I’m not naïve, and I know war is a low-down dirty business and not everything that takes place is going to be on the up-and-up. However, this situation taken as a whole is not acceptable by any measure.

First off, if we’re doing deals with the Taliban (the enemy) or their agents to ensure the safety and welfare of U.S. Troops I’m generally OK with the concept; I don’t want our troops harmed and whatever it takes to protect them is worth funding. But if, as it appears, the funding is somehow going to the enemy it shouldn’t be an ‘open secret’ as it appears to be. Clearly this is an issue related to National Security (the safety of our troops). If the Government or the Military have made the decision to payoff the Taliban to ensure the well being of our Troops, shouldn’t that be kept quiet to avoid the controversy that is sure to erupt if it becomes general knowledge?

The article goes into a fair amount of detail including names, places, costs … I mean, that’s all great from a journalistic point of view, and kudos to Aram Roston for a fantastic piece of investigative journalism, but it rather begs the question as to how effective our National and Military Intelligence services are when an article like this appears in a major national publication.

Moving beyond the fact that I shouldn’t know or have to worry about the fact that my own Government is funding (directly or indirectly) the very people who are killing our Troops, I have some concerns when I read about the players involved in the transactions that are taking place. A known neocon, Hamed Wardak, the young American son of Afghanistan’s current defense minister, Gen. Abdul Rahim Wardak is the chief principal of NCL Holdings. NCL Holdings was awarded a $360 million dollar contract to distribute supplies to U.S. Troops in Afghanistan — in spite of the fact that their shell company on the ground in Afghanistan, Host Nation Trucking, has no apparent trucking experience.

The article labels these relationships as ‘cronyism’, but my opinion is that it could go deeper than mere cronyism. I would suggest that there is a very real probability that there is deliberate collusion between the current Afghan Ministry of Defense and NCL Holdings to extort money out of the U.S. Government for the safety and well being of our troops.

There were suggestions that the U.S. Military create a special unit and take direct control of the safety of supply convoys, but according to the article, these suggestions went nowhere. I can’t help but wonder why.

Something tells me someone is making a lot of money on this deal.

The final issue I have is with the individuals who are involved in provision of services in Afghanistan. It seems that some number of them are convicted (big time) drug dealers who have served time in U.S. prisons and have been repatriated to Afghanistan after serving their sentences. As I read the article, I kept having flashbacks of the Iran-Contra affair. There is clearly more than meets the eye in this situation, and it’s probably safer not to probe too deeply into whatever peripheral transactions may be taking place between the parties involved. I’m willing to bet, however, that when the fertilizer hits the ventilator it’s going to be a lot worse than anyone currently suspects.

So, what do we have here? A failure by U.S. Intelligence Agencies to keep secrets, inappropriate funding of enemy operations via Government Contractors, potential extortion by the Karzai Government in Afghanistan, and convicted drug-dealers who have made the safety of U.S. Troops on the ground their concern. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

Here’s the bottom line. Afghanistan is known as “The Grave of Armies” for a reason. No conqueror has ever subdued the people of Afghanistan; not the British, not the Soviets, not the Americans, not even Alexander the Great. The U.S. presence in Afghanistan is costly, both in terms of U.S. lives lost, and dollars spent, and as of today, that presence serves no useful purpose save to enlarge the Swiss Bank Accounts of criminals who earn their money at the cost of large-scale human suffering.

So why, with all the evidence before him, does Obama persist in discussing expansion of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan? Why would he even consider sending more troops under the current circumstances? Who is really calling the tune in Washington?

It is time that we pull the plug on this war, and fund effective programs that will do more to enhance our ability to defend ourselves from those who would do us harm. Teaching our Intelligence Services how to keep a secret might be a good start.

The opinions expressed are entirely my own, and I take full responsibility for them. If you are offended or disagree with my opinions, thoughtful commentary or criticism are welcome. — David A. Hester
 

In the Mainstream Media today propaganda masquerades as news, and when this happens the truth is lost. We, as Americans are no longer required to think for ourselves. We are given a minimum of factual information, and are told what to believe. Thinking doesn’t come into the picture, it’s all about believing what we are told. Political dogma of the highest order, dumbed down to pop-culture level and repeated loudly and frequently so the general population has the message firmly implanted in their minds.

All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those toward whom it is directed will understand it… Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise. — Adolf Hitler, ‘Mein Kampf’

In many ways Lou Dobbs served as a counterbalance to the propaganda, not only within CNN itself, but within the MSM as a whole. Note that I did not say a counterbalance to “liberal bias” in the media; for all the rhetoric coming from the right I just don’t see this supposed bias.

Eight years of the Bush administration, eight years of heavy-handed right wing politics in Washington, and how many of this supposedly liberal biased media bothered to report the truth? How many took a hard line against right-wing policies and programs that brought our nation to its knees? And now, the liberals who criticize Lou Dobbs, are the same ones who failed to speak against those rabidly right-wing policies of the Bush Administration for eight years, while Lou Dobbs was an outspoken critic.

No, Lou Dobbs departure is due less to a lack of liberality than to an overabundance of honesty. It is certainly true that the MSM is biased, but it runs deeper than a purported liberal ideology; it has more to do with supporting a larger agenda that has existed for far longer than any single administration.

This is really the point at which Lou Dobbs stepped over the line, and as a consequence, in October, gunshots were fired into his home, possibly at his wife. He stated that he has also been receiving death threats. This sort of thing happens all too frequently to those who stray too close to truths that the Government would rather keep out of the public eye — particularly when those individuals have a ready made soap box from which they can expose the truth.

Lou Dobbs was a thorn in the side of those who benefit from the deliberately imposed ignorance of the American People. In his televised resignation, he said that important national issues “are now defined in the public arena by partisanship and ideology rather than by rigorous empirical thought and forthright analysis and discussion.” He is above all, a thinking man and a man of reason — and that is what makes him a threat to the status quo.

When all is said and done, perhaps his departure from CNN is a blessing in disguise. He is no longer constrained in what he can or cannot say due to restrictive editorial policies, and through the medium of the internet, he has a ready made audience. It wouldn’t surprise me to see him transition into national politics, perhaps even making a run at the Presidency. Lou Dobbs isn’t a man who will fade into obscurity; he is a man driven by truth who I’m certain will not be silenced.

After all, losing ones position can sometimes be the surest path to finding ones calling — and America desperately needs more men like Lou Dobbs if we are to regain what we have lost.

The opinions expressed are entirely my own, and I take full responsibility for them. If you are offended or disagree with my opinions, thoughtful commentary or criticism are welcome. — David A. Hester
 

Good Afternoon Mr. Obama,

Twenty-seven years ago, on Nov. 10, 1982, the newly finished Vietnam Veterans Memorial was opened to its first visitors in Washington, D.C. It was already more than 7 years after the Fall of Saigon and it took $8.4 million in private donations to make it happen, but our fallen were finally given official recognition. However, the names on that wall are only a small fraction of those who gave their lives in Vietnam. Many who returned were scarce better off than those whose names are there inscribed. They are our living veterans, whom you elected hypocrites claim to be so proud of. They were numbers to you then, and they are nothing but numbers to you now. Weapons in an unfeeling hand, wielded as a child wields a wooden sword, swiftly discarded when the game becomes tiresome.

I’ve seen them on the streets in our cities and towns, many reduced to begging for change so they can eat. No, the full cost of the Vietnam war in American blood has never been calculated, and probably never will be. Mr. Obama, if they come begging for change today, where will they find it?

Promises and lies. Today our military fight in two wars on foreign soil, whose goals and objectives are ill defined, and whose endpoints are nowhere in sight. Wars whose main results have been to destabilize nations, tarnish the image of America abroad, increase the threat of terrorism on our own soil, and spill the blood of thousands more brave men and women who believed in our Great Nation. Have you begun to calculate the total cost in American blood for these two wars?

For those fortunate enough to rejoin their families here in the U.S., the struggle continues. Some have had to fight to receive appropriate medical treatment and compensation upon return. A poor economy, lack of jobs, and a continuing lack of comprehensive services for veterans has placed many of these veterans and their families in desperate situations.

I cannot help but wonder what this generation’s Agent Orange will be, and how long the Government will hide behind lies to avoid responsibility. What’s the official Government line on Depleted Uranium these days? Do we know with certainty how much radioactive DU dust our soldiers are exposed to with each breath they take in Iraq?

I will be honoring our military this Veteran’s Day, and I’m sure you will as well. I’m guessing you will be laying a wreath at a some memorial, in honor of the dead and the living who have served our country. When you do, Mr. Obama, you should ask yourself how many more memorials will be needed.

I was thinking that a better way to honor them, perhaps, would be for you to make good on your promises and bring them home to their families and loved ones. Yes, bring them home, and when you do, make sure that they get the benefits they were promised when they enlisted, and the medical treatment they have earned. Then, to make their lives a little easier, you could focus on creating a thriving economy so they can find jobs that pay a living wage … there are many ways you could honor them.

But I suppose they’ll have to make do with the wreath this year. Oh well, it’s better than nothing — isn’t it?

Regards,
David Hester
 

The opinions expressed are entirely my own, and I take full responsibility for them. If you are offended or disagree with my opinions, thoughtful commentary or criticism are welcome. — David A. Hester
 

This article was originally published in WorldNews.com, and is reprinted here by permission of the author.
 

The Constitutional System that has emerged is no longer that of the Framers or one they had intended to create. — Professor Robert A. Dahl, Yale University

Every document has a historical context, the U.S. Constitution is no different. What was written, and the intended meanings or applications for one period of time, may not be transferable to another or future historical frame of reference. This is why the U.S. Constitution has been formally and informally amended numerous times.

Even President George Washington, at the Constitutional Convention, claimed the Constitution was not perfect. The Founders included Article V that allowed for amendments (additions or changes), knowing that the Constitution would eventually be transformed and reinterpreted as society and political ideas evolved. Their concepts of a Republic, and more specifically the war-making powers given to the Executive Branch, were limited to their situation. In no way could they foresee the thirteen states becoming fifty states; a devastating Civil War; unchecked American expansion and executive privileges during the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II; the escalation of the Cold War and the Korean and Vietnam Conflicts; the rise of the Corporate-Pentagon Armament Industry; the attacks of 9-11; the current war in Afghanistan and Iraq; and the extension of over seven hundred U.S. military and naval installations throughout the world that houses hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. In other words, they could not have known that the U.S. would someday become a Hyper-Empire. Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution has not kept pace, neither has it checked the powers amassed by the Executive Branch. I will argue that in reviewing our first president George Washington and the U.S. Constitution, and rethinking the role of the Executive Branch and its past and present histories, it is time for the phrase and notion ‘Commander-In-Chief’ to be formally amended and removed from the U.S. Constitution.

Surprisingly, the earliest drafts of the U.S. Constitution excluded any war-making powers presently found in the Executive Branch. However, there were several officers that having fought in the American Revolution, along with a handful of Representatives, wrote George Washington suggesting that he become king of the newly formed states. ‘Be assured sirs,’ wrote George Washington, ‘no occurrence in the course of the War, has given me more painful sensations than your information of there being such ideas existing in the Army…I view this to be abhorrent.’ He continues, ‘If you have any regard for your Country, concern for yourself or posterity, or respect for me, banish these thoughts from your mind.’ This stinging rebuke towards those who wanted to make George Washington king reflects a leader who was prone to self-constraint and wanted to remain true to the principles of a Republic. There is also strong evidence that the major reason the phrase Commander-In-Chief was placed in Article II, which pertains to the presidency, was because George Washington was the Commander of the Continental Army. He had the experience, the knowledge, suffered extreme hardship, and fought beside the soldiers of the American Revolution. He did not disappoint the newly formed nation. He often saw his presidency and the role of the Executive Branch as a mediator between the Legislative and Judicial Branches. He despised factions, political parties, and attempted to avoid foreign entanglements. While France and England were embroiled in war, France sent their Ambassador to the U.S. to influence the government to join the conflict. President Washington emerged with a Proclamation of Neutrality instead of a Proclamation of War. When President Washington was criticized for his action, Alexander Hamilton published a treaty stating, ‘If on the one hand the Legislature has a right to declare war, it is on the other the duty of the Executive to preserve peace till the declaration is made.’ Even after the Whiskey Rebellion, in which President Washington gathered an army to defeat the uprising, he pardoned all of those who were involved. As the first acting president who was unanimously elected and refused a third term in office, he understood that the role of the Executive Branch was one of advising, not dictating; instead of a war monger he was a mediator; instead of self-adulation, he practiced self-restraint; and of course as the Commander of the Continental Army he had experienced first-hand the ravages, brutality, and dangers of war.

If you were to ask most people in America which Branch of government had the sole power to make and declare war, the majority of people would probably say the President-Executive Branch. The president is the Commander-In-Chief only after, not before, war has been declared by the Legislative Branch. Article 1 Sec 8 of the U.S. Constitution, that explains the war-making powers of the Legislature, actually gives eleven specific powers to Congress that deal with hostilities, such as 1) providing for the common defense; 2) constituting tribunals; 3) defining the punishment for Piracies and High Sea Felonies; 4) declare war; 5) grant letters of Marque and Reprisals; 6) make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; 7) raise and support Armies for two years; 8)provide and maintain a Navy; 9) rules and regulation for Naval and Land Forces; 10) calling forth the Militia; 11) and organizing and training the Militia. Compare these powers to Article 2 Sec 2 of the Executive Branch which gives the president only two war-making powers, such as 1) the President shall be Commander In Chief of the Army and Navy; 2) and the Militia when called into service. One can readily see the disproportionate amount of war-making authority that was given to the Legislative Branch (which also consists of elected officials that represent the people), versus the President (which is still placed into office by a few individuals known as the Electoral College). One could even argue today that the Legislature is more democratic and better reflects the views and opinions of the people, because it is elected by the popular vote whereas the Executive Branch is still elected by the Electoral College. In keeping with George Washington’s letter and the principles of a Republic, many colonial leaders feared the royal prerogatives of the British Crown to initiate and continually make war. Actually, they feared tyranny by one individual or a small group of people.

It is clear that in reading the Federalist Papers, diaries, and personal letters and expect perpetual war, or for the President to reign over an empire. Perhaps it started with Andrew Jackson, who ignored the Judicial Branch and began a forced Indian removal policy of the Five Civilized Tribes west of the Mississippi River. Abraham Lincoln, even before the Union declared war on the confederacy, took advantage of Congress not being in Session and expanding the Civil War by blockading southern ports and confiscating materials and ships. During the Spanish-American War, the U.S. added Cuba, Puerto Rico, and colonized the Philippines and several other islands in the Pacific. Theodore Roosevelt once boasted that he took Panama away from Columbia, in order to build the Panama Canal while Congress debated the issue. Woodrow Wilson continued to expand the Executive Branch by ‘making the world safe for market economies,’ signing the Espionage and Alien-Sedition Acts, imprisoning and deporting thousands of suspected anarchists, sending U.S. troops into Russia hoping to defeat the Bolsheviks, and redrawing the Balkans and the Middle East. Franklin Roosevelt, because of The Great Depression and WW II, gained tremendous powers as he established numerous relief and social programs in which Americans would depend on the government, while signing an Executive Order that interned a 135,000 Japanese-Italian-German citizens. All of these presidents established War Industry Boards and War Production Departments as they took over certain segments of manufacturing and even the railroads. Strikes and labor stoppages were prohibited, resulting in the deaths of protesting workers.

The Cold War and Age Of Oil further galvanized and increased the Executive Branch. Some officials argued that because of the threat of nuclear weapons and little time to react, more power should be given to the president to ‘quickly’ decide to launch missiles in case of an attack. (One could also argue just the opposite, what if the individual and inner circle over-reacted and actually started a nuclear war or their preemptive policies were fundamentally insane?) For the first time in America’s history, U.S. troops were stationed in Europe and repeatedly sent to Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Guatemala, Indonesia, the Middle East, and other places around the world. The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gave Lyndon B. Johnson the power to use ‘any means necessary’ to defeat the North Vietnamese. When you consider all of this, along with the enormous Public Relations Campaign at the president’s disposal, the Executive Branch growing from just three departments to currently twenty-one, an enormous professional standing army that runs contrary to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, and an arms industry in which the president and his advisors threaten or punish states by withholding military expenditures and bases, it is no wonder that in 1991 when George Bush Sr. sent troops to Saudi Arabia to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait said, ‘I do not believe it is necessary for Congress to authorize the war.’ Finally, only one commanding general in the 20th Century has ever served as president, compared to nine generals in the 19th Century. Shockingly, since the Korean War, no president’s son has ever served in the U.S. military. Therefore, has the notion of one person being Commander-In-Chief become obsolete?

In walks to the center of the stage George W. Bush, the first president of the 21st Century. It has been reported that when several Republican Congressional leaders met with President Bush and warned him that renewing the Patriot Act could alienate conservatives, he said, ‘Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a (expletive) piece of paper.’ Again, while the mainstream media was only reporting with full page write-ups and pictures of a smiling George Bush about his use of expletives, they missed the real story. While meeting with European leaders in St. Petersburg, Russia, President Bush also said (when referring to his speech and the Lebanese-Israeli Crisis), ‘I’m just going to make it up. I’m not going to talk to long like the rest of them.’ (This statement we have on tape and was actually recorded!) The phrase and concept ‘I’m just going to make it up,’ runs contrary to the thoughts, debates, the aftermath of the revolution, and their new role in the world, that the Constitutional Framers faced. President Bush and most of his appointees have never served in the military, neither have they experienced war. They appear to be aloof from any emotional intelligence and un-knowledgeable concerning the U.S. Constitution, let alone foreign affairs. Yet, he is given the title Commander-In-Chief. This is exactly what I believe the Framers of the U.S. Constitution feared and could not foresee: a president that would abuse the emerging powers given to the Executive Branch over a span of decades; a leader who would pursue the Rule of Lawlessness instead of the Rule of Law; a president who would sign Executive Orders, Signing Statements, and suspend habeus corpus; a leader who would try to pursue establishing his own legacy instead of pursuing liberty and truth; a president who would authorize middle-of-the-night round-ups of his own citizens, secret jails, covert wars, torture, and arms sales; a leader who would practice risk for his names-sake instead of restraint; a president and his staff that displays the signs of going nuclear! The words and idea Commander-In-Chief must be wrestled away from this rogue president and future administrations that lead the country into disastrous wars and conflicts.

This last weekend, thousands of citizens across America hosted gatherings to impeach President George Bush, especially if the Democrats regain Congress in the November Election. City councils across the U.S. have also voted on Articles of Impeachment against President Bush, which is also being considered by some states. But this is only the beginning, for the root cause of the President and his staff turned Military Junta is the phrase Commander-In-Chief. As a nation, we can either continue to allow misguided presidents to sacrifice our young on the altar of war instead of the altar of freedom, or we can formally remove all war-making powers and the words, ‘Commander-In Chief ,’ from the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps we could give ALL of the war-making powers back to the Legislative Branch, as was originally intended in the early drafts. We could also possibly form a peoples council that would reflect a cross-section of U.S. citizens and place the military under their authority, truly making the army subject to civilian control. By doing this, a Declaration of War would be entered upon cautiously and with proper debate. Either way, there is an urgent need, and an imperative, to remove Commander-In-Chief not only from the Executive Branch of the U.S. Constitution, but also from the present administration. Common Sense tells us so, does it not?

Beverly Darling – beverly@wn.com

Sources Consulted:
1) Kelly H., Alfred. The American Constitution: W.W. Norton and Company, New York, New York, 1983.
2) Monk, Linda R. The Words We Live By: Hyperion, New York, New York, 2003.

I have found WorldNews.com to be an excellent source of news and commentary, and highly recommend it as an alternate to the usual MSM sources.
 

The letters are all similar … they usually herald a non-accomplishment, and go on to ask for money so something can actually be accomplished. They don’t ask for much, usually they can get by on twenty-five bucks or so. There is always a sort of vague intimation that if I continue to give, eventually there will be some sort of favorable outcome. It’s the same feeling I get at the casino while watching the roulette wheel spin. Oh Fortuna!

To be honest, I’m getting tired of him coming around with his hand out asking if I’ve got change. All I can say of our elected officials is that never have so few taken so much from so many and given so little in return … my buddy Barack included in this number. As he approaches the first anniversary of his presidency, or one quarter of his term in office (and I’m convinced that’s all it will be), I’d like to note that thus far there has been very little “change”.

In spite of his term being 25% past, the Nation does not find itself even 1% better off than it was when he took office. We are still engaged in two wars on foreign soil; upwards of 30 million Americans are unemployed, underemployed, or have given up on finding work altogether; failed banks and failed businesses have been given billions of tax dollars in bailout funding; and this one initiative, healthcare, is a shipwreck waiting to happen. Our elected leadership has already sold us out. The insurance companies, are the only ones who will benefit from the current healthcare reform initiative, and our leaders know it.

Americans need to wake up and start pressing for real reform. We need strict term limits for all elected officials. We need strict prohibitions against corporate and special interest lobbying, and we need a Government that supports We the People, instead of the largest corporate donors.

Go for the red pill — you’ll see there really is no difference between a Republican and a Democrat as long as they are drinking from the same well. It is up to us to make real change happen. Nobody is coming to our rescue, and unlike Neo in The Matrix, my buddy Barack for all his good intentions, isn’t “The One”.

The opinions expressed are entirely my own, and I take full responsibility for them. If you are offended or disagree with my opinions, thoughtful commentary or criticism are welcome. — David A. Hester
 

With regard to the Bolshevik Revolution, Wikipedia states the following:

Let’s see: nationwide crisis, decreasing industrial output, businesses closing down, rising unemployment, increased cost of living, skyrocketing national debt, and threat of bankruptcy. That about sums it up … now where have I heard these before?

I would never draw a parallel between the current situation here in the U.S. and the situation in Russia prior to the Revolution, but one must admit that there are certain aspects that are strikingly similar.

Perhaps the French Revolution provides a better illustration regarding the causes of violent overthrow of governing authority. Wikipedia has this to say of the French Revolution:

Wow. Multiple costly wars, military failures, lack of social services for war veterans, inability to manage the National Debt, and an inequitable system of taxation. No wonder the French People got up in arms over the situation! Again, I’m sure it’s pure coincidence that some of these aspects resemble (albeit vaguely) the current situation here in America, and it is not my intent to draw any sort of parallel, still, it does make one think.
 

If I were a member of the governing authority, I might be just the tiniest bit concerned right about now. Today our elected leadership sits in session debating healthcare. They are playing out a grand charade of concern for the American People, having already sold us out to corporate interests. One cannot help but wonder if they have learned anything from the lessons of the past. Certainly healthcare is a pressing issue, but it is not the only issue, nor is it the biggest issue facing our nation today.

The time is past for our elected leadership to begin representing the interests of We the People. The bottom line is simple; the American Government is bankrupt, and the American People are tapped out. We can no longer afford to engage in wars without end; we must reduce and refocus our defense spending to effectively protect U.S. soil, while rebuilding a strong economy based on U.S. produced goods and services.

Let us hope that somewhere in the back of their minds, our elected representatives hear the rumble of the masses as they gather outside the palace walls …
 

The opinions expressed are entirely my own, and I take full responsibility for them. If you are offended or disagree with my opinions, thoughtful commentary or criticism are welcome. — David A. Hester
 

Part 2: The Big Picture

Most Americans live the largest part of their lives within a relatively small radius from their homes. While it’s true that we’re a highly mobile society, and we do consider distances in a much different light than our European neighbors, the average American spends a majority of his or her life within a 20 mile radius of home.

If you’re like me, you can probably feel it. You’re driving back from vacation, or a business meeting, and suddenly you feel as if you’ve crossed an invisible line — you’re in “home territory”. It’s familiar. It’s comfortable. We’re safe because we know where the best Chinese Restaurant is, and it’s just up the street.

As Americans, we are involved; we debate the importance of new storm drains with our neighbors, and dispute the calls at our local High School football games. We worry about crime in our communities and our neighborhoods, we worry about Emergency vehicle response times, locations of fire hydrants, and dog licenses — all of which are part of living in a community. It’s the same whether it’s in the heart of the Big Apple, or somewhere in Faulkner’s Mississippi.

The point I’m coming to in a roundabout way, is that it is easy for us to become focused on those (usually local) issues and affairs that bear directly on our day-to-day life. We hear state and national news, and we follow along with the sound bites. We’re usually aware of what is going on at some level, but unless it is something major — or something that is likely to increase taxes, we usually don’t sense the impact on our life as acutely as those local concerns.

So, does it really matter when a Justice of the Peace in Louisiana refuses to issue a marriage license to a mixed race couple, or the Texas Board of Education takes up the issue of Creationism versus Evolution in a Public School System?

The simple answer is yes; these are important issues that you should be concerned with. While it may be true that you aren’t a resident of either state, you didn’t vote for the individuals making the decisions, don’t plan on getting married in Louisiana and don’t have kids in school in Texas, both issues are directly related to your own Constitutional rights.
 

With regard to the first case, the U.S. Supreme Court tossed out any racially-based limitations on marriage in the landmark 1967 Loving v. Virginia case. In the unanimous decision, the court said that “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” In that case, the court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The ongoing debate between Fundamentalist Christians and the Scientific Community regarding the teaching of Evolution versus Creationism in Public Schools has been raging since the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925.

This question is directly related to the Principle of Separation of Church and State, and the extent to which religious doctrine should be permitted within Public School curriculum.

In 1987, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, a split decision by the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that required public schools teaching evolution to also teach creationism. The Supreme Court ruled that the Act constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Court found that although the Louisiana legislature had stated that its purpose was to “protect academic freedom,” that purpose was dubious because the Act gave Louisiana teachers no freedom they did not already possess and instead limited their ability to determine what scientific principles should be taught. Because it was unconvinced by the state’s proffered secular purpose, the Court went on to find that the legislature had a “preeminent religious purpose in enacting this statute.”

In spite of this, dissenting judges included the statement:

The addition of this verbiage to the ruling left the door open to possible future challenges. Within months “creationism” evolved into the ’scientific theory’ of “intelligent design” and former advocates for the teaching of creationism had evolved along with it, now pushing for the inclusion of intelligent design in Public School curriculum. A rose by any other name.

Just as tiny pebbles can start a great avalanche, these events have the potential to permit individuals or groups with an unconstitutional agenda to gain a toehold whereby the rights of all can be subjugated to the will of a few.

When I use the term “unconstitutional agenda” it isn’t my intent to imply that such an agenda is by necessity “evil” or “wrong”; only that the agenda runs contrary to the current interpretation of the Constitution. Such agenda typically forward the interests of a limited subset of the entire population. Not infrequently, such agenda are sponsored by well organized, well funded groups who have the political savvy to utilize lobbyists and to mount national campaigns in support of their ideals; this is their right! If they want to force a debate on the interpretation of the Constitution, they have the right — and in many cases, the ability to do so.

In absence of a strong national movement opposing such unconstitutional agenda, there is always a possibility that new laws could be enacted, or old laws revised or overturned. This is why we have to make an effort to see the big picture whenever these issues arise. If we fail to speak out and make ourselves heard, who will we blame when we lose those rights that we enjoy today? It turns out that these issues aren’t someone else’s problem after all — as Americans, they are our own.
 

The opinions expressed are entirely my own, and I take full responsibility for them. If you are offended or disagree with my opinions, thoughtful commentary or criticism are welcome. — David A. Hester
 

Part 1: The Constitution & You

If you are of my generation, you may recall those 8th grade Civics classes. The ones in which we learned the horrors of Communism and the superiority of the American way of life … ahhh, those were the days.

Somewhere between the duck and cover drills and the understanding that Soviet nuclear weapons were bad while US nuclear weapons were good, there was a period of time devoted to the Constitution of the United States of America. It was pretty dry reading then, and to be blunt, it’s still pretty dry; in spite of this, it is probably the most important document you will ever read. Why? Because it is the Supreme Law of the Land — the tenets and principles it sets forth bear directly upon your life every day.

The simple bottom line is this; if you believe in America – in these United States, then you must believe in the Constitution. It is what makes us who we are. If you don’t know what it says, then you really don’t know what it is you claim to believe in. If you don’t already know what the Constitution says, now is the time to learn.
 

Before you ask, yes, he really did say that. This one statement, perhaps more than any of the other ignorant things he said and did during his administration should have been sufficient grounds for impeachment. Live and learn; we cannot change the past, but we can shape the future. In fact, Bush is only one of many who share similar views; I’m amused when I hear Congressmen boast that they always carry a copy of the Constitution in their breast pocket. That’s great, but unless they’ve taken the time to read it, it does them little good.

Today, with the resources available on the internet, there is no reason why Americans should remain ignorant about the Constitution. The document itself consists of only seven articles describing how the Government functions, and 27 amendments that make up for the shortcomings of the original work. This is probably less information than most of us had to learn to obtain a Drivers License, but in spite of this, knowledge about the most important document ruling our lives is at an all time low. According to a 2006 Reuters report, a Zogby poll found that 74% of Americans could name all three of the Three Stooges, while only 42% could name the three branches of the U.S. Government.

No amount of apathy can serve as an excuse now that you’re out of Civics Class — and you don’t have to carry it in your breast pocket like those exalted Patriots in Congress. Just read the document, and take a little time to understand what it says!

The US Constitution: A Primer for the Unwashed

My purpose is not to write a lot of fluff, and I’m not big on reinventing the wheel. With that said, I will defer to those who have already created excellent guides the the U.S. Constitution, and I strongly encourage readers to explore these sites.

One of the best high level overviews of the Constitution, written in simple, understandable English, is provided by USConstitution.net, on their page The Constitution for Kids. This is written for students in Grades 8 – 12, but don’t let that deter you; if you read and understand it, you’ll still be ahead of most Americans (George W. Bush included)! On the off chance that George W. Bush is reading this (can he use a computer?), they also have a version for kids in Kindergarten thru 3rd Grade HERE. Good Luck George.

On a serious note, if you have kids, it’s never too early to introduce them to the concepts that form the underpinnings of our Nation, and this is a fantastic starting point.

Here are a few more resources that I have found useful, and can recommend to give you the information that you need:

Justice Learning’s Guide to the Constitution – Interactive Learning

The National Constitution Center – Interactive Constitution

USConstitution.net – A great tool for additional research

Wikipedia The Constitution – Hyperlinked and Cross Referenced

A Living Document Open to Interpretation

One very important fact regarding the US Constitution is that unlike the constitutions of some other countries, ours is a living document that is open to interpretation on an ongoing basis. The task of interpreting the Constitution falls to the Supreme Court; or more precisely, to the Justices of the Supreme Court.

While many of the laws outlined in the Constitution are pretty cut-and-dried, others are open to broad interpretation. This is why the appointment of Supreme Court Justices by the President carries such weight; since the Justices serve for life, the appointment of ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal candidates has a potential to shape the future of our Nation for a very long time beyond the term of the President who makes the appointment.

If ultra-conservative Justices held a majority in the Court, for example, they could change the current interpretation of the Constitution to restrict a woman’s right to choice, or severely limit freedom of speech.

Even though the president makes the appointments, the candidates are confirmed by Congress; this is why it is important to pay attention to who is being appointed, and to let your Congressman know how you feel about the candidate!

So you see that it is really up to you — understanding how your Government works, and knowing the rights that you hold as a citizen of this Great Nation are a cornerstone of true Patriotism.

The opinions expressed are entirely my own, and I take full responsibility for them. If you are offended or disagree with my opinions, thoughtful commentary or criticism are welcome. — David A. Hester
 

The cost of the war is staggering. The economic crisis in the U.S. today has many causes, but the cumulative cost of continual warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan has certainly been a contributing factor. In spite of the rhetoric of “change” under the Obama Administration, the wars continue, and while troop levels in Iraq are slated to be drawn down, it appears that our military presence in Afghanistan may be proportionally increased … not really the “change” America had hoped for.

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few … No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. — James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

I’m all for National Defense. The real question is this: How much of the current military budget is dedicated to the necessary defense of American lives and American soil? In fact, the current military budget has little to do with either of these objectives.

The budget provides only 2.5% for Science, Energy and the Environment. We have been told many times that these national priorities that will “generate new jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil”. The budget also provides a whopping 2.2% for Education and Jobs — another critical national priority.

In the midst of the worst economic crisis in a century, with record numbers of unemployed Americans, we dedicate less than 5% of the national budget to programs that directly benefit the American People. Concurrently, 44% of the budget is allocated to military spending. While it’s true that the defense industry generates jobs and contributes to the economy, it won’t pull us out of the current crisis — quite aside from the moral and ethical considerations regarding an economy based upon a war-machine.

The Cost of the Iraq War

Nobody knows, fully, what the war Iraq has cost. There are many estimates, taking various factors into consideration, and the totals can vary widely.

In general, an accepted figure for the dollar cost of the war is somewhere around $690 billion dollars. That’s a lot of money. For comparison, that same amount of money could pay the salaries of 14,904,312 Elementary School Teachers for one Year, or provide 7,057,801 New Affordable Housing Units.

To date, there have been 4326 American military casualties. There have been more than 30,000 military personnel wounded in action. The psychological impact upon military personnel and their families is becoming an increasing concern, as the enactment of stop-loss reenlistment, combined with multiple tours of duty in combat zones, is creating high levels of stress among military personnel and their families.

According to February 2008 Article on CNN.com:

America’s reputation abroad has suffered greatly since the inception of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While overall world opinion about the U.S. has improved slightly under the Obama administration, it will take many years and concrete actions by the U.S. to repair the damage that has been done before we regain the trust and goodwill of the rest of the world.

Another major concern related to the wars lies in the relationship between the U.S. and the Islamic world. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined with unconditional U.S. support for Israel in spite of Israel’s ongoing aggression against the Palestinian People, have been extremely damaging. It can be argued that these factors have directly contributed to a rise in anti-American sentiment throughout the Islamic world, and have done more to aid Islamic Fundamentalists in gaining political power within those nations. It is also likely that terrorist organizations within the Islamic world have been aided rather thwarted by our actions.

This is only a brief overview of the cost of the war to the American People; but we are not the only nation that has paid a price. Iraq itself has been victimized by years of ongoing warfare and strife.

We don’t do body counts. — U.S. General Tommy Franks

Accurate estimates regarding the real number of Iraqi deaths do not exist; the estimates given by various sources take widely differing factors into consideration. Minimally, more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a direct result of combat activity. However, estimates can exceed 1 million dead, when all factors are considered.

This would include death by disease and other factors due to the destruction of basic infrastructure within Iraq. For many years there has been a lack of clean drinking water, medicine and other basic necessities. Transportation to the limited number of hospitals has been dangerous due to hostilities, and damage to roads and bridges. It would also include death due to internal violence between different religious and ethnic groups within the country (Sunni, Shia, and Kurd), which has increased significantly since the start of the war.

It is known that more than 3 million Iraqis have been displaced from their homes and farms, representing one of the largest refugee problems in the world today. Many of these refugees are living in horrific conditions; many have died, and many more will die unless the situation improves.

Today is truly a Black Anniversary. Seven years ago, with the stroke of a pen, one man, with the willing complicity of the U.S. Congress, ignoring the opinion of the world, and worse — ignoring the will of a majority of Americans, embarked upon a military adventure whose full cost has yet to be reckoned.

Let us hope that if “change” is in the wind, that it comes swiftly.

The opinions expressed are entirely my own, and I take full responsibility for them. If you are offended or disagree with my opinions, thoughtful commentary or criticism are welcome. — David A. Hester
 

Introduction

Patriotism is a gestalt emotion — meaning that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It is some ill understood combination of the sense of pride, the sense of duty, love of home, love of family, and just a dash of nostalgia — that would be the taste of watermelon and the sound of fireworks on the Fourth of July.

It can be found in the sound of a High School Marching Band on Veterans Day, and it can be found in the sense of wonder when one looks up at the Rocky Mountains, or upon the vast fields of wheat in a Kansas summer. It can also be found in the sweat of a Social Worker helping single mothers in an inner city to cope, or in the voice of a teacher who still believes that the youth of America represent our future. So too, Patriotism can be found in the blood of a Law Enforcement Officer, shed in the line of duty, or the tears of a mother whose son died a senseless death, fighting a war in America’s name for reasons unknown.

While the word itself is a noun, it is a noun that implies action. It is a term that implies acts or emotions, conscious or unconscious, that go beyond the dictionary definition of “love for or devotion to one’s country”.

Patriotism is something hard to define. It can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people, and can mean different things at different times in history. While a historical perspective of Patriotism in the United States might be useful, that is a project for another time. What I want to talk about here is Patriotism today — and more importantly, relevant tangible actions that can be undertaken by an individual who wants to BE a Patriot in the 21st Century.

To that end, future installments of Patriotism 101 will detail 10 actions — that is, 10 simple things that anyone who wants to help shape a positive future for America can do. I don’t mean to indicate that these are the only things that make a Patriot, or that by doing these things you automatically become a Patriot; that part is entirely up to you. I know that anyone who cares enough to do enough can make a difference.
 

So, you want to be a Patriot?

As of today, the Government would like to reduce Freedom and Liberty to a series of easy to remember slogans and sound bytes. It is their hope that the American People are sufficiently fearful, and sufficiently dumbed-down to accept whatever they are told without question or resistance. We are expected to believe that we are free, in spite of evidence that our Liberties and Freedom are being further eroded with each passing day.

Make no mistake, in spite of the fact that we have a new Government that promised “change”, we are living in sad times. Our Government would like to define Patriotism as an ability to quietly and blindly submit to control over virtually every aspect of our lives. In this sick redefinition of Patriotism we must willingly sacrifice those very freedoms that our fathers and forefathers fought and died for. We are to lie down and accept that everything we are told, the laws we are forced to submit to, the taxes we are forced to pay, all are for our own good — with no more evidence than the word of individuals who derive a profit from our silence.

Truly, the events of 9/11 marked a sad day for America. Since that day many individuals who have dared to speak against the illegal actions of a government that seems to have abandoned “We the People” have been labeled unpatriotic. This is perhaps the least of the insults that have been dealt — worse epithets have been hurled, including “Traitor”.

Is this the Liberty that our fathers fought and died for?

Here’s a short message for those who value wealth and power over morality and justice. It applies equally to the Neocons that have brought us to this sad state of affairs, as well as the ignorant flag-waving Rednecks and twisted Religious Nutjobs who helped give them the power to destroy a Great Nation:

In spite of your delusional viewpoints, there is more to Freedom — more to Liberty than waving flags and putting your ignorance and prejudices on public display.

Nobody hates us because we are free; the United States was once the Greatest and most respected Nation on Earth. If there are people or Nations who have come to hate us (and am certain there are), it is only for what we have done or failed to do as a moral and just society. We can regain the respect and honor we have lost, but we must first put our own house in order.

Liberty means responsibility — it’s that simple. Liberty isn’t the right to be wealthy, it isn’t the right to own a bigger pickup truck, and it isn’t the right to force others to accept your God as their own. Liberty means responsibility — like having a child — you have to nurture it, you have to protect it, you have to educate it, you have to correct it when it is in error, and you have to love it. Liberty means work, it means educating yourself. It means taking responsibility for your own actions. It means making informed choices. It means holding the government accountable, and it means sacrifice for the greater good — a concept almost entirely alien to current American culture.

Liberty isn’t just something you have — it is something you do, and something you must keep doing every day lest you lose it. This is where we stand today — on the brink of a great abyss; it is up to us. We can do nothing and plunge into the darkness of ignorance, despair, and servitude, or we can fight our way back to the great and shining heritage that our Founding Fathers wished for us. The choice is ours to make.

The opinions expressed are entirely my own, and I take full responsibility for them. If you are offended or disagree with my opinions, thoughtful commentary or criticism are welcome. — David A. Hester