, and while he did elect individuals to represent him in government, those elected were answerable to the Constitution and the people it protected.
The separation of church and state was not meant to keep religion under thumb, but rather, to give every individual the right to choose their own path.
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself.” – Thomas Paine
In the end, the Liberty of man was deemed more important than the promotion of a particular sect of faith. Unity was desired above the interpretations of God.
As Benjamin Franklin once said during the Revolutionary War, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
Only through unity of the people can America remain free and independent. And this unity must come at the cost of supremacy. No Union can survive unless all men stand equal in the eyes of the Creator and in the eyes of each other.
Supreme Court Rules on Hand Gun Decision
Editor's Note: This was an article that I wrote seperate of my 'Range Writer' column and was published in the July 4, 2008, issue of the High Plains View. I have included it because of it's historical significance and because I firmly support the right of the American people to keep and bear arms; both as our heritage and insurance that our rights shall not be taken from us.
By Tim Gibbons
In a landmark decision on June 26, 2008, during the last day of its current term, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 (in District of Columbia v. Heller), that the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns, the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, was unconstitutional.
“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia. “We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”
In response to the decision to overturn the Washington D.C. gun ban, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has filed suit against Chicago, San Francisco and their suburbs to overturn similar laws.
"I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.
Presidential candidates, John McCain and Barak Obama were quick to release statements on the issue:
“Today’s ruling makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the Constitutional Rights of Americans,” McCain said. “Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right – sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.”
Obama stated that, “Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.”
He added that, “if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.”
Dick Heller, one of the six District of Columbia residents to file suit against the gun ban stated, “It’s going to relieve a lot of people’s worries and doubts. I’ve always supported the right to bear arms and as long as people do that in a responsible way, there’s nothing wrong with them.”
The decision doesn’t overturn laws that prevent the sale of guns to felons or mentally ill individuals. Nor does it do away with bans on concealed weapons, machine guns or the requirement to register guns.
In the 157 page report written by the Supreme Court majority on the decision, it was stated that:
"In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense”
The opinion also stated: “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed-weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the [Second] Amendment or state analogues. The court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
It was noted in the opinion by Justice Scalia that the Second Amendment, like the First Amendment, is not an unlimited right. But it does give the citizens of America the right to bear arms in recreational pursuits or self defense.
By Tim Gibbons
In a landmark decision on June 26, 2008, during the last day of its current term, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 (in District of Columbia v. Heller), that the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns, the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, was unconstitutional.
“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia. “We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”
In response to the decision to overturn the Washington D.C. gun ban, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has filed suit against Chicago, San Francisco and their suburbs to overturn similar laws.
"I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.
Presidential candidates, John McCain and Barak Obama were quick to release statements on the issue:
“Today’s ruling makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the Constitutional Rights of Americans,” McCain said. “Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right – sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.”
Obama stated that, “Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.”
He added that, “if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.”
Dick Heller, one of the six District of Columbia residents to file suit against the gun ban stated, “It’s going to relieve a lot of people’s worries and doubts. I’ve always supported the right to bear arms and as long as people do that in a responsible way, there’s nothing wrong with them.”
The decision doesn’t overturn laws that prevent the sale of guns to felons or mentally ill individuals. Nor does it do away with bans on concealed weapons, machine guns or the requirement to register guns.
In the 157 page report written by the Supreme Court majority on the decision, it was stated that:
"In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense”
The opinion also stated: “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed-weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the [Second] Amendment or state analogues. The court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
It was noted in the opinion by Justice Scalia that the Second Amendment, like the First Amendment, is not an unlimited right. But it does give the citizens of America the right to bear arms in recreational pursuits or self defense.
The King of America
By Tim Gibbons: Published in High Plains View on June 27, 2008.
“One nation under God, but where says some is the King of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain...let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING.” - Thomas Paine
Laws created by men can be divided into two categories: Laws of the Sovereigns and Laws of the People. These prior laws, which are the most common are designed solely to protect the interests of the ruling class. No thought is given to justice, save where it assists the monarch in maintaining control.
These laws also encompass religious law, or the laws of God or the laws of the gods. Such laws do not protect a people, nor provide for their well being, but rather, conform the people to the ruling class's interpretation of divine will.
Think for a moment, despite the terror of the September 11 attacks, did America capitulate to Allah's will? Far from it, instead we strapped sword to belt and went to war. On the flip side, did Islam bow to the will of the Christian Crusaders in Medieval times?
Christian law exists for the Christian and Muslim law for the Muslim. The two laws are separate and have no power over the other despite their claims to the contrary. And every attempt by one or the other to enslave a people to their law ends in bloodshed. Ask yourself this, if no-one served God's law, would it have any power?
And if the law is only for tyrants and dictators, then why did Thomas Paine consider the Law to be the true King of America? Because, he wasn't talking about Laws of the Sovereigns, but the Law of the People.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” -Preamble of the Constitution of the United States.
Our American Constitution is perhaps one of the greatest documents written by man. It gives no credence to gods or faith, but commands the perfection of the American Union through Justice, Peace, Defense and the general welfare of the people through the blessings of Liberty and dedication to the future generations and the course of our great land. The Law of America is the Law of the People.
This law is not without effort, for while the Tyrant's law must be managed by the Tyrant, the People's law must be managed by the people. It is our duty, our pledge as guardians of this law to uphold and protect it so that future generations can take up the burden when they come of age.
As Thomas Jefferson once said, “Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves.”
Furthermore, the Law of the People can never be forced on another, nor can it even be given as a gift. For by its very nature it requires the effort, devotion and sacrifice of those who desire it.
“He that would make is own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” -Thomas Paine
The Law of the People serves one goal, to unite mankind in harmony and equality. Their goal is not service to gods but to the idea that all men have the right to choose their own destiny.
Religious faith is good, but only if it compels a man to become more than what he is, to drive him to the edge and upon reaching it he builds a bridge. Faith that is stagnant is more damning than any sin.
Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens...There has never been a moment of my life in which I should have relinquished for it the enjoyments of my family, my farm, my friends and books.”
Unity must be our goal, liberty our faith and Law our god. Let righteousness be the pursuit of virtue and not the demands of faith.
“One nation under God, but where says some is the King of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain...let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING.” - Thomas Paine
Laws created by men can be divided into two categories: Laws of the Sovereigns and Laws of the People. These prior laws, which are the most common are designed solely to protect the interests of the ruling class. No thought is given to justice, save where it assists the monarch in maintaining control.
These laws also encompass religious law, or the laws of God or the laws of the gods. Such laws do not protect a people, nor provide for their well being, but rather, conform the people to the ruling class's interpretation of divine will.
Think for a moment, despite the terror of the September 11 attacks, did America capitulate to Allah's will? Far from it, instead we strapped sword to belt and went to war. On the flip side, did Islam bow to the will of the Christian Crusaders in Medieval times?
Christian law exists for the Christian and Muslim law for the Muslim. The two laws are separate and have no power over the other despite their claims to the contrary. And every attempt by one or the other to enslave a people to their law ends in bloodshed. Ask yourself this, if no-one served God's law, would it have any power?
And if the law is only for tyrants and dictators, then why did Thomas Paine consider the Law to be the true King of America? Because, he wasn't talking about Laws of the Sovereigns, but the Law of the People.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” -Preamble of the Constitution of the United States.
Our American Constitution is perhaps one of the greatest documents written by man. It gives no credence to gods or faith, but commands the perfection of the American Union through Justice, Peace, Defense and the general welfare of the people through the blessings of Liberty and dedication to the future generations and the course of our great land. The Law of America is the Law of the People.
This law is not without effort, for while the Tyrant's law must be managed by the Tyrant, the People's law must be managed by the people. It is our duty, our pledge as guardians of this law to uphold and protect it so that future generations can take up the burden when they come of age.
As Thomas Jefferson once said, “Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves.”
Furthermore, the Law of the People can never be forced on another, nor can it even be given as a gift. For by its very nature it requires the effort, devotion and sacrifice of those who desire it.
“He that would make is own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” -Thomas Paine
The Law of the People serves one goal, to unite mankind in harmony and equality. Their goal is not service to gods but to the idea that all men have the right to choose their own destiny.
Religious faith is good, but only if it compels a man to become more than what he is, to drive him to the edge and upon reaching it he builds a bridge. Faith that is stagnant is more damning than any sin.
Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens...There has never been a moment of my life in which I should have relinquished for it the enjoyments of my family, my farm, my friends and books.”
Unity must be our goal, liberty our faith and Law our god. Let righteousness be the pursuit of virtue and not the demands of faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
