Saturday, July 15, 2006

1967 revisited - On the Seventh Day They Rested

In 1967, in a short six day span, Israel brought Egypt, Jordan and Syria to their knees in a three front war. This war could have been avoided had the United Nations brokered a peace between Israel and its neighbors that then Prime Minister, Golda Mier had begged them to do. This plea for peace on the side of Israel took place on October 10, 1960. Immediately following, the UN General Assembly understood Egypt's refusal to recognize the Jewish State, and in 1963 the Arab League (members of the United Nation Security Council), formed the Palestinian Army, under the direction of Yassir Arafat. The world decried any reaction from Israel and as attacks increased upon its citizens; the Isreali's continued to beg the UN for intervention - they only wanted to live in peace. Once again, this was ignored, and Israel was asked to basically put up with the continual assault from its neighbors.

On May 15, 1967, the Egyptians moved troops to Israel's borders, Syria did the same and on June 5th, Jordan attacked Israel, spurred on by the presence of Egyptian warplane. Still Israel rested. With pressure from the UN and the world against them, an increase in attacks on their country and literally surrounded by hostile neighbors they decided to take a stand. In 6 days the Israeli forces captured territory and defeated the forces against them. It was a resounding and humiliating defeat.

A little history lesson might be in order at this point in time because, once again, Israel is left with its back agaisnt the wall, and with no support from any nation (besides once again, the United States President's assertion that Israel has a right to defend itself) (In 1967 the President was Lyndon B. Johnson) the Israeli's will take a stand. They have the military capability to decimate their neighbors, a fact that is apparently lost on Iran and Syria. In addition, they have the will, desire and their peoples firmly behind this just cause.

In other words, they will be doing the world a favor when they decide to let loose and put their detractors in their place. As a body, the UN has been historically ineffective in brokering peace settlements (much like Jimmy Carter). With Iran in ashes and Syria in chains, the democracy in Iraq will stand more than a chance at success. In addition, the peoples of Iran will be in a position to work towards regime change and establish the democracy they crave. In the short term, Europe and the United States may pay more for a gallon of gas, but in the long term, the benefits will far outweigh any minor inconvenience those territories face.

History has a way of repeating itself; and those who study history are aware of mistakes they made in the past. The Israeli's are aware of history. In this respect, they will not allow another uprising from the ashes, and will take the steps necessary to finally insure peace in the region.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

A funny thing happened last night; a phone call came through rather late and on the other end was a gentleman looking for my husband. He hadn't seen or spoken to him since 1973. Apparently, they used to parachute together, were best buddies, and he felt compelled to contact him. We began to talk generalities; and the main point was how similar the situation in Iraq had become to the situation in Viet Nam. It is not necessarily the fact that the two conflicts are similar. It is the fact that the press and one particular political party are affecting the outcome in Iraq in much the same way. It is a general consensus among these like-minded individuals and their families (i.e. branches of the military, retirees, veterans - approximately 50 million citizens of these United States), that we should "finish the job" and not let "press and politicians" dictate to the military.

As the November elections draw near, politician's such as Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich are predicating gains for the GOP. This could be attributed to party bravado, however, it may also be a direct result of listening to the people; not those that feel they are able to sway policy simply because they consider themselves to be "elite" and above it all.

Therefore, another interpretation of Hamilton and Jay's discourse regarding treason and the freedom of the press may be applied. The people may indeed decide. In the marketplace as well as in November.

Raising the question. Is anyone out there polling the military, veterans groups and their families? Anyone besides the GOP?

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Alexander Hamilton on Freedom of the Press

From Letter #84:

"Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions maybe imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power, but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to ursurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power"

In the event one is not familiar with Alexander Hamilton; he co-authored a document entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America". Ironically, in that same letter he addressed the issue of Treason and its inclusion in the constitution (of that he was in favor, of freedom of the press, he was inclined to be concerned).

One may then propose that the honorable Hamilton was a bit clairvoyant in regards to his notion that powerful men, planning to ursurp the United States of America, would use the press as an instrument. Bill Keller and his ilk, must be aware of this fact.

Treason, giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war (with a certainty this applies to the New York Times and others) documented by two witnesses to the fact. (How about millions of readers, is that clearly enough?)

Why is it then that these high crimes continue to be absolved based upon a one-line note in the Constitution; that, according to those who wrote the legal document, is not a free pass at all?

Monday, July 10, 2006

What's in a secret?

Apparently nothing. "Top Secret" and "Classified" are now constantly found on the front pages of the most "Elite" (elitist) newspapers in the country. Apparently, if the United States has a program in force that is helping to keep our nation safe, the New York Times, Daily News, LA Times, John Murtha, etc. all have "sources" that give up the news faster than a 50 cent hooker on Worthington Street. All this despite the sane please coming from the New York City police Commissioner to U.S. Senators and especially the White House. (Note: sane does not always factor into the aforementioned, but in this case there is an exception made.

peruse letter #84 of the Federalist Papers (A book well-worth reading) and one find that Treason and the Press are both prominently featured on the framers (Constitution) minds. At least, these were two of three issues that were not fully addressed until the representatives from the State of New York brought up some points regarding the establishment of nobility in the United States and the inclusion of a Bill of Rights into the Constitution. It is abundantly clear in this particular case that the framers did not intend for the press to be granted unlimited freedoms (they had a right to publish and to dissent, however, that was where the line was drawn; they were still subject to all laws including: treason. The only point that was brought about regarding Treason: that the penalty should not extend to a persons family for generations (This was a common practice at the time. For example: Bill Keller tried for treason and convicted would mean that all of his property would be forfeit and his family, for several generations, would be much maligned. This particular clause was a safeguard for the descendents and direct relatives of those who commit treason.

Lately, all one hears is that it is not the New York Times fault that they published the story; they (other media) blame the source: "We have too many leaks". All well and good then: since there is no protection of sources written into the constitution (and or in letters and documents by framers of the same document) especially in cases of Treason, then there is no reason for an editor not to give up the source; especially in the case of classified documents, programs, etc. that are designed to keep the Times building standing. To do otherwise, would be treasonous.

Time has a new cover story regarding the "end of cowboy diplomacy and the Bush Doctrine". When the President does exactly what his detractors (socialist democrats and newspaper editors) say he should do, then he is acting like "Bill Clinton". The more that they open their mouths without thinking, the more the public takes notice.

Iran and North Korea are two nations run by zealots (or one very insane man and one who's insane because he believes he is the last man with a direct link to the Prophet), who present a problem, yes, but not as big of a problem as say:
The New York Times and Code Pink! Which may be the reason those in a position to know, are dropping one on China's doorstep and the other on Europe. With more short range missiles in both arsenals, those are the countries at risk. They should teach more geography; especially to those holding public office and those writing about those who hold public office.

Has anyone seen this poll?

Would you rather: win the war in Iraq or pull troops out now?
Are you in favor of a closed border?
Are you in favor of mandatory sentencing for child predators?
Of the following which is a top priority?
Education, energy, the environment
What is your main source of news?
Network Television, Cable Television, Internet Blogs, Newspapers, Radio

The questions where neither party are privy to the answers.

One last note: Italy won the World Cup, France Lost.

Amazon Picks

Massachusetts Conservative Feminist - Degrees of Moderation and Sanity Headline Animator

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

Contact Me:

Your Name
Your Email Address