Category Archives: Language

Give Peace a Chance?

This tweet started an uproar, as well as the picture. Ellen_DeGeneres_tweetThere’s millions of reasons to bicker amongst ourselves and far fewer to not. Everyone can find fault in others, but not so easily in ourselves. Why is that?

Well, I support the ideas Ellen DeGeneres espoused. We need more kindness, more respect, and love in this world. Excuses are bountiful, but I side with trying peace.

The brouhaha started when Ellen DeGeneres sent out a tweet showing she was sitting with George & Laura Bush at a game. There were some angry criticism over her being a lesbian, who claimed he was an oppressor of the LGBTQ+ community and even went so far as to refer to him as a war criminal.

Furthermore, everyone believes they’re an expert on when it’s appropriate to use the military. At that time, 9/11 occurred. People wanted to get Bin Laden, and go after perceived threats. The government of Iraq appeared to be the next regime to start an international conflict through either biological or nuclear methods.

Most people in Congress, voted to go into Iraq. That included Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Charles Schumer, John Kerry and others who tried to say, we are real smart people, but we think we were duped. Well, if that’s what they believe, that’s what they can try to make as their own cover story. George Bush did his best in time of crisis.

After George Bush left office, President Obama continued with the war in Iraq, and some say he let the Iraqi people down by withdrawing most (not all) troops. During his time he increased commitment to the Afghanistan war. Then through clandestine operations, used off the books money to fund and support rebels in Libya. They toppled Muammar Gaddafi. That ended up a total fiasco when members of the Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sharia, continued to spread hate & discontent and destroyed the Benghazi embassy, killing the ambassador & other personnel.

In truth, there continues to be blood on the hands of both political parties, and even now, President Trump is catching flak for his desire to withdraw our military involvement in Syria. People were questioning our military involvement authorized by President Obama, and now the press, some military leaders, and many critics are saying we shouldn’t withdraw. This is the nature of politics and people who castigate one person for doing something they were raking another over for doing just the opposite.

You see, Mark Ruffalo, and others like him, have the distinction of knowing exactly what’s right while everyone else are confused. I guess the best thing for any of us, is to know what’s right, but not have any responsibility for the consequences. It’s perfect. It’s like we were watching a football game and there are hundreds, maybe thousands of fans that would have called a different play, than the one they saw executed on the field.

Meanwhile, people like Ellen are saying, give peace a chance. Let’s practice peace and understanding in our own domain. Once we figure how to get along with people locally who have different opinions, maybe we can roll that out internationally?

I guess what I find so disingenuous are those who most often say, don’t judge me, or don’t be so judgemental, typically fail to recognize their own behavior.


Note: Introduced in the House by Dennis Hastert on Oct. 2, 2002
Became Public Law No. 107-243
Committee consideration by the House Committee on International Relations
Passed the House on Oct. 10, 2002 (296 – 133)
Passed the Senate on Oct. 11, 2002 (77 – 23)
Signed into law by President George W. Bush on Oct. 16, 2002

The Sea Lawyers Are at it, Again

A 2016 article was recently posted by a friend who opposes personal ownership of firearms.

What America’s gun fanatics won’t tell you” <- link will take you to opinion article.

The title alone implies anyone that wants the ability to protect themselves and or their family with a firearm, must be a fanatic.

The right to speak freely, the right to protect your life or property, the right to not self-incriminate, the right of habeas corpus, were understood by those who authored this key document, as fundamental to keeping a democracy from being turned into tyranny of the masses or by a select powerful few. Human behavior is the same now as it was then, and they did their best to protect “inalienable rights.” See this article for further explanation of the alternate use of the words. Are our rights ‘inalienable’ or ‘unalienable’?

The author of the article misses two key things written in the second amendment, and the other not mentioned whatsoever; Hamilton was shot and died at the hands of Aaron Burr. Both men freely entered a pistol dual to “protect their honor”. Whatever misgivings Alexander Hamilton may have had about an individual’s right to bear arms didn’t change the course of his life or his demise.

As a bit more of a history lesson about Alexander Hamilton, he was a prominent centralized authority proponent. Among his many ideas, he proposed this at the Constitutional Convention; to have an elected President and elected Senators who would serve for life, contingent upon “good behavior” and subject to removal for corruption or abuse.

He secretly communicated with at that time, “enemies of the state” in order to further the push toward a more monarchistic form of government. Don’t believe me, then please allow the words of a contemporary to explain.

James Madison, known as the author of the Constitution, vehemently opposed at every opportunity Alexander Hamilton’s efforts to create a despotic central government. Madison once remarked that Hamilton had a hidden agenda “of the glories of a United States woven together by a system of tax collectors,” who would be ruthless in both their collection and punishment efforts. Madison authored the 2nd amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, specifically as an answer to Hamilton’s urge to create a national army which would enforce tax laws and subject the state citizens to the tyrannical rule of the central government. Hamilton dreamed of a large military to enforce the will of federal tax collectors, district attorneys, and judges on the populace, and to enforce unpopular laws.

So, let’s pick through that which was ignored in order for the author, Brett Arends, to create a false interpretation of the Second amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Note the comma, for those that don’t understand this basic usage, it’s use is to separate coordinated independent clauses. Perhaps that’s a misunderstood definition on language.

More modern legal arguments over the definition of those few words are, collective rights of government vs. individual rights. I refer you to a link that describes this in more detail –> Live Science

“The first ten amendments of the Constitution are collectively known as the Bill of Rights. It was formalized for the protection of natural rights of liberty and property.” “This bill is an important constituent of American Law as well as the government, and symbolizes the freedom and culture of the United States of America.” The Constitution was written to be a more concise and centralized view of government authority. It replaced the Articles of Confederation. At it’s core, it states these rights are not granted by government, but are inalienable rights of all citizens. This means the government was formed to protect the individual from tyranny of the state as well as foreign powers.

I’ll end this post with Alexander Hamilton’s own words, because he too understood the balance necessary to prevent tyranny.
“ .. if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”

Hamilton delineates his vision not only of a free people bearing arms for the common defense, but also for the protection of liberty. It was intended by the framers of our Constitution that a free people be armed. Therefore it follows, those who wish the people disarmed also wish them enslaved by their own government.

Alexander_Hamilton_Aaron_Burr_dual_to_death_framed

Burr–Hamilton duel, from a painting by J. Mund

History has repeatedly shown, the rights & liberties of people are not preserved or protected solely by the pen, but through the power of the sword.

[ —————- ]
Continue reading

Perish the Thought

Fire And Ice

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

by Robert Frost
(March 26, 1874 – January 29, 1963 / San Francisco)

Springfield_park_lake_dusk_a