Zelaya of Honduras–Good Guy or Bad Guy?

3. July 2009 by The Chuck.

Soldiers stormed the palace occupied by José Manuel Zelaya Rosales on June 28, disarmed his guards, and arrested the Honduran president. The Supreme Court had ordered the army to remove Zelaya for “treason and abuse of authority, among other charges” according to the chief lawyer of the Honduran armed forces. He went on to say, “It was a fast operation. It was over in minutes, and there were no injuries, no deaths. We said, ‘Sir, we have a judicial order to detain you.’ We did it with respect.”

Then why is the US President denouncing the event?

For most Americans it’s a blur, which is understandable in part as we are saturated with the news of Michael Jackson’s, Farrah Fawcett’s, and Karl Malden’s deaths along with the weight of a 9.5% unemployment, a falling stock market, a $1.85 trillion deficit, and many communities lacking the funds for fireworks on the celebration of the 233rd anniversary of our independence–we barely have time to notice our troops pulling out of Iraq’s urban areas and the big troop push against the Taliban in Afghanistan, much less for what is happening where the Mayan’s used to live.

The Mayans? Yes, they used to live where modern-day Honduras is now found. You might have heard something about their calendar and the year 2012–but lets save that topic for some other day–instead we’ll just talk about Honduras.

Honduras is a Central American, democratic constitutional republic, which means the citizens there regularly cast ballots in accordance with the laws in their constitution to elect representatives for the purpose of administering their government in accordance with their constitution. Countries that have a constitution as their supreme law of the land have the potential for respecting individual freedoms.

Hondurans have traveled a rough road to liberty and pursuit of happiness and still have miles to go. Though independent since 1821, it wasn’t until 1982 that a freely elected civilian government came to power. During the Era of Reagan, Honduras was a haven for contras fighting the Marxist Nicaraguan Government and an ally to El Salvador as it fought leftist guerillas. Thus they were an important American ally in containing Soviet-sponsored communism during the decade that brought the Cold War to an end.

Hondurans are a young, literate, and poor people. Numbering over 7.7 million, their median age is just barely over 20 years-old with a per capita GDP that ranks 149th in the world. Unemployment was last reported at 27.8% with inflation at 11.9%. Thus, their misery index is 39.7%–which means most Americans really can’t relate to how bad it is for the typical Honduran. Such conditions encourage corruption and illicit drug activities, which are found in Honduras.

America buys over 67% of their exports, which is mostly coffee and bananas. They are heavily dependent on the health of the US economy. Certainly anything that compromised our trading relationship with them would be very important to them.

But these are a free people, and since 1982 their constitution has ruled them with elected representatives in a three branched government: an Executive (president elected to a 4-year term), a Legislative (National Congress elected for a 4-year term), and a Judicial (Supreme Court of Justice appointed for a 7-year term by Congress and confirmed by the president).

After a quick flashback to your high school government class, you’ve probably noticed that all of that sounds much like the American government setup. But there are some differences. For example, the Honduran President is only allowed a single term.

And there’s the rub.

Zelaya’s Liberal Party won the elections in 2005 after campaigning on “citizen power” and increasing “transparency in government” while promising to combat drug-trafficking and to maintain macroeconomic stability. But 4 years can pass quickly.

During that time, Zelaya managed to forge a regional alliance with Fidel Castro (of Cuba) and Hugo Chevez (of Venezuela) in the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ABL), which is designed as a counter to the trade and security policies of the United States. His presidency is linked with an increase in crime and corruption scandals. His remaining supporters were the labor unions and the nation’s poor–everyone else feared he wanted to follow Ortega’s example in Nicaragua and Chavez’s progressive movement in Venezuelan to make it possible for him to serve unlimited terms–in other words to become President for life.

Of course, in order to make that happen–their constitution needed to be changed.

Zelaya wanted to conduct a national poll on whether to convene a Constitutional Assembly to draft a new constitution, however the Supreme Court ruled that to be unconstitutional since the constitution of Honduras requires a two-thirds vote of Congress to take such action.

Since the electoral process in Honduras refused to cooperate with Zelaya, he improvised. With a little help from his friends (i.e. Chavez) he got the ballots, along with sealed ballot boxes, presumedly to be administered by Zelaya’s volunteers and community organizers. Then Zelaya ordered the ballots and boxes to be distributed by the Honduran Army, through it’s commanding general (Vasquez Velasquez), who refused because he knew it was unlawful.

But that couldn’t stop Zelaya. He fired him and sent his community organizers on a mission to get the ballots out to the people. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court reinstalled Velasquez and decreed that Zelaya be arrested and removed from power.

What didn’t happen?

A general didn’t shoot the president in the head and declare himself to be the new president–that would have been a military coup–generally considered illegal.

What did happen?

The president of a republic intentionally overstepped the limits of his constitutional powers–generally considered a high crime. Then the Supreme Court, operating in concert with the Attorney General of Honduras, issued a legal document to remove the President from office. And when that was complete, Congress appointed a temporary President to fill the void until after the upcoming national elections in November.

While that’s not exactly the way we do things in the United States–because our Constitution is different–it seems to fit with their constitution. So the entire process appears to have been a lawful act.

But then the other shoe fell.

The President of the United States sided with Zelaya and suspended military ties with Honduras, though he did stop short of severing our diplomatic relationship with the vulnerable republic.

It’s difficult to second-guess the President of the United States, as he is privy to much more information than the average American. Since that is so, you’d think he would have also known about Zeyala’s anti-US activities along with his illegal actions inside of Honduras–but the United States wasn’t doing anything about it. So there must be more to this.

Recently we’ve seen the United States announce a policy with Iran to not “meddle” in their affairs while the Iranian government–which by the way has been sponsoring and supporting a terrorist war against us–violently put down a massive civilian uprising. But now, in contrast, it appears as if we’re meddling in Honduras as they try to protect their constitution from a domestic enemy, who has garnered foreign support.

Confusing.

There is an old axiom about how you can be judged by the company you keep.

When we see Ortega of Nicaragua, Castro of Cuba, and Chavez of Venezuela (who has threatened to invade Honduras)
very upset with the actions of the Honduran people and their lawful government, is it too difficult to come to the conclusion that maybe Zelaya is a bad guy?

It just makes sense.

Posted in International Nonsense, The Chuck's Comments | Print | No Comments »

The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America …

2. July 2009 by The Chuck.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
·         For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
·         For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
·         For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
·         For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
·         For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
·         For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
·         For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
·         For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
·         For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren.
·         We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.
·         We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.
·         We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare.

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown,

and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;

and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce,

and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Posted in Band of Brothers | Print | No Comments »

July 2 almost a memorable epoch in history

2. July 2009 by The Chuck.

During the American Revolution, the legal separation of the American colonies from Great Britain occurred on July 2, 1776, when the Second Continental Congress voted to approve a resolution of independence that had been proposed in June by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia. After voting for independence, Congress turned its attention to the Declaration of Independence, a statement explaining this decision, which had been prepared by a Committee of Five, with Thomas Jefferson as its principal author.  On the 3rd of July, John Adams had written to his wife Abigail :

“The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.”

However, Congress debated and revised the Declaration, finally approving it on July 4. Thus, Adams’ prediction was off by two days. From the outset, Americans celebrated independence on July 4, the date shown on the much-publicized Declaration of Independence, rather than on July 2, the date the resolution of independence was approved in a closed session of Congress.

One of the most enduring myths about Independence Day is that Congress signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. The myth had become so firmly established that, decades after the event and nearing the end of their lives, even the elderly Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had come to believe that they and the other delegates had signed the Declaration on the fourth. Most delegates actually signed the Declaration on August 2, 1776. In a remarkable series of coincidences, both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, two founding fathers of the United States and the only two men who signed the Declaration of Independence to become president, died on the same day: July 4, 1826, which was the United States’ 50th anniversary. President James Monroe died exactly five years later, on July 4, 1831, but he was not a signatory to the Declaration of Independence.

Posted in Band of Brothers | Print | No Comments »

Obama’s Passport

1. July 2009 by The Chuck.

I received an interesting email from a friend today. It revisits the question of Obama’s citizenship. Before you hit the delete key or the next button, I’ll assure you that this is more than a discussion about the series of lawsuits demanding proof of his citizenship be presented in court–at least something more than the photoshop image of what a 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate might look like–but doesn’t when compared to other birth certificates of that era. I even checked out Snopes.com before writing this article–they got nothing!

Some people such as Philip Berg are still ringing that bell, but did you know that each state has a sworn government official who’s job it is to verify a person is qualified to be on a ballet before they’re placed there.  If the Obama machine didn’t shown a valid birth certificate to those people, then we have at least 50 anti-constitution activists in positions of power.  I suspect a birth certificate that appeared to be authentic was presented where it was required.

But what if it was a fake?

And not just a cheap fake–like what was posted on the “elect Obama” web site–but one that was good enough to fool all of the officials in 50 different states–and you know that there is no way that all of them are controlled by Democratic Party activists.  Would there be anything other than hear-say evidence about who was where when he was born?  Well, it seems the answer to a single question might be more important than “seeing” a birth-certificate that has already fooled experts.

What passport did Barack Obama use when he was shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi?

The email gave a little background information using a question and answer format:

How did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later? And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi, what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration? The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?

A: Yes, by his own admission.

I found some discussion on this subject here and here and here.

Yes, he went there. He used the trip as an example of his international experience.

Q: What passport did he travel under?

A: There are only three possibilities. 1. He traveled with a U.S. passport, 2) He traveled with a British passport, or 3) He traveled with an Indonesian passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. passport in 1981?

A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

If he was traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims.

And if he was traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008. Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

I found an intriguing remark on “dailymusings” as it contends that Pakistan was “banned” from travel.

But I’ve been having some trouble finding “banned countries.”  The state department does have a list of travel warnings–but you can still go to them.  Even with Cuba there are legal ways you can still go there.

So I’m not so sure if the statements about Pakistan being “banned” from travel in 1981 are correct.  You’d think Snopes.com would have posted this by now.

Back during the election of 2008, there was a big deal made about people “snooping” in passport records of the three front running candidates.

Obama called for an investigation into the matter.  Somebody even said the FBI was doing just that.  Interestingly enough, we haven’t heard much about that investigation since.  What were those unnamed folks looking for?  Why would they do that?  What happened to them?

Reportedly the two State Department employees peeked at passports file under the motivation of imprudent curiosity, were fired and third employee was disciplined.  And that was it.

It seems that if somebody had found evidence that Obama had traveled on foreign passports when he was young, that would have already been made available to the American public.

Maybe some Americans believe that if Obama could just be proven to be an illegal candidate for POTUS, he would be removed from office and we could go back to an America that doesn’t have $1.8 trillion deficit, and printing billions of dollars to buy up the auto manufacturers and banks, and moving towards government rationing of our medical care.

Maybe some Americans believe that if Obama could just be proven to be an illegal candidate for POTUS, he would be removed from office and we could go back to an America that doesn’t have $1.8 trillion deficit, and printing billions of dollars to buy up the auto manufacturers and banks, and moving towards government rationing of our medical care.

Hello?

This is bigger than who the President is.  The ideology of “more power to the government” is being driven home by a massive majority in the House of Representatives–led by Nancy Pelosi–and a super majority in the Senate, with yesterday’s addition of Minnesota’s Al Franken, led by Harry Reid.  Having a POTUS who supports and signs their bills is just an enabling factor.  Joe Biden would follow suit.

These people were voted into office.

If enough people aren’t happy with the spiral America has entered, then the solution is to win back the legislative branch in 2010.  We the people can constitutionally replace the entire House of Representatives every two-years if we want to, along with a third of the Senate.   In a couple of elections, a super majority for a new ideology could be in place to reverse the process that has put us where we are today.

As long as our Constitution remains the supreme law of our land, we can take back our government and our country.  We can do it peacefully, constitutionally, without fakery, and we can do it pretty quickly if we vote with our brains.It just makes sense.

Posted in National Nonsense, The Chuck's Comments, Band of Brothers | Print | No Comments »

This is ‘Faith’

29. June 2009 by The Chuck.

This dog was born on Christmas Eve in the year 2002. He was born with 3  legs -
2 healthy hind legs and 1 abnormal front leg which had to be  amputated.
He of course could not walk when he was born. Even his mother did not want him.

His first owner also did not think that he could survive and he was thinking of ‘putting him to sleep’.
But then, his present owner, Jude Stringfellow, met him and wanted  to take care of him.
She became determined to teach and train this little dog to walk by himself.
She named him ‘Faith’.

In the beginning, she put Faith on a surfboard to let him feel the movement.
Later she used peanut  butter on a spoon as a lure and reward
for him for standing up and jumping around.
Even the other dog at home encouraged him to walk.
Amazingly, only after 6 months, like a miracle,
Faith learned to balance on his hind legs and to jump to move forward.
After further training in the snow, he could now walk like a human being.

Faith loves to walk around now.
No matter where he goes, he attracts people to him.
He is fast becoming famous on the international scene and
has appeared on various newspapers and TV shows.
There is now a book entitled ‘With a Little Faith’ being published about him.
He was even considered to appear in one of Harry Potter movies.

His present owner Jude Stringfellew has  given up her teaching post and plans to take him around the world
to  preach that even without a perfect body, one can have a perfect soul’.

In life there are always undesirable things, so in order to feel better
you just need to look at life from another direction.
I hope this message will bring fresh new ways of thinking to everyone
and that everyone will appreciate and be thankful for each beautiful day.
Faith is the continual demonstration of the strength and wonder of life

When this email hit my box, it included a small request: keep this story circulating.  So I’ve placed it here for all to see.

Posted in Band of Brothers | Print | No Comments »

Only 101 today …

28. June 2009 by The Chuck.

… summer must be over, that was quick. Of course that was just the weather channel’s report–the outside temp gage on the wall hit 104 … so maybe I’m jumping the gun.

Rumor of rain on Monday. Anybody like rain?

Does it ever rain in Honduras?

Posted in Band of Brothers | Print | 1 Comment »

102 degrees …

27. June 2009 by The Chuck.

… In Louisiana today, putting our heat index at 116!  My air conditioning is working big time over time.  Must be all that global warming hitting all at once.  Anybody else hot?

Posted in Band of Brothers | Print | No Comments »

How’s This Direction Working For You?

26. June 2009 by The Chuck.

How’s This Direction Working For You?

June 26, 2009

“Tonight is a great victory for the American people.  Today they voted for change and for the Democratic Party to the take the country in a new direction,” is what Nancy Pelosi said following the Congressional upset election in 2006.  Since that night, we’ve seen a lot of change but I’m not sure this was the direction we wanted to go.

Unemployment has more than doubled since the Democratic Party leadership has taken our country in a new direction–from 4.5% to 9.5%. 

They managed to convince President Bush back in October 2008 that a “bail-out” package of $700 billion was needed to prevent the economy for collapsing. Then eight days after the Obama administration took control, the Democratic Party leadership was able to pass a “stimulus package” of another $787 billion, mostly before anybody read it. But even with that spending, unemployment still continues to increase at an alarming rate.

You probably remember how during the last few years of the Bush administration, many people complained about our deficit spending. And deficit spending is bad, as each year’s deficit piles on to the collective national debt, which is now reported to exceed $11 trillion. That’s a difficult number to grasp, though we Americans are getting more used to such numbers. Here’s what that looks like: $11,000,000,000,000. That’s still hard to understand.

Okay, how about this, if you had $11 trillion in your mattress when Jesus was born in Bethlehem and then you spent $14 million every day until now, you’d still have over $730 billion left to spend. That’s a lot.

Of course, we should all know that the legislative branch controls the budget. The President is limited by the Constitution to merely suggesting and then either approving or vetoing the budget which Congress votes to approve. Thus, it directly affects the American tax-payers when Congress approves extreme spending. Here’s what has happened to the deficit since Pelosi and Reid took control of Congress.

Economics can be confusing to most of us, but as a historian the way I understand it is that they have a theory, which is based on the idea that if they can create enough deficit spending it will make the economy recover. Before we completely denigrate that theory, we should understand that it is supported by the statistics from the depression, World War II, and the years that followed the war.

America went into extreme debt in order to fight back fascism and the leftist oligarchies of Germany and Japan. Following the war, under the weight of all that debt the economy dipped and then recovered. However, the idea that the debt made the economy recover ignores the fact that just about anybody who could work, did work during that time. American factories spit out tanks, airplanes, beans, and bullets as fast as possible during the war and then transitioned to cars, trucks and washing machines after the war. While it wasn’t the smoothest process imaginable, I believe the recovery was sparked by productivity (along with the absence of war) and not by bail-outs, pay-offs, and unemployment.

This day, an outnumbered minority of our honorable representatives have been desperately trying to keep Pelosi’s majority from passing a huge national energy tax. The result of which is believed by some to raise electricity prices, increase gasoline prices, and ship American jobs overseas to countries like China and India. In the process it will create another cluster of agencies that will redistribute trillions of dollars that rightfully belong to working-class Americans.

As I write this article, the battle to stop Pelosi’s energy tax may already be lost. Either way you need to take notice as unemployment continues to rise, and deficit spending continues to dwarf anything done by previous administrations, and as your hard-earned dollars are increasingly taken from you to be given to those with their hands out so that you can remember how your Representatives in Congress have voted.

If all this looks good to you, then smile and be happy.

But if you think the government has over-stepped its constitutional limits–you’d better make sure you vote with your brain in 2010. Regardless of party affiliation, we need representatives in government who do the right things because we may soon discover that we really can dig a hole so deep that we can’t get out of it.

As far I have read, no nation has ever taxed and spent itself into prosperity.

It just makes sense.

Posted in National Nonsense, The Chuck's Comments | Print | No Comments »

Achmadinejad or Mousavi?

21. June 2009 by The Chuck.

Is this really the choice that is causing so much pain for the people of Iran? What difference will it make for the rest of us?

Over 66 million people live there, according to the CIA’s world factbook, and the median age is 27, which means most of the people who are in this charter-member country of the “Axis of Evil” were born after the Islamic revolution of 1979.

For those people, it seems they’ve grown up knowing nothing else. But in the 21st century, is it really possible for people to know nothing else?

Well, that probably depends on which people we’re talking about. Nobody believes the North Koreans understand the world outside of their prison walls. And there are still some backwards people living in jungles are deserts who know little to nothing about the world. But Iran? Those people are pretty smart, I suspect they know more about the world than many of us have given them credit for knowing.

They’ve embraced technology as part of their lives.  It takes almost no effort to see the videos posted on YouTube.com about the on-going civil disorder there.  Even with the government crack-down on the internet and cell phone service, the people there manage to spread the word about their fight to world, while the rest of the people watch and wonder about this struggle.

Iran was once a great ally of the United States. Less than half of the people in Iran can remember such a time. I don’t know how many in the United States remember that era. But I’m one who does.

Prior to 1979 revolution, Iran had a monarch named Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Many of the their military trained in the United States. I met a few of them and we became friends.

When you make friends in the military, you know that your actual association with them will be short-lived–we all move around so much. Even more so with foreign exchange personnel, as they are destined to return to their homelands after their precious training. Still, we’d like to think that we will remember each other.

To make it easier, two of my old friends, Amir and Babak, gave me a few Iranian coins. In return I gave them each a shiny new 1975 Eisenhower dollar. At first they protested, saying that the silver dollars (actually cupronickel) were of greater value than their gifts. I explained that the coins were tokens of friendship, not something that would be spent.

They accepted my explanation and then gave me some of their currency with handwritten notes of friendship. There was a time when I could read them, but alas skills not practiced soon fade away. The first one is a 50 rials bill from Babak, signed front and back.

The next two are a twenty rials and then a one hundred rials signed by Amir.

We crossed paths again later at a base in North Carolina.  One weekend in 1976, Amir traveled with me to my hometown in Virgina (about 150 miles from where we were stationed) and I introduced him to my family and friends. At the time, I considered him to be one of my closest friends. Eventually we went our different directions and lost contact with each other. But thanks in part to these out-dated bills, I’ve never really forgotten him or Babak.

Watching the 1979 revolution from afar, I assumed he’d met his end in the violence that transformed the greatest regional ally of the United States of the time into our sworn enemy as they exported terrorism to the rest of the world. Most recently it seems they are intent on obtaining nuclear weapons in order to destroy Israel. Many Americans blame Achmadinejad, while others blame the left-wing, religious leaders, who hold the real power.

Some Americans have been confused over the left and right of things. Simply put, left-wing political theorists believe the government is the state and people are just part of the state. The more power the government has– power it takes from the people–the more leftist the government. Powerful leftist nations include North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and China. Historical leftist nations which used to exist include Hitler’s Nazi Germany and the USSR. Leftist nations are sometimes called socialist nations.

Mousavi was Prime Minister of Iran from 1981 to 1989. That was a pretty tough time for Iranian and US relationships. In 1987, we even had a little war with them in the Gulf, called the “’87 Persian Excursion” by the Navy. Iran was littering the Gulf with random mines and shooting at ships from oil platforms as they attempted to disrupt the free-flow of oil. One by-product of that Persian Excursion was the rebuilding of the Air Force’s conventional bombing capability–as it was embarrassing to just watch the Navy fix a problem without Air Force play. That conventional bombing capability came in handy during the 1991 Desert Storm–our first war against Saddam Hussein.

Thirty years ago, the outcome of a revolution pitted Iran against its former friends and most of the world. Will this new revolution reverse all of that? Will Mousavi be the leader that the Iranian people are dying to have? Will the nations who Iran’s government terrorized since 1979 come to the aid of these people?

So once this unrest or revolution is sorted out, will Iran be any different–as far as the rest of the world is concerned? Will the people fighting and dying in the streets, since the bogus election, be willing to accept merely exchanging one puppet-president of a cleric-led oligarchy for another. Especially when that oligarchy appears to be dead-set on obtaining nuclear weapons in order to attack Israel.

Moments before death (warning graphic video)

Over the years, Israel has proven that it will act in concert with other nations to defend itself, but when other nations will not assist them–they are the masters of unilateral, preemptive action. Thinking out the consequences of such activity, it is possible for us to imagine the level of human-suffering that is about to happen.

This new revolution may be the only thing that can prevent the suffering of an impending nuclear war.

Thus it appears that whatever the outcome of this revolution is–the result can’t possibly be worse than it is now, or at least what it is about to become. Therefore, the United States, Israel, Iraq, Afphganistan, and all other nations who have suffered from the terrorism exported from Iran over the last thirty years should provide whatever support the bold people need. Who knows? We might even find an old friend when this is all over.

It just makes sense.

Posted in International Nonsense, The Chuck's Comments | Print | No Comments »

Great Come Back

21. June 2009 by The Chuck.

A few of you might remember “Slider”.  During his initial qual as a copilot, he was Professor’s student–way back when the FTU had hard lines. I know . . . ancient history.

Anyway,  I also flew with him several times (maybe four at the most).

I don’t think I flew with him when he upgraded to AC.  And he went to CFIC after I retired.  But he did get a no-flap touch and go–we managed to pass that down to him.

Today he’s a weapon school instructor and has a line-number for major.

We solicited  the weapon’s school to give the 608 AOC a B-52 Capes brief–maybe because nobody wants to hear my “pulling alert with SRAMs and B-28s” stories.

I gave Slider orientation training on SIPR DCO the day prior to his briefing.  While he was building some Poll Questions, the deputy chief for the Combat Operations Division (Tigger) came into our office to discuss an entirely separate issue.   Tigger is a Lt Colonel with an A-10 background, plus he’s a big Hawaiian-looking guy.  I like him, but like many fighter pilots–his sense of humor can leave bomber guys wondering if he’s kidding or picking a fight.

I decided to introduce Slider to Tigger, and Tigger took advantage of the moment to interject some of that A-10 style humor.

“You mean you let this old guy in your cockpit?  What could he ever do?”

Slider didn’t smile.  Instead he maintained eye-contact with Tigger and calmly said, “He taught me everything I know.”

Tigger looked at me, a bit bewildered, and I said something, but whatever it was, it didn’t measure up to what that B-52 pilot had just laid on him.

Yeah, that was a good moment.

Posted in Flying the BUFF, Band of Brothers | Print | No Comments »

June blog…

13. June 2009 by Andy.

I’ve been meaning to write for the last couple of months, but I’ve been out of town – company business.  So maybe I can get caught up this time.

I thought that once retired time slows down…still waiting! LoL

Still making models – that latest is a 1/48^th scale B-26 Marauder of the 441^st Bomb Squadron, 320^th Bomb Group, 9^th Air Force at Dijon, France in April 1944.  Maybe someone remember the 441^st BS, 320^th BW?  No I’m not taking about the WWII unit but the B-52 unit – Mather – some thought it was the dream base (for me it was Ellsworth! another story).  For others it was the start of our Nav Training.  Anyway, if the model looks a little weathered – it is.  When I was putting on the final finish, it frosted the model.  Heather thought it looked cool, but not for me.  So I finished it off looking a bit more for wear & tear.

 

I’ve decide to take a break from aircraft and work on some military armor dioramas.  First up is a USMC M48 Patton tank set in the Battle for Hue during the 1968 Tet Offensive.   This will be built in three phases; the tank, the men, and the place.  I have an idea of how I want the scene to look like, but trying to find an image that support your idea is proving tough!

Phase 1 – The Tank – it will be a USMC but what will it look like?  True that is a lot of material out there, but I’m trying to find a picture that represents how my M48 would look like – unit wise.  For example; I was looking at adding a Confederate battle flag to the radio antenna – so far only US Army M48s had that flag, adding the Playboy bunny on the turret - yepper some USMC’s had it but which one and what was the tanks unit number, or what about the searchlight cover – some had the skull & crossbones (only US Army so far) or Ace of Spades (found one that had the Spade but a ‘2’) or the Maltese Cross, etc.  Was that unit in Hue during the battle?  I have several books but not many images, so I had to order more books.

Phase 2 – the Men – I have model figures from DML (Dragoon) that represents the USMC, Viet Cong & the NVA during that time period.  However, I’ll have to modify some of the figures to make the different poises I envision; i.e., making a USMC sniper team hiding in a building, re-modeling the tanks commander to be firing the .50 cal MG, or re-poising the enemy into firing positions.

Phase 3 – The Place – it will be a street fighting scene with the tank moving down it, men hiding behind walls, palm trees, damaged houses & building, debris, etc.

So…the tank is in various stages of assembly, acquiring more reference books and the material to build the diorama; more figure models, add-ons for the tank, and material for the scene.  Stay tune for more updates…

Next month I’ll have some notes on Heather’s acting career & Clayton’s (son #1) singing/musical career…

Andy

Posted in Band of Brothers | Print | No Comments »

Directional Extremism - 11 Jun 2009

11. June 2009 by The Chuck.

By now you’ve heard most of the story about the 88 year-old shooter that killed Stephen Tyrone Johns while he was on duty as a security guard in the Washington DC Holocaust Museum.  If you’re like most people, you’re sadden at the loss of yet another productive American citizen and sickened at the reports of the shooter’s hatred for so many people.  Depending on where you get your news, you might also be confused over some misleading references to the shooter representing right-wing ideology in America.

Adding to the confusion, is a fundamentally flawed statement in the Homeland Security report on alleged “Rightwing Extremism” inside of the United States.  There were 50 uses of the term “rightwing” in the report.  It even used the term as a single word, instead of the the grammatical correct hyphenated term right-wing.   No references were made to “left-wing extremism,” leaving some to wonder if the report might condone that side of the argument.  Of course even suggesting such a thing might be classified as blasphemy in the near future, so I won’t go any further with that line of reasoning.

Are we really to believe neo-Nazism is right-wing?

If so, that would make the Nazi regime of Hitler’s Germany a right-wing government.  If true, then on the extreme right of the concept of government theory, you have Hitler and the SS running everything.  The rest of us would work as slaves in government-owned factories and fields and have to put up with soldiers banging on our doors at night only to be hauled off to the concentration camp–where we’d die.

So what is the opposite of that?  The communists?

If so, on the extreme left of the concept of government theory, you have Stalin and the KGB running everything.   The rest of us would work as slaves in government-owned factories and fields and have to put up with soldiers banging on our doors at night only to be hauled off to the gulag–where we’d die.

I don’t see a nickel’s worth of difference between those two systems, unless you happen to be a member of the small group that is controlling everything and everyone else.  Which means the popular notice of left and right must be flawed, as the two should be in contrast to each other.

Here’s something that makes much more sense.

Government theory is all about how much power the government has.  The more power the government has, the less power or rights the people have.  On one extreme, government has all power.  On the other extreme, government has no power–or doesn’t exist at all.  That’s also called anarchy.

In theory, anarchy could be a nice thing.  No taxes, no police, no rules to get in your way–every man doing what he things is right.  If everyone were just like Jesus, that might work out pretty good.  But humanity is wrought with selfish behavior–striving to advance oneself over others.  In total anarchy, only the strongest men could retain their property, which would soon be countered by less strong people teaming together to take what they wanted.  Eventually the land would be littered with myriad teams or gangs all striving for their collective superiority over the other groups.  Chaos and mayhem–anarchy is a bloody unproductive state in practice.

So with anarchy at the extreme right, what’s at the extreme left?  Government with total power, of course.

If a single person were powerful enough to control everyone else–that would be extreme left–but with millions and billions of people on earth, nobody is that powerful.  It wouldn’t even work with a small region of several thousand people.  No, the king has to have an army.  That army could consist of knights sitting at a round table or goose-stepping storm troopers–but a king without his army is a pathetic sight.

Throughout history, most kings have had some collection of advisors to assist them in their rule of the masses.  They might be family members or just ideological partners–but loyalty is generally the primary selection criteria.  Kings use a variety of job titles: Potentate, Chief, Czar, Leader, Lord, Master, Commander, Seignior, President, Chairman, Chairwoman, Big Cheese, Skipper, or any other of a multitude of “I’m-the-boss-of-you” sounding titles.  All those various titles only serve to confuse people who are trying to make sense of the left and right of things.

When a relatively small group of people control all or even most all of the power over the people it is called an oligarchy.  If you are not part of the oligarchy, you will be most severely punished by those who control the power if you should oppose any decision they make. The irony is, you don’t even have to oppose the seat of power to be oppressed by it–they have the option of abusing you at their whim.

To the right of an oligarchy, is a democracy–rule by the majority.  In theory a democracy sounds pleasant, but in practice that would only be true if you were part of the majority.  The majority can vote to take the minorities possessions or even their lives.  If the only thing that establishes right is a majority–you basically have mob rule, albeit a majority mob.  Democratic principles are good, but a system of laws that protect the rights of all people is necessary if the people are to really enjoy freedom.

Which brings us to a republic, which is more than just a government controlling the people, it is a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives.  In the great American experiment, the wonderful document called the Constitution spells out just how much power the government is allowed to control.  The rest of the power is supposed to remain with the people.

Some people argue that twenty-first century America is violating certain restrictions of the Constitution, but few people are wanting an America without a central government–the ones who advocate anarchy could correctly be labeled “right-wing extremists.”

The Constitution’s governmental concept is left of anarchy but well right of a direct democracy or an oligarchy.  Some say the Constitution is well right of our current practice and that we’re plunging into socialism.

What’s socialism?

Socialism is the Marxist theory that declares all means of production, distribution, and exchange should be centrally controlled.  The theory is that individuals won’t be able to hoard great wealth if the governing oligarchy has control.  The reality is that the oligarchy hoards the wealth and the people suffer.  You’ve seen the term used in some now defunct oligarchies.

The National Socialists (Nazis) were about a specific people-group’s oligarchy controlling all means of production, distribution, and exchange first in Germany and then hoping to spread across the world.  They were thwarted by America and her allies during World War II.

Remember the USSR (a.k.a Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic)? Soviet Communism was about world conquest by any means, most in order for their oligarchy to control all means of production, distribution, and exchange.  They also were thwarted by America and her allies during the Cold War.

Somehow the Nazis and the Communists were labeled right and left in attempt to suggest you had to go one way of the other.  History shows the two groups didn’t get along very well, but of course each side was fighting for total control.  Unless you were part of their small oligarchy, each of the systems were oppressive–each were extreme leftists.

So what would you call a person, regardless of their age or veteran status, who believes a small group of people should control all power, disregarding the concept that all men are created equal, and also believes he has the right to ignore the Constitution of the United States?

Wouldn’t that be–left-wing extremist?

It just makes sense.

Posted in National Nonsense, The Chuck's Comments, Band of Brothers | Print | No Comments »