Sugarcoating A Crime

I am confused by something. I was watching Hannity and Colmes earlier. Sean Hannity was in El Paso, Texas with the border patrol and the Minutemen. The topic of the show was, obviously, border security. My confusion is in the different terms used to describe people who sneak across the border. Sean Hannity calls them illegal aliens. Alan Colmes calls them undocumented immigrants.

Let's stop with the euphemisms, OK? There are no undocumented immigrants. An immigrant is someone who comes here by applying for the right. As such, they are documented throughout the immigration process. The people caught by the infrared cameras bypassing the rules and breaking our laws may very well be undocumented, but they are NOT immigrants. They are illegal aliens.

Mr. Colmes, my ancestors came to the United States from Germany in the 1870's and from Italy in 1906. They followed the rules and obeyed the laws. They learned the language, contributed to society, paid taxes, and fought in our wars with distinction. THEY, sir, were immigrants. Do not insult their memory or their honor by grouping them with people who show blatant disrespect for our country. Do not slander them by elevating criminals to their level just because you find the truth too distasteful to speak.

Get a backbone, sir. You would call the Minutemen criminals before you would call the illegal aliens the same. What is wrong with you?

A Reason to Explore - Our Very Existence

For those who thought my blog was only political...surprise. I am an engineer. I spend each working day like all engineers...improving yesterday's technology and creating tomorrow's. When the MSM disparages, misrepresents, over emphasizes the bad or just plain screws it up regarding science and technology, the hairs on the back of my neck rise up.

Media scare tactics and gloom-and-doom tirades are the bane of my existence. They can kill progress fast because at best, they only tell partial truths. Unfortunately, the press loves junk science because it sells. As with all subjects, they feel whole story...the truth...just isn't always as interesting or worth telling.

Every now and then, someone from outside the MSM gets it right. The link below is one such case. It is an essay by Dr. Robert Zubrin, formerly of NASA, now a leading proponent of increasing our manned exploration of space, and making Mars the next destination. I have read this before, but am doing so again in the wake of the latest shuttle mission and the press hungrily looking for the chinks in NASA's armor.

A New Martian Frontier: Recapturing the Soul of America

Please do read it and comment. All the whiners and cowards and nay-sayers out there - especially in the MSM - who want to shut off funding to NASA don't, won't or can't see the point...or don't care. We need this - our continued vibrancy and existence as a nation and species depend on it. Anyway...I digress too much...just have a look.

I will be talking more about science and technology in the future, too. Don't worry, though...politics and history are still passions...and they'll still be discussed here.

Amendments I'd Like to See

Things are hopping politically and if you're interested in the goings on in government, whether executive, legislative or judicial, there should be something juicy to follow. With this as inspiration, I've decided to draft a few Amendments to our Constitution. I am not deluding myself into thinking they'll ever be ratified, but I can dream, can't I?

(Please forgive me if my language isn't 100% constitutionally perfect.)

On Legislative Responsibility
Congress has been running amok for years...no decades...no maybe well over a century. They need to be told to self regulate how they draft legislation. If they miss, then the President needs the line-item-veto to put things back on track.

Congress shall add no amendment to any proposed legislation which is not relevant to the said bill. All legislation regarding pay and benefits for Congress shall be submitted for consideration only as a bill, and may not be an amendment to any type of proposed legislation. Congress shall endeavor in all earnestness to remove all irrelevant and inappropriate amendments from pending legislation prior to voting and submitting to the President. The President shall have the power to enforce this amendment by vetoing individual amendments from legislation he intends to approve if the amendment is determined to be irrelevant and/or inappropriate.

On Presidential Nominations
"No one truly qualified for government wants the job." Thank the MSM and sniping, backbiting, mud-slinging politicians for this fact. Well, this proposed amendment might help, in part, by sharply reducing the amount of time a Presidential nominee is exposed to the political elements. Recently I was reading a book of biographies of all the Associate Justices and Chief Justices of the Supreme Court. Congress often approved them within a week of being nominated. What a wonderful world that would be...Congress getting things done in a timely manner.

The President shall make all nominations to federal offices by noon (local time - Washington D.C.) on non-holiday Mondays while Congress is in session. To ensure expediency, the Congress shall approve all nominations without exception by five in the evening (local time - Washington D.C.) on the second Friday following the nomination. The President may not nominate someone for federal office if sufficient time in the legislative session does not remain for a full debate and voting cycle. All votes on nominees will be simple yes or no votes, with a simple majority being required for ascension. All regular rules of legislative conduct apply, but Congress may censure any or all of its members who deliberately seek to unreasonably delay or disrupt the proceedings of advise and consent. Legislators may not apply any political, religious or ideological requirements to nominees. Judicial nominees my not be questioned as to how they would vote on specific legislation.

On Elections to Congress
OK, enough is enough...let someone else have a chance already! This proposed amendment was inspired, in part, by Hillary Clinton's hijacking (yes, I said it) of a New York Senatorial seat. Career fat cat and dead wood politicians also inspired it - regardless of on which side of the aisle they resided.

No person may be elected as a Senator more than twice, nor may any person be elected a Senator more than once if that person served more than half the term of another Senator. No person may be elected as a Representative more than six times, nor may any person be elected a Representative more than five times if that person served more than half the term of another Representative. A person who has served the maximum time allowed in either the Senate or the House of Representatives may also then run for and serve for the fully allowed time in the other house. No person may be elected to either the Senate or House of Representatives from any state if that person is not a current resident of that state and has not lived in the state for at least three years prior to taking office. If a person is a resident of a state but also serving in the military during the three years prior to taking elected office, that person may only be in actual residence for two of the three years (in any combination) prior to serving.

On Elections to Federal Offices
Come on, people, let's not be greedy. This proposed amendment was also inspired by Hillary Clinton's usurping one of my home states Senatorial seat and her obvious disregard for it given her intent to leave it cold one day. It was also inspired by Senator Lieberman's dual run for Senator and Vice-President in 2000.

No person may run for two elected federal offices at the same time, nor may a person currently holding any federal elected office run for any other federal elected office unless the terms of the two offices do not overlap more than one month... Where the terms of office do overlap more than one month, the person must resign the first office in order to run for the second.

On the Election of the President
OK...let's close the barn door BEFORE the horse escapes again! The citizens do not elect the President, because he/she is not our president, directly. The President is the leader of our Republic - our union of sovereign states. As such, we don't use a direct popular election. Rather, we have muddied the water with the Electoral College, so each state receives electors for president based on the total number of congressional representatives plus senators.

The problem is that the electoral span between the largest and smallest states was only nine votes in 1788 whereas now it's fifty-two. This huge disparity disrupts the compromise the delegates made in 1787 and returns us to a popular vote in all but name. When the election is very close, well, we see what happens. Under the proposed amendment below, George Bush would have received 78 electoral votes in 2000 and Al Gore only 61. This system would return the power to elect the president back to a split between the state and population. It would also prevent a tie, and help persuade candidates to campaign in more than just the heavily populated states. Eight votes isn't too wide a spread - so every state counts.

The electoral votes of the various states shall apportion as follows: No state shall have less than two and no more than ten electoral votes for president. The electoral votes shall be normalized to the most populous state and rounded to the neatest even number representing the ratio of its population to that of the most populous state. The District of Columbia shall have only one electoral vote for president. The various states shall assign their total electoral votes to only one candidate. The electoral votes are legally bound to the winning candidate in that state and may not be arbitrarily or deliberately assigned to any other candidate. The ceremonial position of elector is hereby abolished.

Since When is This Backtracking?

Today during a press conference, the president answered questions about Karl Rove and the continuing investigation into who leaked information about the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Bush's comment (as reported on CNN.com) was:

"I think it's best if people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts. And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

This was reported today on CNN.com under the headline "Bush appears to shift course on CIA leak." In it, the president is accused of back-pedaling on his June 2004 statement that he would fire anybody who was responsible for the leak.

Um...how?

Oh, yeah, because he wants to wait until someone is proved guilty BEFORE punishing them. That's right. Silly me. We're supposed to shoot first and ask questions later if a conservative politician wants to wait until all the facts are in, but look the other way if a liberal is under suspicion.

The MSM doesn't care about the news, or informing the people. No longer is it "All the news that's fit to Print." Instead it should be "All the news that's fit to distort, exploit and misrepresent." Grow up!

Oh, and while we're on the subject, how about the disrespect the MSM paid to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh? Wasn't this a joint press conference? I think it was inappropriate of the press to ignore the prime minister and divert the attention of the conference to other non-related subjects. India isn't some backwater, third-rate nation. And even if it was, it was rude and inexcusable of the press to push the prime minister to the side. And the president should have told them so.

How to Spot a Liberal

I am not politically correct, or always tactful. But, I feel that if someone is acting stupidly, they need to have it brought to their attention. Otherwise, how can they ever change? Following are two real life encounters with liberals - nearly 10 years apart - where I was able to give them something else to think about...

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

Encounter 1: The Mock Senate Hearing

In the spring of 1982 when I was in 11th grade, my American History teacher decided to hold a mock Senate hearing to teach our class about the way legislation is drafted. He picked a topic which was in the news - whether or not to have a peace time draft. Each student was assigned a role, either a senator from the Senate Armed Services Committee, or a lobbyist. I was to be a senator from New York.

While I am not specifically advocating a draft now, I didn't and don't see one as necessarily evil - especially if needed. My senator, however, was dead against it. So, ever the actor, I was true to the part and opposed the draft, despite my personal feelings. My teacher was surprised because he always referred to me as his personal Joe McCarthy. My nemesis in the class, a very liberal girl, got her dream role - a lobbyist from the ACLU.

On the second day of the hearings, my nemesis testified - saying that a draft was completely unconstitutional. In fact, she felt it violated a citizen's rights to make them serve in the armed forces at all, for any reason what so ever! I hated sitting there - keeping quiet and not arguing with her. I think I perforated my lower lip from biting it so hard. One of my friends who knew I was conservative asked me how I kept my cool. To this day, I still don't know.

The encounter came during the break that followed. The class broke up - all of us meandering around the room - the teacher standing in the corner by the door, just watching. I saw my nemesis talking to a friend, her purse on the desk in front of her - a ten dollar bill sticking partly out. I walked up to her desk, looked at her, then the purse, took the ten and began to walk away.

She went berserk. She grabbed me and said "Give it back!"

I said "No, it's mine now" and broke away. (All the while, our teacher is just watching from the corner). She followed and hit me - HARD - in my shoulder and yelled again for me to return it. That's when I turned on her.

I held up the ten in her face and said "What, are you gonna fight me for this?"

"Yes!" she said and she pushed me again.

Then I said "Oh, you'll fight me for this money, but not for your freedoms? Babe, your priorities are all screwed up!" I threw the ten in her face and walked away. As I looked into the corner of the room, our teacher (a US Navy & Viet-Nam vet) was just shaking his head and laughing.

LESSON 1: Liberal extremists don't always understand what is really important. As such, they rarely fight the fights worth fighting and often come across as hypocritical - leaving themselves wide open to quick-thinking conservatives.

(Note to kids - DO NOT DO WHAT I DID! I was lucky I didn't get in serious trouble!!! Given the chance to do it again, I would have found a way to do it differently.)

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

Encounter 2: The Political Survey

Back in the late summer of 1992 during the home stretch of the presidential elections, my wife and I were moving house. To save on expenses, we rented a truck and did it ourselves. While loading the truck, I was approached by a college student conducting a political survey. Bear in mind, I was carrying large, heavy boxes from my house to the truck. Below is the conversation that took place to the best of my memory:

Student: Hello sir, I am a college student, political science major, and I was wondering if you would mind answering a few questions about the upcoming elections.

Me: Well, (grunt, groan) this really isn't the best time. I'm kinda busy. (I put the box in the truck and returned for another)

Student: (following) That's OK, I can walk next to you. I won't get in your way at all. It's only about 10 questions.

Me: (reaching the truck with the next box, I put it in the truck and looked at him, breathing hard) You're a Democrat, right? "Progressive," liberal, support Bill Clinton, hated Reagan, right?

Student: Yes, that's right, how did you know?

Me: A Republican would have offered to carry a box!

The student left without asking any questions.

Lesson 2: In my experience, activist liberals seldom practice what they preach, like REALLY helping others. They'll watch you carry the box, even tell you HOW to do it, but won't really lift a finger to help. Case in point - Al Gore circling the globe warning us about "man-made" global warming all the while emitting more CO2 in a day than many families emit in a month.

1000 hits! Thank You!

Today I reached 1000 hits. Well, OK, a portion of them are mine
(visiting, editing, etc.), but the vast majority are not. So, thanks to
everyone for stopping by and reading - and also tracking back -
something I have just gotten into myself. It's been fun so far and I
look forward to more.

Regards,

A Layman's Point of View

Why Do They Hate Us?

From the moment the first airplane struck on September 11, 2001, people here have been trying to understand why it happened. What could posses people to do this to others, let alone to themselves? As if our grief wasn’t enough, we were also filled with a thirst for answers that seemed beyond satiation. We joined to mourn, console each other, and begin the long search for answers.

It didn’t take long for sorrow turned to self-recrimination. People started asking “What did we do to deserve this?� and “Are we being punished for something?� Surely, no one would do this without provocation. Eventually, however, introspection turns to accusations and the victim is put on trial in the court of public opinion. It happened here four years ago and it will happen in England. Just give it time.

All we can do for the UK right now is to keep them in our thoughts and prayers, and be there as friends, as they were there for us. For America, however, it may be appropriate to examine the why. Let's look at our behavior as a possible cause. Do we bring these attacks on ourselves? Do we do things that anger Islamic extremists? If we look through the eyes of our attackers, yes, of course we do. We do many things, everyday, on purpose, even proudly, which anger people all over the world.

Our society and its principles exist in such stark contrast to so much of the rest of the world, we can't avoid it in many cases. We have a free and open society. Our culture moves fast and to those on the outside, it can appear chaotic and reckless – sometimes even amoral. Our Bill of Rights is seen as threatening to oppressive, fundamentalist governments and groups.

Our laws are based on ancient religious principles, yet we use those laws to guarantee people of all faiths (or none) equal treatment and respect. Rather than kill each other, many different faiths live side by side in peace. Religion is accepted, supported and even encouraged to some extent, but the ultimate decision as to how to or if to worship is private. In spite of this, our societies are essentially secular. We work very hard to keep a clear distinction between religious and public law.

We guarantee individuals equal treatment under the law, regardless of their race, gender or status. Even today, many nations consider this a dangerous concept. Our respect for women, for example, contributes to global animosity. The lines between genders have been all but completely erased in many cases. When women in rigidly controlled countries see this and ask: "Why can’t I have this, too?" their governments cringe.

Our foreign policy also bears some scrutiny. For example, we preach separation of church and state, but openly support a religious nation - namely Israel. We say we respect the sovereignty of nations; yet openly oppose those with governments that conflict with our national interests and ideals. We don’t just pay lip service to our ideals, either. We have gone to great lengths to protect and defend them for ourselves and others when we saw them being denied. We have the power to do it, with almost total impunity, and yet, we hold back, in many cases. Add to this that we rush to aid victims of tragedies and natural disasters – regardless if they are our friends or not. The appearance of hypocrisy is staggering.

So, to make no small point of it, yes, we have done and still do many things to cause many nations around the world to hate and fear us. As American's, it would be hypocritical of us to admit otherwise. Having acknowledged the obvious and owned up to our actions, we must now ask: “Have we actually done anything wrong? Here again, the answer is also obvious...it's no.

We are imperfect, and we make mistakes, but overall, our aim is true and right. We do stumble sometimes on the way toward our goals, but that’s only because they are lofty and difficult to reach. The ideals on which our nation was founded are noble, and worthy of the striving for and acting upon. If our quest for freedom for ourselves and others around the world angers some, then they need to also look to themselves.

There’s an old saying that you can’t please everybody. It’s time we stopped trying. Our freedoms may come at the expense of always making a good first impression, but I submit that the problem may lay in the eye of the beholder. The entire world doesn't have to like us or agree with us, but they have to live with us as much as we have to live with them. The responsibility for getting along is not ours, alone.

The above post contains excerpts from the July 7 post - "Terror Attacks in London." It has been submitted for editorial publication.

Terror Attacks in London

You know what it's like getting up in the morning from a deep and comfortable sleep? The alarm goes off and you're jolted awake. You hit the snooze button and lie there. You tell yourself you'll get up in a few minutes, but without fail, you fall asleep again. Then the second alarm goes off. It's softer, not quite as dramatic, but still startling. And the message is the same...that it's time to wake up.

September 11 was the free world's alarm clock. We were jolted to our very core. And we were awake. In spite of our best efforts, however, we got comfortable and fell asleep again. This morning's attacks in London were the world's snooze alarm. The death toll was lower, and the material damage less, but the effect on people with consciences was no less devastating. Even one death is too many.

Sometimes I think religion and politics have very little to do with any of this. It just seems as though there are people in this world who want to kill us just because they can. Well, let's stop them, if for no other reason than just because WE can. They need to learn that the rules of living in a civilized society apply to them, as well. They don't have to like us or agree with us, but they do have to live with us. The responsibility is not ours, alone!

In the mean time, let's all keep the people in London (and the UK) in our thoughts and prayers. Now is when our friends need us to be there for them, like they have been there for us.

Independence Day Reflections

Today, as we celebrate our nation's independence, it's important to respect the culture out of which that independence was born. The men who fought, debated and crafted our free country were a complex mixture if persistence, intelligence, foresightedness and religious conviction. Those who followed had respect for the men and gratitude for their gift. We who are the inheritors of that gift should not forget this.

I can think of no better way to spend the day than to enjoy it with my family. But, as always, I plan to watch the musical 1776, re-read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Defense of Fort McHenry, the poem by Francis Scott Key which became the lyrics to our national anthem. I attached it below for your reading pleasure. I always find it's imagery stirring. Back then, words were to writers what paint was to an artist. When you read it, pay attention to the last stanza. Then, as now, it is relevant.

Happy Independence Day from A Layman's Point of View!

**************************************************

The Defense of Fort McHenry
“The Star Spangled Banner�
Francis Scott Key
20 September 1814

Oh, say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, now conceals, now discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner forever shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Priorities

When I was growing up, one of my dad's favorite sayings to me was "You need to get your priorities straight!" I would like to, now, pass that little pearl of wisdom on to the ACLU, or American Civil Litigation Union. As a group dedicated to the defense of the Bill of Rights and civil rights, in general, they really need to do some serious soul searching about what is really important. I say this because it has been over 100 hours since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of private land grabs, and yet, the ACLU has said nothing about it. Instead, they have spent their time working on the following:

Governmental Protection for Flag Burners
In spite of all you have seen and heard, there is no Constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression. We have freedom of speech and freedom of the press - in other words, of the spoken and written word. While our rights to freedom of assembly, freedom to petition and freedom of religion give us a great deal of latitude toward the afore mentioned freedom of expression, the framers did not, in my opinion, ever intend to completely open the door to all forms of expression.

In our time, as in years past, actions speak louder than words. Ideas, however forceful, can suffer greatly in the face of deeds. Some forms of expression are dangerous, like shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. Some are hypocritical (as well as immoral and illegal), like killing an abortion doctor. And some are outright treasonous, like burning the flag and spitting on soldiers. The founding fathers were nothing if not insightful. They new the dangers of opening some doors too far.

Guaranteeing Citizen's Rights to Enemy Combatants
Civil rights guaranteed by the American Constitution apply to American citizens first, legal residents second, legally visiting aliens next. Nowhere were the rights guaranteed by the Constitution meant to apply to foreign citizens and soldiers intent on doing us harm. I fully agree that as a nation, we need to take the high road when dealing with military prisoners. The isolated abuses at Abu Gharaib and (if any) at Guantanamo were/are wrong. But what is more wrong is to place the lives and rights of those prisoners above the lives and rights of American soldiers and citizens. Let's not forget, however, that it was the military that blew the whistle on itself in Iraq...not the ACLU.

Rights of a Murderer vs Rights of the Unborn
It never fails to amaze me that ACLU places the right to life of a convicted, even confessed murderer over the right to life of an innocent unborn child. I recognize that there are extenuating situations in both cases, but the ACLU's stance on these two issues are hypocritical, immoral and indefensible. I do not completely agree with the Catholic church's stand on capital punishment, but I do understand it, and respect it because it is consistent with their stand on abortion. I can even understand supporting capital punishment and limited abortion ( as I do). The ACLU, however, has it all backwards.

Connected with these are the ACLU's opinion that children should not be required to notify their parents when seeking an abortion. There is also protecting the ability for twelve-year-olds to get condoms from their school nurse whether their parents approve, or not. The ACLU puts these under the overall category of reproductive freedom. What freedom is there, however, for the aborted fetus? In most cases, the life of the murderer is beyond repair, whether the fault of society or parents. The unborn, however, is a clean sheet of paper, full of promise and potential. Whatever your position on abortion and capital punishment, you can't deny that the ACLU values the life of the guilty over the innocent.

Conclusions
I didn't even mention the ACLU's work on selective religious freedom, legalizing drugs, protecting illegal immigrants, etc. And still, not a word in defense of the citizens of New London about to be evicted from their homes. According to the ACLU, it isn't a violation of civil rights if person B wants person A's land and only has to promise the city more taxes in order to get it. Clearly, the ACLU's priorities are all screwed up. Dad would have a field day with them. Instead of supporting and defending civil rights, they support and defend excess, irresponsibility, indiscretion and treason. Yeah, that makes sense.

How the news SHOULD have read on June 23, 2005...

Washington DC, June 23, 2005
Today, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the actions of the city of New London, CT in the case of Kelo v New London, violated the 5th amendment property rights of the homeowners in the Fort Trumbull section of that city. Chief Justice Rehnquist issued the following statement: "We find it deplorable that any municipality would consider the potential tax revenues of a new development to outweigh the right to be secure in their homes that citizens ought to expect. Closing factories and laying-off or relocating people from one facility to another in order to increase revenue may be acceptable corporate practice. Governments, however, are not businesses concerned with the bottom line to the exclusion of all else."

The Chief Justice continued, "The neighborhood in question was not a blight on the city, but rather, a thriving working class community. Some residents can trace back generations in the same houses. But, regardless of the state of the neighborhood, ownership under such actions may not be transferred to another private party. Public use means city owned and operated for the free use of all citizens, or for their direct measurable benefit. If this court consented to this action, no one's property would be safe. All that would be required is for someone with enough means or influence who is envious enough of another's property and greedy enough to try, to say they want that land for their use and will buy it by promising huge pay-offs to the city - some of which, no doubt, would end up in the pockets of city officials. This smacks ofnothing short of totalitarianism, and this court will have no part of it."

Acting on this ruling, the District Attorney for the city of New London issued arrest warrants for the Mayor, Planning Commissioner, and several other city officials. Those arrested are being charged with violating the residents civil rights. Meanwhile, in the city's Fort Trumbull section, the party started shortly after the decision was announced, and has continued into the evening. The fireworks over the Thames River can be seen for miles in all directions. Every face bears a broad smile andevery porch bears at least one American flag...

Oh, if only......

An Eerie Silence

A day and a half.

Not a peep.

Can you believe it?

It's been a day and a half and since the Supreme Court declared all home and property owner's rights null and void. A day and a half...and yet not a word from the ACLU. NOTHING! No posts on their website. No public statements. Nothing in the press. The silence is, in fact, quite deafening.

Um, excuse me? Isn't it their job to defend the Bill of Rights? Isn't it them we are supposed to call when government tramples our liberties? Oh yeah, that's right, they only challenge decisions made by conservatives. They only oppose laws that have the support of two thirds or more of the population. Heaven forbid they disagree with their embedded mole on the federal bench (aka Justice Ginsburg). It wouldn't do to bite the hand that feeds them. Politics as usual...one hand washes the other, and freedom suffers in the process.

I called the CT ACLU yesterday on my lunch hour. I got no answer so I left a message. Since I occasionally get an editorial published, I identified myself as a journalist, and asked about the ACLU's opinion on the New London decision. I figured they would most definitely have a reaction, or at least a prepared statement and I could use it in an article. I made sure I was courteous, and not baiting. I sincerely wanted to know what they felt.

Seriously, I expected the ACLU to be upset, since this was a clear violation of constitutionally protected rights. I thought, finally, here's a chance to bring conservatives together with the ACLU on a cause both sides would feel is worth fighting for. But nothing. Almost thirty-six hours and no reply. It seems like they are too busy making sure the MILITARY PRISONERS at Guantanamo Bay are getting three squares a day while they curse and throw excrement at the guards.

Well, we had nice weather the last two days, they might have been on vacation. I suppose I can give them until Monday afternoon.

The Crime of the Century

I have some news for Senator Richard Durbin: Forget Gitmo. If he wants to see Hitler and Stalin like tactics in the US, he need look no further than the 5 Liberal members of the US Supreme Court. I started reading the text of today's decision. At 58 pages, it's likely to take a little while. Before that, however, I quickly reviewed the U.S. Constitution. I say reviewed because I have actually read the document. I wonder if Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Kennedy & Stevens ever have. If so, they would have seen the 5th amendment...and the 4th...and also the 14th - all with clauses dealing with the property rights of citizens. I thought Supreme Court justices were sworn to uphold the Constitution. Instead, the DC-Five pissed all over it!

I wonder if this means I don't have to pay property taxes anymore since apparently I don't really own my house, but rather the town does. Oh, what's the use, they'll just call it rent, instead.

Page-Ten News

Last week, the Connecticut Senate approved civil unions for homosexual couples. The House is expected to vote on it soon, and I've heard predictions in both directions. A lot of energy and publicity has been expended on this issue from both sides. If you ask me, it all seems like way too much for something that should be a page-ten story.

People's positions on civil unions vary. If asked where a person stands, he or she may give answers based on religious, social, political or financial reasons. I have tried hard to come up with an opinion on this issue, but I just do not have one. In spite of all the coverage telling me I should be for or against it...I realized I just do not care. I have heard all the arguments, and from where I sit, it does not affect me. My life will not change for the better or worse with the outcome.

The sanctity of my relationship with my wife has nothing to do with another couple's relationship, be they same sex or not. Similarly, I do not feel that my country will be committing a great social injustice if civil unions do not exist - I will not feel some great sense of indignation or lacking. Let homosexuals marry...don't let them marry...either way...I truly believe my life will remain unchanged. I see neither harm nor benefit to society or myself. Therefore, I will not endorse the cause, nor join the battle against it. I will just sit back and watch.

I do, however, reserve the right to comment.

This whole issue has been handled very badly by those in favor of civil unions and/or gay marriage. In their desire to bring their cause to fruition, homosexuals (with the all to willing help of the MSM) have actually done themselves a very large disservice. They would have been much better off if this whole issue had remained page-ten news. I firmly believe that if civil unions had stayed well off of the front page, they might very well already exist. At the core, it comes back to one of my favorite topics: ignorance over tolerance. In spite of their beliefs, homosexuals need to accept that they are greatly in the minority. As such, they must remember that not everyone agrees with them. Also, right or wrong, not everything is equal by default - and there's a better way to ask for something.

Whether or not they have an opinion, most heterosexuals I have spoken with are just plain tired of hearing and reading about this issue. I believe most heterosexuals don't care if someone is gay because they don't think about it. Why? Because thinking about it forces them to confront what "gay" means and that makes them feel uncomfortable. Now for a newsflash - that's OK. Nowhere is it written that people must be comfortable with everyone else's lifestyle. In fact, it's human nature that we won't be.

By the same token, most heterosexuals are also uncomfortable being confronted by the particulars of another heterosexual's sex life. As Americans, like it or not, we have socially inherited certain Puritanical tendencies. One is that sex is private, and not a subject for public discussion or consumption. Another is conformity - or at least the appearance of it. Today's society is certainly more open and everything from our advertising to our jokes can have sexual influences. But if you actually start to talk openly and honestly about your sex life, you'll find that you can clear a room pretty damn quick.

In short, most heterosexuals just don't want to hear about it. Hell, we don't even want to know or think about it. And since most people are heterosexuals, that means most PEOPLE don't want to know or think about it. So, I have a word of advice to the vocal minority (and I believe they are a minority) among homosexuals. It's OK to be true to yourself, but have some respect for the sensitivities of the rest of the country. Keep it discreet, don't shove it in people's faces and don't play the poor martyrs. And if you win this fight, accept it gracefully, with quiet dignity and don't rub people's noses in it. Since I don't believe civil unions are a God-given or constitutional right, but rather a social concession, a sincere "thank you" might go a long way.

To the MSM...grow up! Even if no one else is on to you, I am. You don't care any more for this cause than I do. You only want to stir the pot and sell papers or get ratings. If you really did believe in it, you wouldn't endanger it by making it a lead story. At the very least, can't you can find something else to talk about, already? Please?

Kudos to the NFL - Were you watching MLB?

Well done, NFL. I'm not a big football fan, but since it's the Patriots are playing, I had to watch. And more importantly, kids could watch, too. Not only was the half time show exciting, and rated G, but, and this is the part I would like Bud Selig to remember, the game started and ended at a reasonable time!

Sports are a part of American culture. So is capitalism. Wouldn't it be nice if they could always play nice together? It's bad enough that our kids are increasingly assaulted with commercialism. But when one aspect of our culture denies our children the opportunity to enjoy another, it's just wrong.

Major sporting events like this should be timed so they finish well before the end of the day on which they started, regardless of on which coast they are played.

Have I made myself clear, Mr. Selig????

I Remember Reagan

I remember January 20, 1981 like it was yesterday. I was fifteen, sitting in Geometry class in 10th grade. It was right after lunch and an announcement came over the school intercom: “Ronald Reagan was just sworn in as the 40th president of the United States and the hostages have just taken off from Tehran!�

In one breath, the tone for the next eight years was set. Because of him, the world took the United States seriously again. I was glad that Ronald Reagan was my president. Even with no end to the cold war in sight and terrorism on the rise, I felt safe. Someone was really looking out for our best interests. I was proud that my first presidential vote went to him in 1984.

Some people say there will never be another president like Ronald Reagan, that he was one of a kind. I hope they are wrong. I would like to see politics full of people like Ronald Reagan, whether I agree with them or not. It would be refreshing to hear intelligent debates about important issues and ideas instead of the the usual political sniping.

People of Reagan's character are not as rare as people think. But, the path to politics leaves a trail of battered bodies. The media is quick to elevate people and relentless in its desire to tear them back down. As a result, those most qualified rarely seek office. The best way to honor Reagan's legacy is to attract people to politics who can restore its honor and integrity. We the citizens can help in that effort by insisting upon a responsible and accountable media.

Happy Birthday Mr. President!

Action Figure Abducted in Iraq

Can you believe this one? It appears the terrorists in Iraq are actually holding an action figure hostage, and threatening to behead it. Admittedly, it is good news that it's not a real soldier in this photo. But some poor child, somewhere in the Middle East, is probably crying and wondering what happened to his/her action figure. The best comment I heard on this was from a co-worker:

"I think Barbie should hop in the Corvette and mount a rescue mission. Ken probably wouldn't be much help, though"

I'm waiting for them to claim they shot down an aircraft, only to have it turn out to be a plastic model (the raised letters and flashing will probably still be visible).

Too much...

Iraqi Elections

At last report, approximately 8 million Iraqis chose to stare fear and intimidation directly in the face. In doing so, they took the first collective step towards taking control of the country, and their lives. The world was busy listening to biased news reports, fanatical insurgents and doubting governments. The cynics were expecting, even hoping for failure. But they forgot about the Iraqis.

The people of Iraq proved that the promise of freedom is stronger than the threat of violence. In numbers that surpassed most people's expectations, they came out to vote, proudly displaying blue index fingers. Their goals are admirable. Their courage is inspiring. Their actions are impressive. Those of us watching must respect what we have witnessed, and not fail to support them on their road to a better future.

I really hope Saddam had a TV in his cell this weekend.

Random Ramblings

So many thoughts...so little time. I frequently get writer's block, which explains my infrequent postings, but seldom do I get thinker's block. I finally decided to put these ideas down and maybe they'll spur some comments - if anyone is reading, that is. Maybe I'll work some of these into full articles someday. If not, then at least I've purged my mind and made room for the next wave of mental fodder. Since I've never done a brain dump like this yet and some of the thoughts go way back...it's likely to be the longest. Here goes...

1: On Bill Clinton's Impeachment
I didn't really care when I heard about Clinton's dalliances in the Oval office with Monica Lewinsky. I sure wasn't surprised that he fooled around. And it seemed a little premature for people to call for his removal from office at the beginning. After all, the fact that he did it just confirms that he's a philanderer. When he lied about it to the American public, that just confirmed that he was a liar.

But when he lied under oath to a federal grand jury, he became a perjurer...and he violated his oath to "support and defend the Constitution." He may as well have handed the document to Miss Lewinsky to wipe up the mess given the appalling lack of respect he showed it.

At the end of it all, it was amazing to follow the Senate proceedings. Imagine Clinton's luck; he was impeached for perjury but tried for adultery.

I've been wanting to get that off my chest for a long time!

2: On Legislative Reform
I figured out how to stop congress from tacking pork onto important legislation - it's called a relevancy law. Congress needs to adopt regulations so amendments to pending legislation must actually have something to do with the parent bill. I'm sure the various committees are supposed to see to this, but as we all know, back room dealing keeps the barrels a-rolling along. This isn't a party issue - it's endemic to politics.

So, lets create, through constitutional amendment, a new check and balance. Since we know we can't expect congress to police themselves by mandating self imposed relevancy, give the President the line item veto for the purpose of assuring relevancy. If congress challenges any line item vetoes, give the Supreme Court the task to see if the President has used it appropriately.

3: On The Electoral College and Voting Reform
The Electoral College is broken and needs to be fixed. Not abandoned...but fixed. A friend of mine said we should have one vote per state. While this goes straight to the idea of a true republic of sovereign states, it abandons any popular representation. This was the whole argument that prompted the great compromise between Hamilton and Franklin. The founders recognized that the President heads a union of states, not the people directly. But they also realized that one vote per state would be a very tough sell to the larger states. The electoral college was a clever blending of the popular and equal representation.

The problem is that back when it was created, Virginia was our most populous state and had 12 electoral votes. Delaware was the least populated and had only three. The difference of only nine electoral votes assured that the small states had some say as to the election of the president. Today, California has 55 electoral votes but Delaware still has only three. This is a disparity the founding fathers certainly did not foresee.

Today, the smaller states have less influence on the destiny of their country than they did 200 years ago. Any idea of balance in favor of the smaller states is gone. We essentially have a popular vote. Add to this the candidates' habit of ignoring the smaller states altogether (understandable but annoying) and the need for a fix is obvious. In a perfect system candidates take the time to visit all the states, and every state's votes count, and everyone votes. Oh, and a nice to have is that the electoral votes can't be arbitrarily changed by the electors. Short of that, here's my idea.

Re-apportion the electoral college as follows. Abandon the current system where the number of electors for each state equals their number of representatives plus senators. Apportion the votes based on a weighting of the states' populations on a scale using only the even numbers from 2 through 10, and give Washington DC one vote. Using this system, there can never be a tie, and the equity is finally restored along the lines the founding fathers had originally intended.

As an example, in the 2000 election, George Bush had ~50+% (271) of the electoral votes to Al Gore's had 49% (266). Using this new system where all states have an even number of electoral votes between 2 and 10, and DC has one, the results are conclusive. George Bush would have had 78 electoral votes, or 56% and Al Gore would have received 61 electoral votes, or 44%. No contest there.

Since we are a union and not a single country (remember - state does not equal province) it is perfectly acceptable for the president to be elected without a majority of the popular votes, as long as he wins the majority of state votes. One more thing that would also help is to prohibit reporting of official election returns until after all polling stations in the country have closed. We can't stop private polls, but given their inaccuracy in the recent election, they shouldn't cause problems. This could go quite a way to increasing voter confidence and turnout.

4: On A National Language
This one is simple...and it has nothing to do with prejudice or fair play. It is purely economic. How much extra are we paying (wasting) in infrastructure in order to support more than one language. I'll bet if someone takes the time to add it up, it's $ignificant. Any takers? We must standardize on English since most people speak it anyway...and save money.

5: On Junk Science
What happens when incomplete research meets irresponsible journalism? You get the bane of modern technological progress (and a pet peeve of mine): Junk Science. Why is there so much of it around today? It exists for one reason only - because it sells papers. All you need is some scientific research taken out of context and inappropriately apply it to the latest social concerns, and you have everything you need to stir the masses and bring progress to a screeching halt. Making matters worse is the outright stubbornness of researchers who refuse to accept their initial theories or conclusions may be in error.

The first problem is that the general public does not understand science very well. Most advances, contrary to popular misconceptions, take years of slow, methodical progress. Each step along the way brings more questions to be answered. After a time, a refinement is discovered, or sometimes, a new method is developed altogether. Along the way, however, society usually benefits from the ongoing developments. I am an engineer. Technology is tough enough without the bureaucracies of corporate America and the US Government. Progress takes time.

To paraphrase the professor for my undergraduate Aircraft Design classes, "You can't push state of the art to fast without prohibitively raising costs." And as any good capitalist knows, if no one buys an electric car or solar cells because they are too expensive, what good are they?

6: On God Given Rights
I like how southerners’ unique way with words when making a point can very often make you think, and in doing so, teach, as well as persuade. One southerner who is very good at this is a friend of mine. He is about 20 years older than me, which puts him beyond the age giving a damn if something he says doesn’t meet with popular approval. He’s done a lot, and seen more. He is also a Libertarian so when it comes to things political, he makes no pretenses. To paraphrase: “The government is here to serve us, not manage us. Get off my back and get your hands out of my wallet! I’ll take care of myself, thank you.� Hmmm…something noble in that philosophy, I think.

One day at lunch, my friend was commenting about something in the news where some group or another was complaining about unfair treatment, and saying they were being denied their “God-given rights.� With a huff and growl, he said, “Aw shoot, they want their God given rights? Fine! I’ll strip ‘em nekkid and toss ‘em in the woods to fend for themselves. That’s their God given rights. Everything else is a privilege, paid for by the blood and sweat of someone who came before them.� How incredibly profound – and completely correct. We are not as much a free nation, as we are a privileged nation.

OK, that's enough for now...more later.

Condoleezza Rice Confirmed

Congratulations to Dr. Condoleezza Rice on her confirmation as our new Secretary of State.  Though the 13 "no" votes was one of the largest oppositions to any Secretary of State nomination, her final approval from 85 senators was overwhelmingly positive.  In the end, law makers on both sides of the aisle put her qualifications over party politics.

Dr. Rice will have to confront many issues at the beginning of her tenure: the election in Iraq, phasing out coalition involvement, rebuilding strained U.S. relations abroad.  I share the president's confidence that she is more than up to the task.  The issue the press may force her to address first, however, is the fact that she is the first  African American woman to hold the position.  In my opinion...who cares?  She's a great choice for the job...with a resume most people could only dream of.  End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.  But the media will describe her from that point of view for a while, just as they did for Colin Powell at the beginning.  Here's a sampling.

Associated Press: 5th Paragraph (used also by CNN, NY Post, MSNBC, ABC News, et al)

Fox News: 3rd Paragraph

Washington Times: 2nd Paragraph

BBC World News: 7th Paragraph
Interestingly enough, this appears under the interim heading "Ability and Experience"

Yes, it is meaningful and noteworthy because it is a social and cultural milestone.  And I'm sure that to some extent, private to her, she is rightfully proud of it.  But, I am willing to bet that Dr. Rice would much rather be remembered for doing a great job rather than for just the fact that she got the job.  I know it has been, and will continue to be, the same for other first time minority nominees to high profile positions.  It's just a shame, that's all.

Why can't the press say "She's a highly qualified person" without all the racial, religious or gender based descriptions.  It's as though the media feels minorities aren't qualified to be judged on the same scale as everyone else.  We spend way too much time in this country focusing on how we are different, and not enough time focusing on how we are the same.  Perhaps the words of USMC Aviator and Lieutenant General Frank Peterson best express my feelings:

"Achieving the first black/only black is a status, but is also
a double-edged sword. Because it says if this is still important,
we still have a long way to go."

No WMDs...So Why The War?

So, we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq. Well, I must say I'm surprised, but also relieved. Now, at least we have an answer. But, all this begs the question; Why did we go to war in Iraq?

We didn't go to war because we thought Iraq might have chemical weapons. Their existence is an historical fact, as is the use of those weapons.

We didn't go to war because we thought Iraq was developing nuclear and biological weapons. That fact was substantiated by Iraq's report to the UN. You can't destroy programs that never existed in the first place...can you?

We didn't go to war because we suspected a link with Al Queda. If there was no link, how could members of Iraq's government have met with Al Queda operatives in Sudan in the 90's?

We didn't go to war because Saddam Hussein had called for the assassination of former President Bush. President Clinton used a cruise missile to express our displeasure with that.

So...why? Why this war? Why now?

Because the United Nations, an organization of which both the United States and Iraq are members, called for Iraq to dismantle its WMDs and any programs it had to develop them.

In fact, the UN issued over a dozen resolutions to that end. The resolutions also called for verification. One even warned of serious consequences if the resolutions were not followed.

But, you say, Iraq issued a 12,000 (approx) page document listing all its weapons and programs and certified they had been destroyed, as ordered. Yes...yes they did.

But...they refused to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors who were sent to Iraq to verify that the weapons and programs had, in fact, been destroyed. Remember...the deal also called for proof. Mr. Hussien's say-so was not enough.

So, we didn't go to war because Iraq had WMDs or programs to develop them. We went to war because we could not verify that they had been destroyed. Well, since we couldn't find any, now we have our proof that, apparently, they were.

It seems that if Mr. Hussein had voluntarily given the UN's weapons inspectors 1/10th the access that our military took by force, he could have saved everyone a lot of trouble...and saved a lot of lives, also.

The world leader really to blame for this war and the deaths it has caused on both sides is the deposed one awaiting trial at an undisclosed location in Iraq.

Michelle Malkin Under Fire

Once again the very worst of liberal America has reared its ugly head. It seems that minorities are only supposed to be successful if they climb the liberal ladder; their voices should only be heard if they join the cry of oppression from "the man." How sad.

Congratulations to Michelle Malkin for having the courage and self confidence to publish a sampling of the hateful, prejudiced, and by the way, obscene, e-mails she has received. It is good to see that she can rise above this with her dignity and self respect in tact.

Why is it some people must stoop to being vulgar and base in order to express displeasure with someone else's political views? Don't they realize how infantile they sound (or read) when doing so? I only wish she had put their names there as well so these people's friends, families and neighbors could see the type of people with whom they associate.

Bigot, thy name is now liberal!

Keep on writing Michelle!

Read Michelle's Blog Here

The Tsunami - A Lesson In Human Nature

I have been watching and listening to the coverage of the tsunami and the ensuing relief efforts. Much has been written, as well, about this tragedy. My heart goes out to all the victims and their families. Nothing anyone can say can ease your pain...only the passage of time can do that...hopefully. What I want to say is that it is at times like this when certain aspects of humanity are revealed.

First, at difficult times like this, I am always pleasantly impressed by the generosity of my fellow human beings. Regardless of the who and where, people have been uncompromisingly generous. Money and support have been pouring in from around the world. It proves one thing I have always believed...people are essentially good, compassionate and just. We all have our personal faults and shortcomings, but as a species, we prove our mettle and our worth again and again.

Second, times like this also bring out the worst in some people. Unfortunately, I am not surprised by this truth of the world. I am saddened by the reports of those trying to turn a quick buck from this (or any) tragedy. I am also, in no uncertain terms, angered by those who would use this horrible event as an opportunity to divide people. Rather than gratitude, we hear accusations of stinginess. Instead of accepting the fact that nature understands our needs and fragility even less than we understand its, we get finger pointing and blame.

To suggest, even for a moment, that anyone but the most deranged and twisted mind would allow this to happen had they the power to warn or prevent is, in my mind, unconscionable. Not only does it defy my previously mentioned beliefs about the basic nature of humanity, it also defies logic. There is no rationale to support this point of view, or explain why someone would ascribe to it. Let's not increase the world's suffering by adding controversy and suspicion to misery.

Last...a lesson. I frequently quote from my dad, and to close this post, I will do so again: "It's a shame that we always make time to visit people when they have died, but never enough time to do it when they are alive." So go - make contact. Call or visit someone special in your life. Make it more than one person. Reach out, and even reach back, to those you haven't seen or spoken to in a while. And follow through - don't make it a one time deal. Keep in touch. If this past week and a half shows us anything, it is that life is precious and fleeting.

Make people a daily priority.

To The Greatest Generation - We Need You Again

My father is a WWII veteran. Although he was drafted too late to see any combat, he served from 1945 through 1948, during the state of emergency. He shared the mindset of all those who went to fight overseas - including, especially, five of his older brothers, and numerous friends and neighbors.

I consider myself very fortunate to have grown up as a child of a WWII vet. I especially feel fortunate to be on the tail end off the baby boomer generation. I had the grounded principles of my parents’ generation to guide me, without the distractions of the sixties to derail me. I still look to my father for advice. He is not perfect and I don’t always agree, but he is wise, intelligent, witty, compassionate and honorable. He is the best man I know.

While I was growing up, I remember my father writing many letters - some of them quite exceptional. He would write letters to newspaper editors, senators, representatives and presidents. He also read a lot, and listened a lot and thought a lot. My father did not see politics as tiresome or distracting. He enjoyed the debate and felt it is every citizen’s responsibility to be involved in the running of our democracy. As I grew up, I respected his views and opinions and followed him onto his conservative soapbox.

Times moved on, kids grew, married and moved out, grandchildren arrived, his wife passed away, but still he stayed interested. His involvement, however, steadily dropped off and he stopped writing. Maybe he felt he had made his contribution. Maybe he felt no one was listening. Maybe he felt he could no longer make a difference. Well, he is not alone, and I am not surprised.

Today's society is riddled with self-assured arrogance - most of it from the middle to upper end of my generation. Whether the topic is political, social, environmental, technological or economic, it’s very disheartening that fanatical voices get all the press. I don't suppose it would matter if someone else did speak. The squeaky wheels out there have had the floor for so long now; they don't feel obliged to listen.

Well, they should listen...to their parents. They should listen to the people who sacrificed more for this country in six years than any generation before or since. They should watch how these people conducted their lives, and learn from their examples. They should question the people who taught them to question, and explore their views through the eyes of familiar wisdom. And they should do it fast, because they won't be around forever.

But it isn't a one-way street. The Greatest Generation needs to speak up. They gave us a great gift six decades ago, but they fail their children if they don't continue to provide us council in how to wisely use that gift. Our society doesn't lack only moral leadership; we lack a certain amount of maturity.

The excesses of the sixties are primarily to blame. The idea that questioning authority is an obligation rather than a privilege is one example. Another is that "because I could" has become an acceptable excuse for doing the wrong thing. No one is perfect, not me, not you. But we no longer have perfection as a target, unreachable though it may be. Maybe our parents could help put us back on track.

So, let's reopen the dialogue. I charge those out there from the Greatest Generation with the task to start writing letters again. I challenge those from my generation, and others, to lay down your stubbornness and listen. The greatest gift my parents’ generation gave us was the continuation of our freedom. The greatest gift they can give us now, is their collected wisdom. The greatest gift we can give our children is to pay attention.

Freedom of - not from - Religion

I have a new name for the ACLU: the American Civil Litigation Union. Well let's face it, that's all they seem to do these days. If you offend someone, and by someone I mean a minority or liberal, or both, they will sue you until you either submit, apologize, resign, pay up, or any combination thereof. It seems that their goal is social engineering via intimidation. One of their most recent crusades has been to completely remove from our government and society any references whatsoever to God or religion.

To effect this extrication of the deity, the ACLU has attacked our currency, the Pledge of Allegiance, public religious displays by any level of government, and now The Declaration of Independence. They contend that even referring to or mentioning God publicly is offensive to some. When done by an elected official or in any "official" capacity, the ACLU says it violates the separation of church and state clause of the US Constitution. The funny thing is, the Constitution has no separation of church and state clause. There is only the First Amendment, the first part of which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof...

It all sounds pretty straight-forward, but, maybe I've missed something in those sixteen words. I guess I better go through them bit by bit, just to be certain.

CONGRESS:
The legislative branch of our government. It is comprised of the 535 elected members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Congress does not include the President, Supreme Court, members of any federal, state or lower courts, governors, mayors, state legislators, local councilmen, businesses, etc.

SHALL MAKE NO LAW:
It means CONGRESS is prohibited from drafting, constructing, passing or even considering a specific law.

RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION:
If we take ESTABLISHMENT to be a verb, then it refers to the setting up or imposing of a national religion. If we take ESTABLISHMENT as a noun, then it refers to a specific religious group.

OR PROHIBITING:
Or making illegal, implicitly or otherwise

THE FREE PRACTICE THEREOF:
A citizens right to freely practice his/her freely chosen religion.

Although written 217 years ago, the language still seems pretty clear, even when scrutinized under the microscope of today's legalese. In short, the US Congress is expressly prohibited from legislating a specific religion upon the citizenry, legislating about a specific religion, and interfering with citizens' rights to practice whatever religions they chose.

It does not, anywhere in those sixteen words, prohibit the US Congress from REGOGNIZING that religion exists or that people are religious by nature. Congress is also not barred from recognizing that God exists, from mentioning God, or from allowing or even participating in religious activities. All that may be drawn from the clause in the Constitution is that Congress may not favor one faith over another.

It may be argued from this that neither Christmas nor any religious occasion should be a national holiday. Given how advertisers and the media have absconded with Christmas and turned it into a secular, materialistic free for all, I'm not sure that would be a bad thing. However, it would still not preclude a national Christmas tree at the White House, or for that fact, a national Menorah in the Capitol Rotunda. All these and more should be welcomed and respected.

According to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, 80.2% of Americans identified themselves as belonging to some faith. It's time for us Americans to make it known that as the clear majority, we will not allow our children to forget the reason why the original settlers came to these shores almost 400 years ago. We must not allow the few who complain to push the rest of us into belittling the beliefs of the founding fathers. As forward-thinking as those men were, they still placed a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence It is time for the non-religious, secularist minority to add another adjective their title...SILENT.

Though you may live in a technically "secular" nation, it it only so out of fairness to all religions. Never forget it was founded on Judeo-Christian principles by pious men and is populated with religious citizens who want to practice their faiths unhindered by the few who, by rights, may chose not to participate. In short, grow up, stop whining and learn to deal with it. After all, there are four of us for every one of you. Finally, it is time for the ACLU to realize that the civil rights and freedoms it claims to hold dear and champion apply to everyone, including the majority.

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. In fact, quite the opposite. It means that we may cherish our individual faiths, and still respect the faiths of others. I would be as proud to see a Nativity on my town green as I would a Crescent and Star, or any other symbol of faith. These are clear expressions of the freedom we all have a right to expect. It is abhorrent for anyone to feel they must hide their religious expression for fear of offending someone else. It is inexcusable for any government - local, state or federal - to validate such intolerance and oppression by catering to it.

A version of the above article was published in the Waterbury Republican-American, January 2005. It is based on a previously published letter to the editor of the Hartford Courant, January 2002.