The big story this week has been the leaking of thousands of classified documents on the war in Afghanistan. There only thing is, those papers didn't tell us anything we didn't already know: things weren't looking too good up until the troop surge. Isn't anything sacred anymore? Has ideology trumped any pride or desire for national security? In WWII people were extremely vigilant about the release of ANY information, however benign, should it benefit the enemy in any way. Even regular citizens. What did this incident gain anyone besides the adulation of a treasonous esteem-lacking young man by the rabidly anti-war Left? Hopefully not the blood of our military personnel or innocent Afghanis seeking to end Taliban rule. Has it occurred to anyone that we could have been out of there years ago had we gone in with the intention of actually winning? No one likes to go to war, but you don't go with the intention of caving. War sucks. Innocent people die. It's been happening since time immemorial. But once you commit to "helping" a group of people escape subjugation, you don't bail on them because the leadership isn't on board or it isn't popular anymore.
We learned 35 years ago what happens when politicians bail on a war effort. Contrary to what the media would like people to believe, we DID win in Vietnam. It's called the cease-fire. However, we left the South Vietnamese hanging, and let them fall victim to the communists by not providing them with money and arms. If you don't think the communists didn't know exactly who was helping the Americans, and tortured them for it, you have been living under a rock for 35 years. This is what will happen in Afghanistan if we back off. Actually, since these un-redacted papers were released, along with the names of hundreds of indigenous informants, the Taliban is now actively hunting them. Taliban hunting informants.
God help you, Mr. Bradley Manning. In my opinion you no longer rate your military rank. You have made it possible to put your own fellow military members at risk. How dare you! And why isn't the Left more outraged if they are so pro-military and pro-national security?
There is precedent for people like this.We threw Benedict Arnold out of the country. Maybe you should go live in Afghanistan with your Taliban buddies, Manning. I'm sure they'd like you for helping them, but if you ever betrayed them like you did your own country, they'd see to it you lost your head. Literally.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
The aftermath.. or is it?
On Wednesday, Federal Judge Susan Bolton put a temporary injuction on parts of Arizona's SB1070. One of the provisions she messed with was the requirement for all law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of everyone they have detained for a criminal reason. Now, while on the surface this seems like she knocked it out the running but officers can still voluntarily check the status of their detainees, providing they weren't stopped due to racial profiling and they have reasonable cause to believe they're here illegally. A lot of people argue that this last statement is a gambit. Well it isn't, if you've ever worked in law enforcement. It's common sense. We all have to carry ID on us. If you don't, an officer can still look you up to see if you have a driver's license or state ID card. If the information you're giving them doesn't add up, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they're hiding something.
One of the other provisions she struck down really does piss me off, though. She struck down the article that all immigrants have to carry their papers. This has been federal law since 1940! I have to carry my driver's license or get a citation. Why is it that immigrants don't in AZ? This has taken the equal protection rule waaay out of line. If the actual American citizens of AZ have to carry their DL, and the legal immigrants know they have to carry their green card according to federal law already in place, why on earth would you throw that out of the provisions? AZ isn't doing anything that isn't already law. Law enforcement has the power to put people on immigration holds already due to a law signed by former president Clinton.
AZ filed an appeal to the ruling yesterday, although the fastest it could get to the 9th Circuit would be 6 months from now, with a miracle. I suggest AZ sue the federal government for not only not doing their job but preventing AZ from keeping their citizens safe.
However, even though Judge Bolton did what she did, it didn't prevent jackasses from tying up traffic in downtown LA for 5 hours. I feel bad for the LAPD having to put on their kid gloves in dealing with those people, who brought along their lawyers for the protest. Thank you protesters! Keep doing what you're doing, because you're winning any fans to your cause by ticking everyone else off.
One of the other provisions she struck down really does piss me off, though. She struck down the article that all immigrants have to carry their papers. This has been federal law since 1940! I have to carry my driver's license or get a citation. Why is it that immigrants don't in AZ? This has taken the equal protection rule waaay out of line. If the actual American citizens of AZ have to carry their DL, and the legal immigrants know they have to carry their green card according to federal law already in place, why on earth would you throw that out of the provisions? AZ isn't doing anything that isn't already law. Law enforcement has the power to put people on immigration holds already due to a law signed by former president Clinton.
AZ filed an appeal to the ruling yesterday, although the fastest it could get to the 9th Circuit would be 6 months from now, with a miracle. I suggest AZ sue the federal government for not only not doing their job but preventing AZ from keeping their citizens safe.
However, even though Judge Bolton did what she did, it didn't prevent jackasses from tying up traffic in downtown LA for 5 hours. I feel bad for the LAPD having to put on their kid gloves in dealing with those people, who brought along their lawyers for the protest. Thank you protesters! Keep doing what you're doing, because you're winning any fans to your cause by ticking everyone else off.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Lessons learned in an unlikely place
I went to Scotland recently, mostly for the rich historical background and landscape. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm a history geek with my nose constantly buried in a book. Lately I've been reading a lot about the Protestant Reformation in Britain, including the Tudors, the Scots and the French. Scotland seemed a pretty valid choice for my vacation.
Our country's Second Amendment, I learned was not only thought of by our own Founding Fathers. In Scotland, it came from the preamble to their Militia Act to give the Scots the coequal right to have weapons and build their own local militias to protect themselves. The Scots had lived in constant warfare for centuries, and just as our ancestors, were also subject to the rule of the English. I always thought the farmers-turned-Minutemen were the reason behind the 2nd Amendment, but this added an entirely new context for me.
We can also surmise the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment is directly related to the religious upheaval in the two centuries since Martin Luther and Henry VIII caused such trauma. However, in the colonies, people still had the freedom to worship even under the crown. Over in Scotland, they were fighting to have the freedom to practice whatever they wanted without interference or sanctioning by the King.
Both of these examples provided me with a new level of depth as to the ideas and experiences that went into building our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. We succeeded where the Scots and the Irish didn't, but many of their ideas made it into the American experience. Although the Irish have been an independent Republic for almost 90 years, after centuries of occupation and subjegation. Scotland went through devolution a few years ago, and now retain much of their own local power with respect to countrywide and realm-wide decisions that are made in England by the Queen.
I will end with this, a quote from the Declaration of Arbroath made in 1320. Tell me if this doesn't sound distinctlyAmerican:
It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
Our country's Second Amendment, I learned was not only thought of by our own Founding Fathers. In Scotland, it came from the preamble to their Militia Act to give the Scots the coequal right to have weapons and build their own local militias to protect themselves. The Scots had lived in constant warfare for centuries, and just as our ancestors, were also subject to the rule of the English. I always thought the farmers-turned-Minutemen were the reason behind the 2nd Amendment, but this added an entirely new context for me.
We can also surmise the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment is directly related to the religious upheaval in the two centuries since Martin Luther and Henry VIII caused such trauma. However, in the colonies, people still had the freedom to worship even under the crown. Over in Scotland, they were fighting to have the freedom to practice whatever they wanted without interference or sanctioning by the King.
Both of these examples provided me with a new level of depth as to the ideas and experiences that went into building our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. We succeeded where the Scots and the Irish didn't, but many of their ideas made it into the American experience. Although the Irish have been an independent Republic for almost 90 years, after centuries of occupation and subjegation. Scotland went through devolution a few years ago, and now retain much of their own local power with respect to countrywide and realm-wide decisions that are made in England by the Queen.
I will end with this, a quote from the Declaration of Arbroath made in 1320. Tell me if this doesn't sound distinctlyAmerican:
It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)