Today may be a day of rest for you, or it may be just another day at the office. For me, Sunday is a day to relax with family. Today, we are enjoying a "barbecue" after spending the earlier portion of the day attending a worship service, followed by a traumatic trip to the grocery store, then a relaxing day at home prior to traveling to my loved-ones' abode for the said "barbecue."
It struck me, just now, in the midst of this planning of a relatively peaceful day, that there are so many things going on around the nation and around the world that are not "peaceful" even though this is Sunday, a day of rest. Or maybe Saturday was your day of rest...either way the principle is the same. I realized that I was free (and as much as possible, secure) to go about these mundane things on a Sunday, or do anything I chose to do, because 1) the armed forces of the United States keep external enemies at bay, 1-a) many men and women gave their lives over the years to secure our freedoms and the sovereignty of our great nation, and 2) no great natural disasters (look at Japan!) have occurred here recently and no great civil anarchy (look at Mexico) is occurring here at the moment.
There are so many things going "wrong" across the nation and around the world, yet there are so many things going right. For instance, my family can enjoy the "barbecue" in relative safety. The drug cartels are probably not going to raid the party, nor is the Taliban likely to toss a bomb into the barbecue grill. And, this is just a guess on my part, but no tidal wave is likely to strike the Permian Basin any time soon, at least before 12/21/12, but that is another blog. Earthquakes...I will not comment on that possibility, but it is not a major show-stopper at the moment. On a more local scale, I suppose there is always the possibility that some criminal could happen onto the party and cause some danger, but even that scenario is only a remote thought in the back of my mind. There is adequate police protection in Midland County, and on the whole, we can trust on our police officers to follow the law and the Constitution, so that they are viewed as our protectors, not some agency to be feared (again, look at Mexico).
I only mention all of this to raise the point that with so many things going WRONG, it would be easy to dwell on the negatives, blame the politicians or the President, and sit around waiting for some negative self-fulfilling prophecy to come to fruition. Or we, as Americans, can choose to acknowledge our blessed position in this world, and we can enjoy, just for a little while, all these blessings in the relative peace and security that we have found in this great nation. So I spent the day and the evening engaged in a simple family get-together. But as I think about it, this simple pleasure was so much more. It was an exercise of freedom, the enjoyment of our liberty that so many have fought and died for to secure me and for all of us. It was affirmation that there is so much that is GOOD and RIGHT with our nation. God bless America!
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Texas Joins Other States in Revolting Against the Revolting TSA Pat-Downs
"This bill is about saying 'enough is enough.'", stated Rep. David Simpson of Longview, Texas. He is sponsoring House Bill 1937, a bill that will make intrusive bodily searches a second degree felony when the person conducting the pat-down has no probable cause to suspect that the person being searched has committed a crime. Representative Simpson said "We've turned from prudent caution to ridiculous, excessive measures." This bill has garnered at least one-third support in the Texas House of Representatives, with both Democrats and Republicans supporting the measure. Support for the measure is growing daily within the Texas Legislature. http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news/Airport-patdowns-118450419.html
Most of us who travel the airways do not feel safer because of the intrusive and humiliating bodily searches conducted by security guards who have little training in the constitutionality of the searches they are charged to conduct. We would not tolerate trained, commissioned, and sworn police officers searching us before we could enter an airplane. But our Government, through the Office of Homeland Security, has forced us to accept such treatment from poorly trained and poorly paid employees as the price to be payed for the privilege to travel by airplane. There have been many isolated incidents of people refusing to submit to the bodily searches, and refusing to go through the X-ray booth, the danger of which has yet to be fully documented. These people were usually refused permission to board the airplane, although some were actually arrested on fairly serious federal charges such as interfering with the operation of a common carrier. Texas House Bill 1937 would turn the tables on TSA employees, effectively forcing the agency to return to pre-9/11 measure of screening carry-on bags and simply observing passengers. In those days, a suspicious-looking passenger was referred to a REAL policeman who was able to discern if probable cause existed for further and intrusive bodily searches.
House Bill 1937, a measure of common sense, would of course only apply in Texas airports; however, similar legislation is being considered by the law-making bodies of New Jersey and Vermont. I commend all three state legislatures for standing up for the rights of the states (the people who reside in a state) by letting the United States government know that, just as states can't ignore the Constitution, neither can the Federal Government. We usually see the federal government in the role of stepping in and forcing states to honor the Constitution, as in the days of the blatant state and local civil rights violations of years past. Now at least three states are telling the federal government that the trampling of Constitutional rights in the name "homeland security" will no longer be tolerated. I hope that the legislative bodies of the other several states will exercise their initiative and join Texas, New Jersey, and Vermont in setting aside these gross federal civil rights violations fostered through Homeland Security (via the USA PATRIOT Act, of course) so that some degree of sanity in transportation security will prevail.
Most of us who travel the airways do not feel safer because of the intrusive and humiliating bodily searches conducted by security guards who have little training in the constitutionality of the searches they are charged to conduct. We would not tolerate trained, commissioned, and sworn police officers searching us before we could enter an airplane. But our Government, through the Office of Homeland Security, has forced us to accept such treatment from poorly trained and poorly paid employees as the price to be payed for the privilege to travel by airplane. There have been many isolated incidents of people refusing to submit to the bodily searches, and refusing to go through the X-ray booth, the danger of which has yet to be fully documented. These people were usually refused permission to board the airplane, although some were actually arrested on fairly serious federal charges such as interfering with the operation of a common carrier. Texas House Bill 1937 would turn the tables on TSA employees, effectively forcing the agency to return to pre-9/11 measure of screening carry-on bags and simply observing passengers. In those days, a suspicious-looking passenger was referred to a REAL policeman who was able to discern if probable cause existed for further and intrusive bodily searches.
House Bill 1937, a measure of common sense, would of course only apply in Texas airports; however, similar legislation is being considered by the law-making bodies of New Jersey and Vermont. I commend all three state legislatures for standing up for the rights of the states (the people who reside in a state) by letting the United States government know that, just as states can't ignore the Constitution, neither can the Federal Government. We usually see the federal government in the role of stepping in and forcing states to honor the Constitution, as in the days of the blatant state and local civil rights violations of years past. Now at least three states are telling the federal government that the trampling of Constitutional rights in the name "homeland security" will no longer be tolerated. I hope that the legislative bodies of the other several states will exercise their initiative and join Texas, New Jersey, and Vermont in setting aside these gross federal civil rights violations fostered through Homeland Security (via the USA PATRIOT Act, of course) so that some degree of sanity in transportation security will prevail.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Bomb Libya, Bomb Iran, Bomb Iraq, Bomb Pakistan...Now Begin Again!
It is like a merry-go-round. The United States violates the national sovereignty of a particular nation in the Third World by firing missiles at selected targets. Sometimes the rockets are fired in isolated volleys; other times the rockets are fired in conjunction with other military action, such as the invasion of a sovereign nation. These military actions all have some things in common: first, the United States either took action unilaterally, or took action THEN sought approval (which was NOT NEEDED) from the United Nations (NOT OUR GOVERNMENT) for these actions; second, the missile volleys are pretty much at random and without exception fail to accomplish the objective that was "worth" the violation of international sovereignty; and finally, the (non-emergency) military action was not authorized by Congress, the only branch of the government that can declare war on another nation.
Never mind silly and old-fashioned ideas like following the United States Constitution. From President Reagan, to H.W. Bush., to Clinton, to dumb...I mean...Dubya Bush, through President Obama (the man for Change, remember that?) the United States, via orders from the Top, has consistently violated the very sovereignty of these and other nations by firing missiles whenever it was deemed expedient to do so. And contrary to Mr. Obama's words, there is no CHANGE in this philosophy of negating the Constitution by carrying out acts of war (and not in "self-defense") against sovereign nations with whom we are not "at war." My memory may not serve me well, but I believe President Reagan was the first president to order missiles fired against Libya when there were otherwise no "hostilities" declared between the two nations. The next few presidents followed Ronald Reagan's lead. Again, no declaration of war was made in any of these cases. But military action was carried out.
Now I have to say that I am not against JUSTIFIED military action when it is duly authorized by Congress. And possibly there were some attempts to legally justify these actions, by means of the War Powers Act, which was after the fact. There is some validity to the theory that the President, as the Commander In Chief of United States Armed Forces, needs the latitude to act on some urgent situation that needs to be handled before Congress can be convened. But, this argument is somewhat diminished by our grandparents' experience in 1941 with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. As much as that attack lives on "in infamy," President Roosevelt was able to contain his anger, direct it against the enemy, and calmly, yet with much righteous indignation, appear before Congress, explain that which really needed no explanation, and ASK Congress to declare war on Japan, which the United States Congress did. So, maybe there is no need for a "War Powers Act" after all.
Regardless, I am a realist and I understand that war is at times unavoidable. But what we have seen in Libya is not war in the conventional sense, yet here we are hurling missiles at that nation again. I am no fan of Libya (that is of Qaddafi and his minions - I realize the people are caught in the middle of these events) but neither do I believe in war against a nation when there is no declaration of such. Qaddafi needs to be overthrown? Well...there's a newsflash. This man needed to be overthrown years ago. Now he finds himself riding out on a wave of rebellion by his people, the likes of which has never been seen and probably was never even conceived of by Qaddafi. But I have to ask myself, why is the United States yet again assaulting a sovereign nation when there is no declaration of war? If we (the US) are at war with Libya, then let's declare it, fight it, win it, and GET OUT, then let the people of Libya decide their fate as a nation.
The fact is that the Arab and Muslim nations are seeing rebellion on a...er...Biblical scale. Presidents and dictators have fallen, and new leaders are filling the void. My point is that the United States (with or without the United Nations) has not intervened in these rebellions on behalf of the "people." Oh, except in Libya.
My other point is that the United States, via the current and past presidents, have violated the national sovereignty of these third world nations without legal cause, and without the desired results. For instance, Qaddafi, himself a target of a "surgical attack" on President Reagan's watch, survived and went on to rule Libya for thirty more years. He survived an attack in 1986 that was ordered by President Clinton. The victim of the attack was instead Mr. Gaddafi's little girl. Now Libya is being assailed by "Coalition" forces acting on a United Nations resolution (or was it a mandate?) while civil war rages within that nation. But the unbelievable aspect of the current Libyan crisis is that United States politicians and military officers have stated that removing Qaddafi from power is not the objective. If removing Qaddafi is not the OBJECTIVE, what IS? The ONLY reason foreign nations have for invading Libya would be to remove Qaddafi. If the United States is joining (and Leading) the invasion of Libya, then there is nothing worth the life of one single soldier...nothing less than the removal of Qaddafi.
If Qaddafi is able to remain in power, if the status quo remains in these other nations as well, I am sure the merry-go-round of missile fire into sovereign nations sans Congressional (and Constitutional) authority will continue for decades to come. We can put a stop to this endless warfare. For one thing, let's get real and understand that a war on any noun (poverty, terror, hunger, DRUGS, etc.) cannot be won, and will therefore be endless and unresolved. We as a people need to demand that our leaders honor the Constitution, rein in the President, and stop the violations of the national sovereignty of any nation. And, stop the endless merry-go-round of missile barrages that accomplish very little other than keeping the fire of international hostility toward the United States burning brightly.
Never mind silly and old-fashioned ideas like following the United States Constitution. From President Reagan, to H.W. Bush., to Clinton, to dumb...I mean...Dubya Bush, through President Obama (the man for Change, remember that?) the United States, via orders from the Top, has consistently violated the very sovereignty of these and other nations by firing missiles whenever it was deemed expedient to do so. And contrary to Mr. Obama's words, there is no CHANGE in this philosophy of negating the Constitution by carrying out acts of war (and not in "self-defense") against sovereign nations with whom we are not "at war." My memory may not serve me well, but I believe President Reagan was the first president to order missiles fired against Libya when there were otherwise no "hostilities" declared between the two nations. The next few presidents followed Ronald Reagan's lead. Again, no declaration of war was made in any of these cases. But military action was carried out.
Now I have to say that I am not against JUSTIFIED military action when it is duly authorized by Congress. And possibly there were some attempts to legally justify these actions, by means of the War Powers Act, which was after the fact. There is some validity to the theory that the President, as the Commander In Chief of United States Armed Forces, needs the latitude to act on some urgent situation that needs to be handled before Congress can be convened. But, this argument is somewhat diminished by our grandparents' experience in 1941 with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. As much as that attack lives on "in infamy," President Roosevelt was able to contain his anger, direct it against the enemy, and calmly, yet with much righteous indignation, appear before Congress, explain that which really needed no explanation, and ASK Congress to declare war on Japan, which the United States Congress did. So, maybe there is no need for a "War Powers Act" after all.
Regardless, I am a realist and I understand that war is at times unavoidable. But what we have seen in Libya is not war in the conventional sense, yet here we are hurling missiles at that nation again. I am no fan of Libya (that is of Qaddafi and his minions - I realize the people are caught in the middle of these events) but neither do I believe in war against a nation when there is no declaration of such. Qaddafi needs to be overthrown? Well...there's a newsflash. This man needed to be overthrown years ago. Now he finds himself riding out on a wave of rebellion by his people, the likes of which has never been seen and probably was never even conceived of by Qaddafi. But I have to ask myself, why is the United States yet again assaulting a sovereign nation when there is no declaration of war? If we (the US) are at war with Libya, then let's declare it, fight it, win it, and GET OUT, then let the people of Libya decide their fate as a nation.
The fact is that the Arab and Muslim nations are seeing rebellion on a...er...Biblical scale. Presidents and dictators have fallen, and new leaders are filling the void. My point is that the United States (with or without the United Nations) has not intervened in these rebellions on behalf of the "people." Oh, except in Libya.
My other point is that the United States, via the current and past presidents, have violated the national sovereignty of these third world nations without legal cause, and without the desired results. For instance, Qaddafi, himself a target of a "surgical attack" on President Reagan's watch, survived and went on to rule Libya for thirty more years. He survived an attack in 1986 that was ordered by President Clinton. The victim of the attack was instead Mr. Gaddafi's little girl. Now Libya is being assailed by "Coalition" forces acting on a United Nations resolution (or was it a mandate?) while civil war rages within that nation. But the unbelievable aspect of the current Libyan crisis is that United States politicians and military officers have stated that removing Qaddafi from power is not the objective. If removing Qaddafi is not the OBJECTIVE, what IS? The ONLY reason foreign nations have for invading Libya would be to remove Qaddafi. If the United States is joining (and Leading) the invasion of Libya, then there is nothing worth the life of one single soldier...nothing less than the removal of Qaddafi.
If Qaddafi is able to remain in power, if the status quo remains in these other nations as well, I am sure the merry-go-round of missile fire into sovereign nations sans Congressional (and Constitutional) authority will continue for decades to come. We can put a stop to this endless warfare. For one thing, let's get real and understand that a war on any noun (poverty, terror, hunger, DRUGS, etc.) cannot be won, and will therefore be endless and unresolved. We as a people need to demand that our leaders honor the Constitution, rein in the President, and stop the violations of the national sovereignty of any nation. And, stop the endless merry-go-round of missile barrages that accomplish very little other than keeping the fire of international hostility toward the United States burning brightly.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Japan Still In the News
After the catastrophic earthquake, followed by the mega-tidal wave, it would almost seem as if the people had been handed enough! But then the explosions at the nuclear power facility added radiation poisoning to the equation. My deepest sympathy goes to the Japanese people. In their usual spirit of tenacity they were reclaiming their world even while the ashes were still falling. It is very difficult to know the extent of their shock and sorrow in the face of all these terrible calamities. I recall how this nation felt in the face of the 9/11 attacks, and surely the Japanese situation is even worse.
The death toll has been set at approximately 8,000, with hundreds injured. But, in the shadows of these confirmed statistics, there is still the knowledge that over 11, 000 people are unaccounted for, and in the words of one official, "presumed dead." There are stories of entire towns being emptied by the tsunamis. Then, there is the radiation.
As was not unexpected, the official "talking heads" here in the United States unilaterally declared that the nuclear reactors in Japan were safe. Later, the same people crowed the same tune as video of the cooling units exploding played ominously in the background of the TV screen. The next day another explosion ripped through another cooling system at the Fukushima facility. Again, like trained parrots the DC spokesmouths continued to assure us that there was "no danger." Do you ever get tired of hearing that? Wouldn't it be nice if just once...just once...the spokesmouths told us the truth? Well, their sins have found them out, and the truth is that Japan, specifically the Tokyo area, is in trouble. Radiation, of course in "low concentration" has crept into Tokyo proper. The people have been "encouraged" to leave the city as fish and other food was found to be contaminated with levels of radioactivity that were "not acceptable
under Japanese law. But again, no one is in danger. Right?
Regardless of whether or not nuclear contamination is an issue (really, is there any doubt?) the Japanese people have been through so much. Even now they live in fear as aftershocks constantly rumble through the earthquake zone. The funerals and memorial services will continue for months as the dead are collected and buried. Many others, however, face the reality of having no bodies to bury, and not even confirmation that their loved ones are dead...only the uncertainty of assuming their relatives were taken out to sea.
The Japanese people have always rose to the occasion, and this time no doubt they will overcome this tragedy as well. Now as they cope with the realities of this tragedy and the gigantic task of cleaning up and rebuilding, I salute the Japanese people and their nation for enduring through it all.
The death toll has been set at approximately 8,000, with hundreds injured. But, in the shadows of these confirmed statistics, there is still the knowledge that over 11, 000 people are unaccounted for, and in the words of one official, "presumed dead." There are stories of entire towns being emptied by the tsunamis. Then, there is the radiation.
As was not unexpected, the official "talking heads" here in the United States unilaterally declared that the nuclear reactors in Japan were safe. Later, the same people crowed the same tune as video of the cooling units exploding played ominously in the background of the TV screen. The next day another explosion ripped through another cooling system at the Fukushima facility. Again, like trained parrots the DC spokesmouths continued to assure us that there was "no danger." Do you ever get tired of hearing that? Wouldn't it be nice if just once...just once...the spokesmouths told us the truth? Well, their sins have found them out, and the truth is that Japan, specifically the Tokyo area, is in trouble. Radiation, of course in "low concentration" has crept into Tokyo proper. The people have been "encouraged" to leave the city as fish and other food was found to be contaminated with levels of radioactivity that were "not acceptable
under Japanese law. But again, no one is in danger. Right?
Regardless of whether or not nuclear contamination is an issue (really, is there any doubt?) the Japanese people have been through so much. Even now they live in fear as aftershocks constantly rumble through the earthquake zone. The funerals and memorial services will continue for months as the dead are collected and buried. Many others, however, face the reality of having no bodies to bury, and not even confirmation that their loved ones are dead...only the uncertainty of assuming their relatives were taken out to sea.
The Japanese people have always rose to the occasion, and this time no doubt they will overcome this tragedy as well. Now as they cope with the realities of this tragedy and the gigantic task of cleaning up and rebuilding, I salute the Japanese people and their nation for enduring through it all.
Bailey Black in the Spotlight
It is a great feeling to see my name in the lights, so to speak. My book Bailey Black was featured on the front page of my hometown newspaper, the Gatesville (TX) Messenger. It was especially pleasing to see that the story was "front page news." I would like to thank Mr. Larry Kennedy, the editor, for featuring Bailey Black and the story behind the book. The news story expresses my feelings about this book so well.
I would like to thank Barbara Waters Rhudy for reading the manuscript and suggesting corrections. She liked the story from the start, so that was a good thing. My own Child B also read the manuscript and kept up the encouragement as I went through the publication process. It was a great experience and very educational. Now that the book is actually on the market, there is that feeling of...well...being totally exposed. I guess it reminds me of those dreams I sometimes have in which I am sitting in a class room, or worse...church!, and I find that I am in my underwear and everyone else is fully dressed. The book is there for everyone to see, flaws and all.
If you just want a light, fast, and entertaining story that will let you relax but be excited at the same time, I urge you to read Bailey Black. By the way, book signing planned for April at the museum in Gatesville. I will have details about it later. Thanks to all of you for your encouragement and especially to those of you who have bought the book!
I would like to thank Barbara Waters Rhudy for reading the manuscript and suggesting corrections. She liked the story from the start, so that was a good thing. My own Child B also read the manuscript and kept up the encouragement as I went through the publication process. It was a great experience and very educational. Now that the book is actually on the market, there is that feeling of...well...being totally exposed. I guess it reminds me of those dreams I sometimes have in which I am sitting in a class room, or worse...church!, and I find that I am in my underwear and everyone else is fully dressed. The book is there for everyone to see, flaws and all.
If you just want a light, fast, and entertaining story that will let you relax but be excited at the same time, I urge you to read Bailey Black. By the way, book signing planned for April at the museum in Gatesville. I will have details about it later. Thanks to all of you for your encouragement and especially to those of you who have bought the book!
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Gadhafi or Kadhafi: Regardless, He Is On The Way Out
Muammar Gaddafi is what they are calling the President of Libya. I can remember back in the "oil embargo" days when this gentleman was known as Muammar Khadafi. Gaddafi led a coup against King Isidris in 1969. With the success of the coup, Gaddafi declared the MONARCHY of Libya a Republic, then promptly appointed himself as the Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, and as "Colonel" in the military. He was, of course, commander-in-chief of the military, as well. Khadaffi, or Gaddafi, has managed to remain in power since then. If I am not mistaken, only Fidel Castro of Cuba has been in charge longer, although Comrade Castro in only nominally in charge these days, due to his poor health.
Gaddafi no doubt observed the goings-on his neighboring Arab nations with some trepidation, as one after another iconic leaders were felled by citizens who were finished with the oppression and cruelty perpetrated on them by such as Gaddafi and his minions. Just as Hosni Mubarak and Zine Ben Ali (of Tunisia) were forced out of their respective nations, it is all but inevitable that Gaddafi's fate is sealed. Unlike Mubarak, who took the higher road (after a few days of unrest) President Ali ruthlessly sent his troops out to kill those who opposed him, even as he government crashed around him. I know it is futile to hope for, but I still hope that Gaddafi will sooner than later accept the inevitable. Blood has been shed, lives have been lost, and Gaddafi is day by day losing his stranglehold on the people of Libya. How many will be spared if Gaddafi, who is not known as a man of honor, should in the end decide to take the honorable course and step down, leaving his people in peace as they form a new and different kind of government?
Gaddafi no doubt observed the goings-on his neighboring Arab nations with some trepidation, as one after another iconic leaders were felled by citizens who were finished with the oppression and cruelty perpetrated on them by such as Gaddafi and his minions. Just as Hosni Mubarak and Zine Ben Ali (of Tunisia) were forced out of their respective nations, it is all but inevitable that Gaddafi's fate is sealed. Unlike Mubarak, who took the higher road (after a few days of unrest) President Ali ruthlessly sent his troops out to kill those who opposed him, even as he government crashed around him. I know it is futile to hope for, but I still hope that Gaddafi will sooner than later accept the inevitable. Blood has been shed, lives have been lost, and Gaddafi is day by day losing his stranglehold on the people of Libya. How many will be spared if Gaddafi, who is not known as a man of honor, should in the end decide to take the honorable course and step down, leaving his people in peace as they form a new and different kind of government?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)