Independance Day, 2005

This year, again, finds America at war during the Fourth of July.  Our brave men and women are serving across the sea to preserve and protect the Constitution and America's security.

Their job is hard: months away from family and friends, a hostile and unscupulous enemy, an unfamiliar culture, and incessent media and political disapproval.

And yet, they continue to do their duty with courage, honor, and committment.

How can we repay the riches given to our country by these people?

Well, one way would be to fight for our Constitution. Many judges disregard what the law of the land actually is, and instead make decisions on what they think it ought to mean. We should stand up for those men and women on the bench who dedicate themselves to the letter of the law.

Another way to honor the service of our Armed Forces would be to keep ourselves informed on the issues of the day, and to take action on those issues as our understanding of the law and our consciences dictate. America is our country: we own the government, it is supposed to do what we tell it to do. The military fights for our right to continue to live as a free and responsible society.

Yet a third way would be to actually claim responsibility for our lives. We ought to follow the example of our servicemen and step up to do our duty without whining or complaint. Each one of us who "passes the buck" does a terrible disservice to the cause of human dignity and freedom. We should be a society which encourages and admires people who display self-control, self-reliance, and a distaste for blaming others.

One of the best ways to honor our servicemen would be - saying "Thank you!" Take time to greet a veteran and tell them how much you appreciate their service. Pick up the tab for a military family eating at a restaurant. Write a letter to or post a thankful comment on the blog of a servicemember in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or anywhere. Let them know that you do care, that they do matter, and that you cheriish their sacrifices and respect their service.

Finally, never forget the lives given to preserve our freedom.  Never. Honor their sacrifice, and give due deference and respect to the families who have given up their sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters.

May God continue to bless the United States of America, and graciously grant to us patriots like the men and women who have served and are serving in the Armed Forces.

(flag image graciously free to all from PlaidNET, and Arlington's photo at the official website here)

Ooops, I meant to put this link for America Supports you up above. My bad. Please make sure you visit this site and give your support for the troops!

Comments

[Ghost Dansing]

1.

Certainly we all support the troops. Unfortunately, they deserve better political leadership then they have currently been afforded.

The comment about the Judges is so much more propaganda and nonsense coming from the Republican Party. The criticism comes from not a fact that rulings have been unconstitutional, but that rulings have not served tyrannical and extremist purposes.

Judges should be Liberal. The founding documents of this Nation are Liberal, and the reason they are interpreted in a Liberal way is because that is how the general law of the Constitution, and the Government that it formed was intended by the Founding Fathers. To say otherwise is, well, Republican nonsense.

The Constitution was a product of the thought of the 18th-century "Age of the Enlightenment." European and American philosophers, such as John Locke, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Thomas Paine, attacked despotic government and advanced the following ideas: that government comes from below, not from above, and that it derives its powers from the consent of the governed; that individuals have certain natural, inalienable rights; that it is wise and feasible to distribute and balance powers within government, giving local powers to local governments, and general powers to the national government; that all persons are born equal and should be treated as equal before the law.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to do what, as yet, Europeans had not tried: to make these Enlightenment ideas the governing principles of a nation. Hence, the document stressed that the people were forming the government ("We, the People do ordain and establish this Constitution. ") and were themselves dividing power in such a way as to afford checks and balances on its use and potential abuse.

No bill of rights was included in the original document. It was considered unnecessary by many of the framers because of the fact that Congress' powers were delegated and this precluded their being used to deprive man of his inalienable rights. However, a number of basic protections were spelled out. Such traditional guarantees of Anglo-Saxon liberty as habeas corpus and protection against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder were included, along with the assurance that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence are ALL Liberal documents. They are the true foundations of American values. All of the current opposition to the Judicial Branch, and to the Liberal interpretation of the Contitution come from political philosophies that are, at root, un-American. The Republican Party has embraced these un-American positions, and formed a slim majority, that is strategically positioned to dominate all branches of government, undermine checks and balances, and rule by fiat.

We wish them luck in all that. However, the price to pay will be the death of America as we know it; the death of the revolutionary values she has espoused, and the defeat of one of the most wonderful experiments in human governance.

[Romeocat]

2.

I think you are committing the sin of equivocation, GD. I will agree that our founding documents are very Liberal - in the classical sense, not in the modern sense.

The legislature, not the judiciary, is the proper forum for changing, inventing, and proposing laws.

And I think it's sad that that's the only thing you can focus on, when it hardly made up the majority of my post.

Our Armed Forces respect and admire our President. Get a life, get some meds, or get over it.

[Mustang]

3.

Ghost:

Here’s where I disagree with you. Taken in context of when the Constitution was written, it may have been considered “liberal” as opposed to maintaining the status quo of that period. It could even be considered liberal in context with the Magna Carta, or the Mayflower Compact. However, it cannot be considered “liberal” today. Liberal thought today leans much more toward socialism (the mild side) to anarchy (the edge of ridiculous). What we want our judges to do is “interpret” the Constitution as how the founding fathers viewed it. There are people on the Supreme Court who constantly review and analyze notes taken during the Constitutional Convention for just that purpose. We do not want judges to “legislate” because that violates one of our basic tenets of government: separation of powers. This point of view is not a “republican” point of view; it is a traditionalist point of view. If you begin labeling viewpoints as belonging to one party or another, you run the risk of generalizations. An intellectual debate should avoid generalizations, right?

Now, this may all be a moot point since the Constitution says only what SCOTUS says that it says. This is an important point because the Constitution delineates responsibilities within the government. WE the people vote for elected representatives and we cast ballots for the presidency. It is the President who nominates federal judges, and it is the role of the Senate to “advise and consent.” There are no “people” steps involved in the process of nominating or confirming judicial appointments. I’m making this point because you seem to be saying that WE the people determine judicial appointments, which is simply not true. I think the system described above is exactly why it is important to have solid candidates for the presidency, and why we should pay particular attention to senatorial races.

I really do disagree with your statement that we are on the verge of losing our “revolutionary ideal.” We are not. We are permitted to have our revolution every 2 years for house members, every 4 years for the presidency, and every 6 years for the senate. Your frustration, and perhaps mine, is that most of those who announce their candidacy are marginally qualified to hold any public office, and too often we are choosing between bad choice #1, and bad choice #2.

However, I do share your concern about the demise of this America that I love so dearly, but it isn’t so much on the issue of federal judges, but rather on the “too liberal” views that truth must take a back seat to political correctness, that everyone who knocks on our door must have it opened to them, and that our base of politicians are about as corrupt as human beings can ever be. That’s what worries me. But for gosh sakes, don’t get me started because I see all kinds of serious social issues that are contributing factors to our demise. I worry that WE the people aren’t smart enough to figure out our own survival skills.

Semper Fi

[Cao]

4.

I don't see how the founding documents are liberal in ANY sense, R'cat and Ghost. Consider--John Winthrop, aboard the ship Arabella lying off the shore of Massachusetts, wrote in 1630: "For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God's sake. We shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going. ... Therefore let us choose life, that we and our seed may live, by obeying His voice and cleaving to Him, for He is our life and our prosperity." (Ronald Reagan often cited Winthrop's image of a "city upon a hill" as inspiration for his revival of fidelity to our Founding beliefs 350 years later.)

Consider Roger Williams, repeatedly hounded out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony during the mid-1600s, and who then founded Rhode Island as a sanctuary protecting religious liberty, freedom of conscience, and defending property rights. Similarly, the founder of Pennsylvania, William Penn, in 1682 presaged the ideals in the Declaration of Independence: "Men being born with a title to perfect freedom and uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature...no one can be put out of his estate and subjected to the political view of another, without his consent." Having traversed the sea to find religious liberty, the colonial Americans discovered that freedom in all aspects of life best supports the exercise of free conscience in religion and morality.

Hence, the colonists felt the profound injustice of the British king's deviation from adherence to the laws underpinning his reign, which led to the break in 1776. As the Founders noted, "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."

A major portion of the Declaration of Independence then lists the bill of particulars, 27 indictments of King George's faithlessness toward British laws. Reading these charges today, especially in light of the Supreme Court's assault in recent weeks on the U.S. Constitution -- the document that implements the Declaration's principles in practical government -- we should wonder, are we indeed the heirs of our Founding generation? For at least seven of the indictments are suspiciously aligned with allegations we could, and perhaps should, lay against our U.S. courts.

The Founders wrote, "He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." And: "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." Could these charges not as readily apply to U.S. judges striking down laws the people believe to be "most wholesome and necessary for the public good" -- such as laws reserving marriage for one wife and one husband, keeping public treasury money for citizens only, and preserving religious freedoms?

The Founders further criticized the King, noting, "He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people." Although more subtle and insidious, our courts have "repeatedly dissolved" the actions of our "Representative Houses" in "opposing with manly firmness" the judiciary's "invasions on the rights of the people."

Consider this charge: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance." Could this not as easily describe the Supreme Court's decision permitting governments to take the private property of one citizen and bestow it on another who is expected to pay more taxes?

Our Supreme Court justices have even cited foreign law in support of their recent rulings. The British king did likewise: "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...." Does it not follow thatwhen our judges import foreign laws to bind us, we have little recourse to resist?

Add this: "For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments...." This past week's Supreme Court decisions in regard to Kentucky and Texas governments, acting under their state charters to acknowledge God and the Ten Commandments, could be argued to have abolished their "most valuable laws" and "fundamentally altered the forms of those governments." Finally, this: "For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever." Indeed, by seizing the power to not only review laws but to create them from the bench, our courts now presume to "legislate for us in all cases whatsoever."

Are these parallels remarkable? Or does growing tyranny present the same face wherever it appears? Founder John Adams made an eloquent case for both private property ownership and public religious observance: "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."

Far too many members of the U.S. judiciary have forsaken the foundations of our freedom, but we would be remiss to neglect those among us who have remained most faithful to our Founders' legacy. For what marked the birth of our nation -- even beyond the ringing endorsement of liberty -- was the willingness of the Founders to sacrifice their personal blood, treasure and reputation on this new nation they envisioned. Indeed, they concluded their Independence Day statement, "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." Our troops arrayed in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere are the legitimate philosophical descendants of these, our American Revolutionary War heroes. They are the progeny of George Washington's Continental Army, having proven themselves equally as noble, equally as willing to sacrifice. We would do well this Independence Day 2005 to ponder them, to pray for them -- and to pray that we ourselves will have the courage of purpose and strength of character to put back aright those cornerstones so carefully laid by our Founding Fathers.

[G M Roper]

5.

Both my parent's and my father's parents are buried near each other at the Fort Sam Houston National Cemetary. Thank you for putting the photo of a National Cemetary up.

[Duncan Avatar]

6.

I'd write a comment of my own. But Mustang and Cao, you guys stole all of my thunder... Well, I guess I'll go back to surfing the net...

[Kender]

7.

That our young men and women die for us is sad, yet it is a well known maxim that the Tree of Liberty Must Periiodically be Watered with the Blood of both tyrants and Patriots.

What is sad is when SCOTUS creates law by interpreting them through a modern lens, wrongly taking into account international laws and opinions (death penalty for minors)and siding with an eye towards money (enema domain) rather than basic rights laid down in the founding documents, not to mention turning the will of the people (citizens) through the ballot box into so much wasted effort (CA's prop 187 and others).

The modern SCOTUS is a tyrannical group that is slowly takling over legislating law by interpreting it to the liking of liberal activists, (ACLU, La Raza, MALDEF,) and international OPINION.

In short SCOTUS is becoming a subversive force in this country,, and if not reined in will lead us down a path of socialism (the same kind that is failing in the EU) and very well may try to take away our guns and free speech and turn this country into the biggest treasure trove for the UN and other despots that despise us for the success of our system.

[Jeremy, The American Warmonger]

8.

Ass Prancing, or whatever the hell your name is,

You have completely screwed yourself on a day when we're supposed to be enjoying out independence, our 226th celebration of the signing of the document. You come here and you throw up some "I support the troops but.." line.

Don't F**ing lie to us you ignorant piece of liberal trash! Your only purpose for being on this blog is to bash Bush.

News for you asshat: Bush IS the troops. Bush is the number one ranking member of the armed forces. He is the one and only elected member of the armed forces. When you attack him with your stupidity you ARE attacking the troops!

We are founded upon a representative democratic republic. These documents are as much conservative as they are liberal. They were SPECIFICALLY built that way. Much of the formulation of these documents were surrounded by the "spirit of party" or the fact that some believed in big government and some believed in limited government. Do some research for yourself instead of taking what your professor or other minor educational diety you subscribe to. Read a history book that doesn't have required talking points. You just may be surprised to find out you're a f***ing idiot.

This is supposed to be a day of rejoice for all parties and you just $H!+ on it for everyone. May you rot in hell.

[Kender]

9.

What Jeremy said!!!!!!

[David]

10.

R'Cat: good points. hat cost lberty? To those of us safely here at home, especially: what is our liberty costing us, and what price are we willing to pay--here and now--to maintain what liberties we have?

Mustang: "Now, this may all be a moot point since the Constitution says only what SCOTUS says that it says."

Not so. The SCOTUS (and the rest of the courts) can be ignored by the Executive (Andrew jackson: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.") and the legislative branch can certainly rein in runaway judges and justices... if it had the necessary spine to do so.

Cao: the Founders and Framers were men completely outside the classical (and current" molds of "liberal" and "conservative" in that they did indeed seek values from what have become the classical positions of both conservative and liberal politics almost equally. (Let alone the fact that the classically "liberal" positions weren't really articulated politically until the 19th century.)

The Constitution is well-grounded in much of British Common Law that proceded largely from the Magna Carts (conservative), but the ideals embodied in that growing expansion of the Magna Carta were themselves "liberal" in their protections of personal liberty and property.

The most liberal influence upon the Constitution did indeed come from Rhode Island Baptists (and others), with the cooperation and support of Jefferson, pressed for inclusion of free religious expression, leading to the First Amendment and resulting in the Bill of Rights.

But that very liberal influence was itself a conservation of rights inherent in the people... a conservative principle.

Putting the Founders and Framers in a box built of 20th/21st Century sensibilities just won't work. Well, for one thing, honor and duty—essential components of their lives—are becoming foreign concepts to much of the citizenry today.

R'Cat, that's what I appreciate so very much about this post of yours: it is a call to embrace honor and duty.

Thanks

[Romeocat]

11.

I am so glad that I have such excellent friends, who can write so well and make such good points! Thank you all.

And, David, yes it is a call to embrace honor and duty. I think as a society we have fallen too far from those ideals. Too many people hold the responsibilities of citizenship lightly, and the courtesies of civilized society are frequently distained.

It would be wonderful to gift our servicemen and women with a better country to return to.

[jcrue]

12.

my one point in all of this is to ask the military who they want to be their civilian leader.

they had the opportunity last november and lo' and behold their choice happens to have extended his lease at the White House for four more years....

when the (D) party convinces the military they really "support" them, maybe you will see more votes for a (D) candidate, i doubt you will see it in your lifetime though.

don't assume you or anyone else knows what is better for the military as long as they are the ones doing the heavy lifting and you sit at home telling them what is good for them.

have a nice day, ghost.