Feb 11, 2010

10. February 2010 by The Chuck.

The date doesn’t look real to me.  How has so much time passed?  Sorry I took a break for a while there, guys.  I think I’m back now.  At least for now.

I changed companies.  The new company really likes me, at least that what the paycheck tells me.  In addition, I’m helping usher in the new Global Strike Command.  Even dealing bomber issues.  I’m liking this stuff a lot, the only thing better would be having my books published on a regular basis, putting in 40 hours a week or so on the keyboard.  That’d be nice.

You probably remember the Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award (ABNA) contest I’ve entered the last two years.  I’m back in for round three.  While my writing is better than previous years, I’d imagine the world is getting better at the same time.  Here’s my opening paragraph:

Pain, gnawing emptiness, hunger so loud it dominated all thoughts, not mine–even though I could feel it–it came from them.  To them, two girls in a chariot must have seemed like easy prey.  I prayed they were wrong.

The essential question is, “Would you read the next paragraph or put the book down and look for something else?”

Here’s the schedule for the contest:

January 25, 2010	Submission period begins; up to 10,000 Entries will be accepted
February 7, 2010	Submission period ends
February 25, 2010	2,000 entries moving to Second Round announced at www.amazon.com/abna.
March 23, 2010	Top 500 (Quarterfinalists) announced at www.amazon.com/abnaPublishers Weekly reviewing Quarterfinalists full manuscript Amazon customers can download, rate, and review excerpts on Amazon.com, providing feedback to Penguin Editors about submissions.
April 27, 2010	Top 100 (Semifinalists) announced at www.amazon.com/abna.Penguin Editors reading Semifinalists manuscripts to pick the 6 finalists Amazon customers continue to download, rate, and review excerpts, and read Publisher’s Weekly reviews of Semifinalists’ full manuscripts
May 25, 2010	6 Finalists announcedAmazon customers vote to pick the winners
June 14, 2010	Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award winners announced

While my first novel is locked into this contest until they cull me from the herd, so I’ve started work on book number two.

But enough of that.

Anybody getting snow?  Probably not Ponch.  Rumor has it we’re going to get 4 to 6 inches of global warming tomorrow evening in crawdad town.  That’s just cool.

I could bore you, or depress you with woes of things less than perfect, but all things considered, it could be much worse.  I’m a lucky man.

I pray this 11th finds the lion’s share of you warm, fed, in good company, as free of pain as a bunch of old warriors can hope to be and with a jingle in your pocket.

Until the next time, stay strong my brothers.

The Chuck

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

Military Aviation, the Beginning

7. February 2010 by The Chuck.

American military aviation began almost 149 years ago, in the early days of the Civil War, when the Army for the first time employed balloons for military purposes. The French Army had used balloons for reconnaissance as early as 1794 and American balloonists primarily utilized them for the same purpose.

 

In April 1861, two members of Rhode Island’s 1st Regiment answered Lincoln’s call for troops–James Allen, a balloonist, and Dr. William H. Helme, a dentist, carried two of Allen’s balloons from Providence, RI to Washington DC. Then on 9 June, they made the Army’s first captive balloon ascent. It was stealthy for it’s day, as no one reported being able to see it on radar–no, not a one.

 

On 12 June 1861, John Wise of PA offered to build a balloon for the Union Army for $300. Maj. Hartman Bathe, chief of the Topographic Engineers, later told Wise to increase the size to 20,000 cubic-feet, and to use silk. Wise agreed but the cost skyrocketed to $850. This established the two great traditions of military aviation: late design modifications and production costs overruns.

 

21 July, Wise’s balloon tasked for observation duty in the Battle of Manassas. A ground crew walked the inflated balloon to Fairfax Rd, where Major A. J. Myer, Chief Signal Officer, fastened it to a wagon, and against the advice of Wise, made haste, snagging the balloon on roadside trees, tearing great holes in the bag. Thus, airpower’s first hasty decision by a non-Airmen, who ignored Wise advice.

 

Wise repaired the damaged balloon. Five days later, while being towed to Ball’s Crossroads, it was blown against telegraph wires, cutting the towropes, and the balloon floated away toward the Confederate lines. To prevent its capture by the enemy, Union troops shot it down near the Lee mansion at Arlington. Was this the first AAA fire (a.k.a. Arlington’s Anti-Aviation fire)?

 

Neither the Allen nor the Wise balloons were satisfactory, mainly because each needed to be filled with coal gas, from the city mains, and towed inflated to the area of operations. Wise designed a portable hydrogen generator to permit inflation in the field and widen the area of operations.  While he urged the army to construct a unit, leadership was more content to blame him for the disasters and he was fired.

 

So what happened to Wise? He returned to his home in Lancaster, raised a cavalry troop, and rejoined the army, but after several months of service his health failed and he was compelled to retire from active duty. Seems like a sad ending, but at least he pressed toward his dreams for as long as his health would allow him, which is probably the best any of us can do.

 

In May 1861 another aeronaut, John La Mountain, twice offered his services, two balloons, and a portable gas generator to the Union Army. The War Department ignored his letters, but on 5 June Maj. Gen. Benjamin F. Butler, with headquarters at Ft. Monroe, offered La Mountain a job as an aerial observer. John La Mountain was persistence, wasn’t he? Did you know persistence is one of the tenets of airpower?

 

I’ll talk more about the tenets of airpower in a later article, but for now let’s go back to the aeronauts of the Civil War.

 

La Mountain became the Army’s only free-lance balloonist. During his first military captive ascent in the Atlantic a stiff wind prevented him from reaching the altitude necessary for observation. But six days later (31 July 1861) he rose to 1,400 feet to observe a radius of 30 miles around Hampton and reported the Confederate forces were much weaker than previously reported by land reconnaissance.

 

On 3 August 1861, La Mountain’s balloon was moored to the transport ship Funny, which towed it into the Potomac River where it made the first ascension from a boat. This was not the birth of Naval aeronautics, as the Army owned and operated the Funny. Army boats? Why yes, during World War II the U.S. Army operated over 127,790 ships and watercraft.

 

La Mountain and the Union Army failed to keep General Magruder’s Confederate forces from burning Hampton, but La Mountain did escape, along with many thousands of Union troops.  La Mountain and his large balloon Saratoga transferred to the Army of the Potomac where La Mountain tried to build support for his services by giving General officers rides. Nothing like that is done today.

 

In October of 1861, La Mountain made free ascensions, via prevailing east wind to fly over Confederate forces, and a west wind at higher altitudes, to return. After observations, he jettisoned ballast, the balloon rose to the eastbound current of air, carrying him back to his own lines; then he’d release gas to land. Using maneuver, a principle of war, he increased the balloon’s effectiveness.

 

La Mountain had little control during landings. On 18 October, after returning to the Union lines, he descended in the area of operations controlled by Brigadier General Louis Blenker’s German Brigade, and was welcomed with a volley of shots, riddling the lower part of the balloon, foreshadowing the German AAA of WWII, or maybe not.

 

On 16 November La Mountain’s Saratoga was blown from its moorings and lost over the Confederate lines, leaving him with only the less capable Atlantic.  After failing to beg, borrow, or buy a replacement balloon, on 19 February 1862, General George B. McClellan dismissed La Mountain from the service.

 

John La Mountain was one of the first to make significant aerial observations for the Union Army. As a result of his observations, Confederate General Beauregard ordered his division commander, General Longstreet, to employee camouflage, since the deception of dummy guns could not be assured under the eyes of the federal balloons. There’s an idea that caught on.

 

Thaddeus S. C. Lowe had planned a transatlantic balloon flight, but changed his focus after a 20 April 1861 flight in his Enterprise from Cincinnati to Unionville, SC. The war posed difficulties, but eventually he was permitted to return by way of Columbia, SC, and Louisville, Kentucky. Convinced the war would be long, he decided to organize a balloon corps and offer his services to the Union.

 

With a little help from editor Murat Halstead, Lowe met with Lincoln on 11 June. 7 days later, Lowe sent the first telegraphic message ever from a balloon, using a wired key in his balloon via a line to the Alexandria telegraph office to the White House. Others messages were sent to the War Department.  Lowe leveraged technology for operational advantage, a hallmark of airpower ever since.

 

On 26 June 1861, Lowe was asked to submit a report on his proposed operations and an estimate of the cost of constructing another balloon at $500. Soon afterwards, however, the order for a government balloon was given to Wise, who underbid Lowe by almost $200. Remember him? Cost overruns pushed the actual cost to $850, after the Army modified the design.

 

Though Wise beat him on the bid, Lowe continued to give demonstrations near the Smithsonian Institution. Meanwhile, General McDowell, preparing to advance into Virginia, expected Wise and his balloon but when on July 17 he had not reported, Captain Whipple ordered Lowe to join McDowell’s Army.  As Lowe inflated his balloon, Wise arrived and his balloon was sent forward instead.  Imagine Lowe’s frustration.

 

When Lowe learned Wise’s balloon was out of commission, he took the initiative to go to the front with his own balloon.  Before he could get there, Gen McDowell had been defeated and on that afternoon of 21 July, Lowe met the retreating Union Army and returned with it to Arlington. Aerospace power can’t save an Army if it’s not used.

 

On the 24th, Lowe flew from Fort Corcoran to investigate rumors of a march on Washington by the victorious Confederate Army. His report calmed fears at the Capital–no force was approaching. Having defeated the Union soldiers, many Confederates had thought the war was over and they could go home. Little did they know, it had only just begun.

 

So there we have the first two months of military aviation, interesting how aerospace power has progressed so far in the last 149 years, but can still relate to those fledgling years. 

 

You might have noticed, I haven’t been writing much lately.  I needed to write something, and the beginning of military aviation history was a great place to start.

 

It just makes sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Amazon Announces ABNA 2010…

17. December 2009 by The Chuck.

It’s time for that powerful contest.   

 The third annual Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award, the international competition seeking the next popular novel.

For the first time, the competition will award two grand prizes: one for General Fiction and one for Young Adult Fiction. The 2010 competition will also now be open to novels that have previously been self-published. Each winner will receive a publishing contract with Penguin, which includes a $15,000 advance.

more information available at:

http://www.amazon.com/Breakthrough-Novel-Award-Books/b?ie=UTF8&node=332264011

I’ve placed in the first two contests … I’m tempted to enter again this year, but I’m not sure. 

Posted in The Chuck's Comments | Print | No Comments »

A Walk To Remember

28. October 2009 by The Chuck.

Few things can leave as deep of an impression on a father’s heart as giving away his daughter.  I’m still in awe of the entire event.

Standing to the right of the beautiful woman in white, I looked out at the 100 or so steps we needed to traverse.  All the guests and the entire bridal party were situated just beyond the small apple orchard we needed to pass through.  Then the harpist changed songs.  Everyone stood up and turned to face us, and we stepped off smartly.

My daughter was nearly 30, but it seemed like it was just last month when I was helping her make those first few steps.  She’s come a long way since those toddler days.  However, the high heels working against the straw-covered, earthen path challenged her to remain steady.  Clinging to my left arm, she found enough support to prevent any embarrassing spill–that would have been terrible.  Meanwhile, my little niece carried the dress’ train as we moved toward the distant alter.  Just minutes ago she was sprinkling the fresh rose pedals onto the path from a large bucket.  Precious.

What seemed like a few weeks ago, the woman on my arm was no bigger than her tiny cousin.  In those days she was a budding athlete.  One day during a church picnic she climbed a 25-foot metal pole.  She stayed up there long enough for her mother to start worrying she might be stuck.  Thus I climbed a parallel pole just beside of hers.  Once close enough to talk I asked her if she was okay.  She said, “Yes, I’m just enjoying the view.”

The view from the apple orchard was marvelous.  Twenty minutes earlier, the sun had pierced through the cloud coverage and was then bathing everyone in warm sunlight.  The slightly stinging breeze had stopped at the same time.  No doubt an answered prayer.  In addition, everyone was smiling and looking at us.  Some folks welled-up as we approached.  I fought the urge as a thousand other memories flashed through my mind.

I reminded my daughter of the time when she was about 8 and she stood on the high-dive at the officer’s club pool until everyone looked at her–then she crawled back to safety without jumping.

“This is better than the high-dive,” I said.

“I’m not crawling away this time,” she answered.

Under the inspection of a sea of smiling faces I said, “They’re all looking at you, you’re beautiful.  God must be smiling today.”

Her answer was slow in coming and muffled.  Must have been something in the air that bothered her throat.

Somehow we made it to the beginning of the chairs.  Cameras flashed.  Some people sighed.  Others sobbed.  The harpists played beautifully.  Then I saw him.

Him–the man who convinced my daughter to marry him stood there waiting for us to finish walking.  Four months earlier he traveled 600 miles to ask me permission to marry my daughter.  That took spunk, because nowadays her mother is most everywhere I am.

But he did good.  Poured his heart out at our kitchen table and convinced me he loved my daughter as much as I loved my wife.  So we gave him our blessings.  Then the surprise came.  Three weeks later he proposed.

Imagine that.

In 21st century America, a man in his 30s asked permission of the parents of a 29 year-old to marry her.  And to beat it all, he really meant it.  It wasn’t just an after the fact idea.  This man had real character.

I like him and I feel good about trusting him.

On the closest end of the row of bridesmaids stood my youngest daughter.  The maid of honor, wearing a beautiful apple red dress, had tears streaming down her face.  She grinned through the salty deluge, needing a tissue I didn’t have for her.  I had to look away, lest this old bomber pilot get a case of the wet-eye himself.

I stopped us at the first row of chairs, just like the wedding coordinator had briefed me to do.  The pastor and the groom stepped forward to close the gap.

“Who gives this woman in marriage?”

She has an MBA and MCSE.  She’s buying a house 600 miles away from mine.  She supports herself and she’s 29 years old.  She was a full-grown, independent adult woman.  Nobody, except the Lord, could say they owned her.  How could I give her away?

Because she asked me to.

How could I not?  There was the man she had waited for almost 30 years.  During those years I had prayed for him, though I knew him not.  Now I know him a little and I’ll continue pray for him, forever.  Over the last few months they’d complete a battery of pre-marriage counseling events with the pastor presiding over the ceremony.  This couple was much wiser than the brides parents were when they married at 21 and 18.  While we survived the shock of married life–these two were doing things smarter–they were planners.  Inside my heart, I knew he would be good for her.  He’d better be.

“Her father does.  That’s me.”

Then before I gave up my ground, I whispered a few last words into the groom’s ear as father of the little girl.  From then on, she would be his woman and he would be her man.  My work was done.  I just needed to get out of the way.  The setting sunlight was bothering my eyes anyway.  I took my place next to my sweetheart–the mother of the bride and I watched.

I watched my little girl marry her soul-mate and I will never forget it.

It just makes sense.

Posted in The Chuck's Comments | Print | No Comments »

ABOUT FACE Book

13. October 2009 by Ponch.

All,

 

 

“Alas, eleventy-one years is far too short a time to live among such excellent and admirable hobbits.I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.” 

                          Bilbo Baggins

    

Ok the face book thing is interesting.  I’m still trying to learn what the sections like wall and such are about.  I am conflicted on the whole concept though.  I like the idea of being able to look up old friends and acquaintances, However, I suspect like most people, there are some folks that I am happy to never see again i.e. Creepy Big MAC Mac Pherson showed up on my potential friends list.  Seeing that thug again…even a still picture… was like a swift kick in the nut sack.  And what’s with the advertising with the good looking chicks with big hooters that want to be my friend or supposedly are looking for me? Again with the conflicted thing…I added Brian Bartels to my friends list as well as PWN3.  B2 was an experiment just to keep tabs on the stupid pecker…and maybe an attempt to stick it too him that I’m doing pretty good in life without him and his peckerwood ideas and lack of leadership.  As for PWN3…like Bilbo, I liked PWN3 perhaps better then he deserved.  Also it kind’a creeps me out when people I don’t know request a friends thingy with me.  Either I’m showing my age and am not comfortable with the “new” electronic media or I’m showing my age and can’t remember I once knew the person…or maybe they know me and have the same design’s on revenge as my pseudo friendship with B2.  Either way inerconflict….maybe I’ll just stay off the computer and get back to real life, no wait…damn conflicted!!

Posted in Military Nonsense, The Chuck's Comments | Print | 1 Comment »

11 Oct 2009: The Chuck

11. October 2009 by The Chuck.

Not only was Andy the first poster in August, he was the only one.  And unless we count Ponch’s good-news post on 1 September, nobody posted in September.  Not even me.

Me, least of all me.

So I’m certainly caught up in something here.  I’ll share some of it in this posting. As I am making an 11th Band of Brother’s post this month.  This month maybe I’m just lucky the 11th falls on a Sunday.  Or maybe I’m just about to get my life together–either way here it is:

The big event in September for me was the American Christian Fiction Writers Conference in Denver.  I’ll always remember it as a trip to the mountain top in more ways than one.  A writers’ conference is an amazing thing:

Throughout each day, subject matter experts instruct various classes. The pleasant dilemma is having to decide which ones you’ll attend–as a new writer, you want to attend them all.  Fortunately the classes’ audio are recorded and CD’s are sold.  I’m sure I’m not far off if I compare the education value of a conference to an entire year’s study in a college.

Each meal is multi-faceted.  The tables are hosted by agents, editors, or very experienced authors.  While some hosts have their tables fill quicker, every table had precious pearls to give to those with ears to hear.  The meals included speakers, all with  valuable inspiration for people at all levels.  Of course, the food was appreciated also.

Each evening provided additional opportunities to talk to the agents and editors in small groups–imagine after a day that covered activities from 0700 to 1900 and then want to have another session from 2000 to 2200+.  For me, I couldn’t imagine not taking advantage of such an opportunity.

Of course the conference had more that just education–it also provides opportunities to “pitch” your wares to agents/editors.  I was elated to find someone interested enough in my writing to request a partial.

It’s not a contract.  It’s not a for sure.  But it is the “next-step” I’ve been working towards since the first time I thought I had an adequate manuscript.  The more I learn, the more I discover I have to learn–a bit like flying.  Regardless of the outcome–I’m quickened in my resolve to continuing pressing towards the mark.  Thanks for the encouragement along the way.

The big event this month is my oldest daughter’s wedding.

A few months ago, my about to be son-in-law flew down from Kansas City and met with Cindy and me.  He wanted our permission to marry Jennifer.
The conversation wasn’t easy.  And in 21st century America–it’s certainly not required.

In a retrospective comparison, the first time I met my mother-in-law I had already married Cindy.  I was a cad.  But let’s not digress.

During our conversation many things were said, many promises were made, but one thing rung out loud and true in my ears–and no it wasn’t the tinnitus from over 3700 flying hours in the B-52.

Jeremy listed a lot of verbs he was going to do with our daughter.  He promised to “provide” — she’s got an MBA and the MCSE rating, she’s probably got that part covered but nice to know he’s going to step up to the plate; he promised to “love” — most men love the woman they hope to marry; and at least a dozen other verbs, all of which I processed much like I just did here.  Then he said, “Protect.”

Protect?

That was my job.  This young man was not just promising his undying love–he was promising to protect my daughter.  “Protect,” went right to the man of the matter.  And I believe him.  I like him.  Like him a lot.

This young man sat there at our kitchen table and poured out his heart to Cindy and me and when he was finished I actually believed he loved my daughter as much as I love my Cindy.

While any parents have concerns over the man who wants to marry their daughter–Jeremy’s visit won us over.  I’m probably cheapening the event by using the term “won over” making it sound something like a pitch I used at the conference, but it’s how my mind was working at the time.

Most people probably consider it sweet or respectful for a man to ask permission to marry their daughter.  A lot of people consider it an “old-fashion” technique.  And a few, especially those who know Jennifer, might suspect she required him to do it.

But here’s the rest of the story:  Two or three weeks after he flew back to Kansas City–he actually proposed.

It wasn’t an after-the-fact facade of a request.  It was for real!  Our meeting with Jeremy wasn’t just a nice thing–it was a sincere heart-felt happening–a happening I will never forget.

And as happy as I am a man of this character will become my son-in-law, I’m even happier he will very soon become my daughter’s husband and her protector.

———-

I offer one last apology for not posting for the last two months.  In addition I’d like to encourage each of you to toss us a paragraph about your health, your wealth, your state of mind or whatever you want to talk about.  This is our Blog and I know the rest of us would appreciate the news from you.

A few of us are on Facebook, but I’d like this BoB-Blog to continue to be our space–at least once a month.

What do you say?

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

Rejected Sacrifice

2. October 2009 by The Chuck.

Embarrassing.  The mortal king, openly worshipped by some to the ire of many others, failed to deliver

No, I’m not talking about the failure to deliver on his promise,  “When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as the president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it.”  He failed there on his first day in office on 20 Jan–he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act just two days after its passage.  He later signed a second bill just three hours after Congress passed it.  Then again, on 17 Feb, he signed the $787 billion economic-stimulus bill one business day after it passed Congress.

And no, I’m not talking about his failure to “eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups.”   However, the $787 billion economic-stimulus did reduce them.  Of course, we all know reduction does not equal elimination.

And no again. I’m not talking about his failure to provide new American jobs tax credit.  He promised it to be a $3000 refundable tax credit to existing businesses for every additional full-time U.S. employee hired in 2009 and 2010–it never happened, never will.

The same is true for his failure to provide a hiatus on 401(k) penalties, to eliminate earmarks such as the billions of dollars included in the economic-stimulus, to end the war and bring all the combat troops home by May 20, 2010, to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, to make the first $4000 of college education completely free for Americans, to have “the most open and transparent government in history,” and for that matter–”to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Maybe that was a cheap shot, but only if all Americans know the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution decrees:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The seemingly ever-increasing number of czars–up to about 32 as of this article’s posting–are clearly prohibited via the Tenth Amendment.  Each of Obama’s czars gets paid $172,000 a year and has a staff with offices and supporting budgets.  Does the expense total to millions or billions of dollars?  We don’t know, but the monetary degradation on America is just the down payment for what they will ultimately cost us.

Those who seek to defend this anti-Constitutional practice most often resort to citing previous administrations, as far back as FDR, which are guilty of the same sin–albeit on a lesser scale.  In retrospect, they allowed the camel’s nose to get under the tent.  Still that’s no reason to allow the flea-laden camel to wear your pajamas and dance with your children.

So what was the recent failure to deliver I was talking about at the beginning of this article?

The Olympics–the International Olympic Committee (IOC) eliminated Chicago early in the consideration for the site of the 2016 games.  The winner is:

Rio de Janeiro.

In 2016, the world will be treated to view the unfolding drama of those famous games against the backdrop of the rich culture and beauty associated with Rio and Brazil.  I look forward to it.

By now most everyone has heard of Michelle Obama’s characterization of her jaunt to Europe with her husband and Oprah Winfrey as a “sacrifice” on her behalf for the children of Chicago and the United States.  Considering the result of the “sacrifice”–the Presidential advisors need to review the requirements of a sufficient sacrifice.  In addition, the word “sacrifice” needs to be dropped from her speech-writers’ list of authorized words.

For a quick lesson on sufficient sacrifices, we can look at Hebrews chapter 9:

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.  For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctified to the purifying of the flesh:

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

In summary, a trip to Europe on Air Force One and doing some shopping in Copenhagen is not a sacrifice–not even close.  And that would be true even if the IOC had bent their knee to Obama, which they didn’t.

With the United States experiencing record high unemployment, a sky-rocketing national debt, fog and friction in the war formerly known as the Global War on Terror, terrorist-sponsoring nations developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to our allies and to us, and emerging civil unrest at home–we need a President who will to the best of his ability use his time and energy to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  In other words, we need the person we’re paying $400,000 a year plus perks to do his job.

Mmm, mmm, mmm.

It just makes sense.

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

2009 American Christian Fiction Writers Book of the Year Contest Finalists

25. July 2009 by The Chuck.

The ACFW has an on-going contest, the titles of the finalists seemed quite interesting–as there are so many people so far ahead of where I’ve crawled to the last 3+ years. Maybe next year I’ll be on such a list … or the year after that.

Debut Author
A Passion Most Pure (Julie Lessman)
Courting Miss Adelaide (Janet Dean)
Every Good and Perfect Gift (Sharon K. Souza)
Hero, Second Class (Mitchell Bonds)
In the Shadow of the Sun King (Golden Keyes Parsons)

Lits
Faking Grace (Tamara Leigh)
Picket Fence Promises (Kathryn Springer)
Single Sashimi (Camy Tang)
Sweet Caroline (Rachel Hauck)
Truffles by the Sea (Julie Carobini)

Long Contemporary
Lookin Back Texas (Leanna Ellis)
One Holy Night (J.M. Hochstetler)
Stuck in the Middle (Virginia Smith)
Summer of Joy (Ann H. Gabhart)
Symphony of Secrets (Sharon Hinck)

Long Contemporary Romance
Along Came a Cowboy (Christine Lynxwiler)
Controlling Interest (Elizabeth White)
The Convenient Groom (Denise Hunter)
Finding Stefanie (Susan May Warren)
Zora and Nicky: A Novel in Black & White (Claudia Mair Burney)

Long Historical (6 finalists due to a tie)
The Apothecary’s Daughter (Julie Klassen)
Calico Canyon (Mary Connealy)
Deep In the Heart of Trouble (Deeanne Gist)
From A Distance (Tamera Alexander)
I Have Seen Him in the Watchfires (Cathy Gohlke)
My Heart Remembers ( Kim Vogel Sawyer)

Mystery
The Case of the Bouncing Grandma (A.K. Arenz)
Death on a Deadline (Christine Lynxwiler, Sandy Gaskin, and Jan Reynolds)
Drop Dead Diva (Christine Lynxwiler, Sandy Gaskin, and Jan Reynolds)
For Whom the Wedding Bell Tolls (Nancy Mehl)
Of Mice . . . and Murder (Mary Connealy)

Novellas
The Cookie Jar (Janet Lee Barton in A Connecticut Christmas anthology)
Dressed in Scarlet (Darlene Franklin in Snowbound Colorado Christmas anthology)
Santa’s Prayer (Diane Ashley in A Connecticut Christmas anthology)
Snowbound for Christmas (Gail Sattler in A Connecticut Christmas anthology)
Stuck On You (Rhonda Gibson in A Connecticut Christmas anthology)

Short Contemporary
Buffalo Gal (Mary Connealy)
Clueless Cowboy (Mary Connealy)
Family Treasures (Kathryn Springer)
Her Unlikely Family (Missy Tippens)
White as Snow (Janice Thompson)

Short Contemporary Suspense
Bayou Paradox (Robin Caroll)
Broken Lullaby (Pamela Tracy)
Countdown to Death (Debby Giusti)
Forsaken Canyon (Margaret Daley)
Killer Cargo (Dana Mentink)

Short Historical
Family of the Heart (Dorothy Clark)
Masked by Moonlight (Allie Pleiter)
Reckless Rogue (Mary Davis)
Return to Love (Susan Page Davis)
Sandhill Dreams (Cara Putman)

Speculative
The Book of Names (D. Barkley Briggs)
DragonLight (Donita K. Paul)
The Restorer’s Journey (Sharon Hinck)
Shade (John B. Olson)
Summa Elvetica: A Casuistry of the Elvish Controversy (Theodore Beale)

Suspense
Anathema (Colleen Coble)
The Black Cloister (Melanie Dobson)
Fossil Hunter (John B. Olson)
Lonestar Sanctuary (Colleen Coble)
Perfect (Harry Kraus)

Women’s Fiction (7 finalists due to a tie)
A Month of Summer (Lisa Wingate)
Every Good and Perfect Gift (Sharon K. Souza)
My Sister Dilly (Maureen Lang)
The Perfect Life (Robin Lee Hatcher)
The Shape of Mercy (Susan Meissner)
Stepping into Sunlight (Sharon Hinck)
Tuesday Night at the Blue Moon (Debbie Fuller Thomas)

Young Adult
The Big Picture (Jenny B. Jones)
The Fruit of My Lipstick (Shelley Adina)
It’s all About Us (Shelley Adina)
The Owling (Robert Elmer)
Trion Rising (Robert Elme

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

Veterans’ Job Fair in Bossier City

21. July 2009 by The Chuck.

The 4th Annual Veterans’ Job Fair is almost here!

It’s coming to the Bossier Civic Center July 23, 2009. It is from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM.

University of Phoenix and the La Work Force Commission will also be facilitating three classes:

1. How to Dress for Successful Interviews 10:30AM to 11:00AM
2. Interview Preparation 11:00AM to 11:30AM
3. Introduction to www.la.works.net 11:30AM to 12:00AM
( and how to use it to your advantage.)

Below is the list of attending venders as of today’s date. Please remember we are still accepting venders and that we have some interested in attending that have not registered yet.

Acadian Ambulance Service
American School of Busniess
Army Air Force Exchange Service
Ayers Career College
Bossier City Fire Department
Bossier Parish Comm College Cyber Info Tech Dept
Bossier Parish Comm College Recruiting Office
Bossier Parish Community College
Brookshires Grocery
Caddo Parish Sheriff ’s Office
Career Technical College
Cellxion
CenterPoint Energy
City of Bossier City
Dallas Area Rapid Transit Police Dept
Dallas Police Department
Deltic Timber Corp
Diesel Driving Academy
Dr. Reddy’s Laborotories La LLC
FCI Texarkana ( Fed Bureau of Prisons)
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Gandy Brown VFW Post 4588
Goodwill Industries of N Louisiana
Halliburton Energy Services
Harrah’s Horseshoe
Home Instead Senior Care
Hunt, Guillot & Associates
Impressions Advertising Specialties
In Line Staffing
Jean Simpson Personnel Services
Kansa City Southern Railway
Kaplan Test Prep and Admissions
KTAL-TV
KTBS Inc
L-3 Communications/MID
LATAN
Louisiana Department of Veteran Affairs
Louisiana Rehabilitation Services
Louisiana State University Shreveport
Louisiana State University Shreveport Graduate Studies
Louisiana Technical College
Louisiana Troops to Teachers Program
Louisiana Work Force Commission
LSU Health Sciences Center Shreveport
Mary Kay Cosmetics
Minact-Shreveport Job Corps
Navy Reserve Recruiting
NEON (NMLA Employment Opportunties Network)
NW LA Veterans Cemetery
Overton Brooks VA Medical Center
Pathology Resources Network
Praeses
Pride Industries
Primercia
Sam’s Town Hotel and Casino
Sci-Port Louisiana Science Center
Shreveport Area Electrical JATC
Shreveport Fire Dept
Shreveport Police Department
Shreveport Vet Center
SOS Staffing Services
Tango Transport LLC
The Radio Group
Transportation Security Agency
U S Army
United States Air Force Reserve
University of Phoenix
Wells Office Supplies Inc
Wes-Pak Inc

Please Bring your dd-214 or ID card and resumes.

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

When Do You Have Rights?

18. July 2009 by The Chuck.

It appears the United States has slid so far to the left that you may be considered “a right-wing extremist” if you believe you have unalienable rights. At the rate we’re going, even reading this column may put you in that category in the next year or so. If your unalienable rights have been alienated–who’s responsible?

Since unalienable rights–those mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, and later explained to some degree in the United States Constitution–are given to humans by their Creator, nobody–except their Creator–can take them away.

That doesn’t mean you’ll always be able to enjoy your rights. People can infringe your rights by undermining your free exercise of them, and you can lose them another way. You can forsake them–willingly give them up–but heed this warning: once surrendered, rights can only be regained at great cost.

Since our founding fathers are long since gone, they can’t be asked how much it cost them to regain our rights, those who haven’t already done so will have to read a history book to find the answer–while that’s still legal. If you’re curious about what those rights are, you can read the two sacred documents mentioned above–until that act is eventually outlawed.

Okay, since we have just celebrated the 4th of July, I’ll include some of it here:

“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.”

Wonderful words. Who could argue with them?

Wouldn’t the Nazis? Well, sure–but we defeated them decades ago.

Wouldn’t the Communists? Definitely, but we won the Cold War.

What about your local police? Say it ain’t so!

Remember hurricane Katrina–the storm that struck New Orleans in 2005? Much attention was given by the mainstream news services about the federal governments inability to make up for the state’s inadequacy and the city’s corrupt ineptness when it come to protecting the people. A little attention was given to the roving street gangs and the heavy crime and looting that followed the natural disaster. But there was another story that received almost no scrutiny.

Once the local police finally went into action, they spent a lot of time collecting guns from the citizens. The stated goal was to disarm everyone. However, it proved easier for the roving bands of police to collect guns from the people trying to live in what was left of their homes than it was to hunt down the more illusive street gangs.

That was some time ago and you might not have paid much attention to it them. If you want to see videos of the police tackling old ladies in their homes and taking their self-protection pistols–take a look at this YouTube video.

It seems unbelievable.

All of us would like to brush-off the Katrina aftermath circus as one-time exception to the American experience. But the problem isn’t constrained to New Orleans and there are more recent examples that should concern most Americans.

Last weekend statements made by a Louisiana elected-politician, shocked me into connecting a few isolated events. You can read the entire transcript here, but here’s a quick summary:

A middle-aged man with a montage of pro-gun bumper stickers on his pick-up truck’s back window was pulled-over for “failure to use a turn signal” and questioned while standing in the street next to the truck in Shreveport, Louisiana. The officer first question was if he had a firearm, which the driver admitted. The officer then entered the vehicle, without warrant or permission, searched for, and confiscated the citizen’s firearm.

Robert Baillio, the truck’s owner and driver, later complained to Mayor Cedric Glover that his second Amendment right to bear arms had been violated. However, it seems to me it was more like an unreasonable search and seizure, which is a violation of his fourth Amendment rights.

Article IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, support by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Even if the officer had sought a warrant, I have difficulty understanding what the probable cause associated with “failure to use a turn signal” that permits an officer to search and seize things from a citizen’s vehicle?

Mayor Glover explained to Mr. Baillio that once he was stopped by the officer he no longer had rights–they had been suspended. He went on to explain that “Upon graduation from the police academy, every officer is told they have the power to suspend [a citizen’s] rights.”

Where does that power come from? Is there a local ordinance, state law, or federal law that overrides the Constitution? If so, how can any law usurp the “supreme law” of the land?

The officer returned the firearm to Mr. Baillio, and did not issue him a citation for anything. The video showed the officer to be basically respectful of the driver, except for the unreasonable search and seizure, which can be viewed here.

Then there was the recent case of a Louisiana state trooper being arrested for aggravated assault, simple battery and false imprisonment of District Judge Lewis Sams after a traffic stop outside the courthouse.

The trooper saw the judge driving without a seatbelt, which has recently been legislated to be a crime. So he pulled in behind the judge with his lights on. After checking the standard license, registration, proof of insurance he told the judge of the violation. The judge told him to write the ticket. Then the officer asked him where he was employed.

According to the transcript of the Mayor Glover’s conversation with Mr. Baillio, “citizens must answer all of an officer’s questions truthfully–or they’re committing a crime.” I guess that old “you have the right to remain silent” only applies to actual criminals and terrorists captured on the battlefield in the war on terror–no wait, that’s called ‘overseas contingencies’ now.

The judge told him, but when asked to show further identification he refused. An argument ensued, the officer drew his Taser, threats were issued, and the judge was eventually bounced off the hood of the patrol car during his arrest.

Yes, there were witnesses.

But this seems a little confusing. If an officer has the power to suspend the rights of a citizen, how could the state trooper be guilty of any crime? After all, people with no rights, have no rights. Right? Evidently, the answer is, “Wrong.”

The judge disagreed. It turned out the judge was proficient in using the law to defend his rights. The trooper was arrested and is reported to be on paid administrative leave. Was this just an isolated incident? Would this have turned out differently if the judge hadn’t been a judge? What if he were … you? Or one of your children?

My grandpa once told me that we should learn from the mistakes of others.

So far we’ve learned not to put pro-gun stickers on our trucks and if you’re a judge you can stand up for your rights, but if you do, you can expect to be roughed up and bounced off a patrol car’s hood during your arrest (a.k.a false imprisonment).

A few years ago during a Mardi Gras parade in Shreveport, someone put up a huge US flag, which blocked the view of many citizens. Because of complaints, an ordinance was issued to ban such large banners and flags during parades. However, officers wound up being briefed to ban all US flags. Thus the police, wearing their badges and guns ordered people to take down flags (even the little ones on sticks), put away chairs with Americana decorations, and even change tee-shirts that had pictures of US flags.

So many complaints were made in the days following the parade that the city reported there had been a miscommunication and it wouldn’t happen again.

But think about it.

If the citizens had refused to remove their small flags, what would have happened to them? Would they have been tased, pepper-sprayed, beaten, and/or arrested?

If so, for what crime?

Maybe for failure to comply with an officer’s instructions–an officer who has been told he has the power to suspend your rights. Do citizens really have to do everything an officer tells them to do? Really? Something is very wrong with a society that allows even the lowest qualified law-enforcement officials to single-handedly, suspend the rights of citizens.

Maybe you don’t own a firearm. Maybe you don’t display the flag or wear teeshirts with red, white, and blue colors. Maybe you and your family don’t go to parades. Maybe you think you’re safe. Think again.

Let’s suppose all officers actually had the power to regulate the rights of citizens–just like they’re told they can in Shreveport as they graduate from the police academy. What if they stopped your car because you didn’t use a turn signal or you have a bumper sticker that expresses an opinion they didn’t like?

What if they took your cell phone? Since some people send porn pictures over their cell phones, it is possible that you could have obscene pictures on your phone. The police could just flip through your files and make sure you’re not breaking the law. He could also check to see if you were talking or texting while driving–that is a crime in some places. After all, your rights have been suspended. Right?

Why should the police have to wait for you to get in your car? They could stop you in stores and shopping malls, maybe even in the theater to check your phone. Have you been recording some of the movie–that’s a copyright violation. Better check. Just to make sure.

Why stop there? Why not just a simple pat-down of people as they’re walking around? After all, they can suspend your rights, and some people may be carrying drugs, guns, or stolen material.

Don’t worry, you can have your phone back when you bring your purchase-receipt down to the station. You saved it, didn’t you?

Let me see your papers!

Come to think of it, why should the police have to wait for you to leave your home? A lot of people might have porn on their home computers, or guns in their attics–guns they don’t have receipts for. Maybe a few old guns have been passed down for generations in your family–why should you have those? You might use them for a crime. Maybe they need to be inspected to make sure they’re safe. What’s wrong with that?

While they’re there, they probably need to go through your files to make sure you’re not cheating on your taxes. They could check your computer to see if you’ve been dealing in interstate commerce via Ebay or Craig’s list and then they could check your 1040 to make sure you claimed the income. Wouldn’t want to let tax-evaders get away. While they’re at it, they could sniff around to see what else you’ve been up to. Law abiding citizens should have nothing to worry about. Right?

Imagine the crimes they could catch you and your neighbors doing if they just suspended your rights and searched your homes. You wouldn’t want to stand in the way of law enforcement would you?

After all. They’re there to protect you.

I’ve always had high regard for police officers. They do a vital, tough, and often times dangerous job. Unfortunately, young police officers, like young soldiers, tend to do what their superiors tell them to do–even in America.

And in a police state, the police do what ever they want to do.

“…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Young police officers, like young soldiers, need competent leaders telling them what to do. Those leaders need to know they only have power from the consent of the governed. They also need to know the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The electoral process is the best way to ensure our government is filled with elected-officials who will remain true and faithful to protecting the Constitution against all enemies–foreign and domestic.

Americans have rights all the time.

It just makes sense.

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

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 »

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 | 3 Comments »