.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

 

Heckuva Job, Fristie!


Dear Senator Frist,


I heard you on TV last weekend, declaring that flag burning and gay marriage were two of the most important issues facing the American people.

I wanted to write to you and say how glad I am to hear that you have solved the really pressing problems that America confronts today.

However, I am very disappointed that the liberal news media chose not to cover the fact that you have balanced our trillion-dollar deficit, revived the tanking stock market, reversed the export of all of our good jobs, and subdued the inflation that has been lately been creeping upon our economy.

I'm disappointed that the liberal media ignored your solution to out-of-control fuel and utilities prices; and more so that none of the companies that deliver those commodities seem to know about your solution, either.

I'm also very disappointed that your solution for the 46 million Americans who cannot afford health insurance has not been acknowledged or acclaimed.

It's good to know that the troops remaining in Iraq and Afghanistan will have adequate armor, and that they will no longer have to pay for their own uniforms. It's good to know that they will return soon from their president's war of choice; and that those who are wounded or traumatized by what they have seen will receive the medical and psychiatric treatment they will need.

And it's good to know that you've finally stopped the secret police reading my email and listening to my telephone conversations.

I'm thrilled that the Congress has reasserted its Executive oversight role, and that we once again have a Government of the People, where the President must act within the law. I'm glad to know that we are so free, and that our government is so trustworthy that we can now discard the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution.

I'll get over my dismay that you didn't receive proper credit for attending to the many daunting challenges that our country faces. What I'll never be able reconcile though, is how you can minister so zealously to the evil passions of the most fearful and ignorant among us, while expecting the more thoughtful among us to believe that you actually care about our country and Promoting its General Welfare, and yet, you still are able to walk so proudly by day and sleep so soundly at night.

Heckuva job, Fristie!

[jj]

Friday, May 19, 2006

 

Carbon Dioxide: It's Good for You!


The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which cynically pushes a message that global warming is a completely natural phenomenon, and not related to human activity, has produced two 60-second television spots focusing on the alleged global warming crisis and the calls by some environmental groups and politicians for reduced energy use. The ads are airing in 14 U.S. cities from May 18 to May 28, 2006. View the ads here.


As it turns out, the CEI receives significant financial support from Exxon Mobil. According to The Washington Post...
"The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which widely publicizes its belief that the earth is not warming cataclysmically because of the burning of coal and oil, says Exxon Mobil Corp. is a "major donor" largely as a result of its effort to push that position."

"I think what attracted them to us was our position on global warming," said Sam Kazman, CEI's general counsel. "And we hope to get support from other industries that agree with us."
If you are as impressed by their scientific prowess as I was, I'm sure that they would love to hear from you, too.

Here's what I told them....

I watched your video on The Competitive Enterprise Institute's web site. I am truely amazed that you would sell the idea that carbon dioxide, (CO2) is good for people.

Carbon dioxide, while a necessary functional environmental component, is not good for humans or any other animals. It is an animal waste product. It is waste in exactly the same sense as are feces and urine. If enough CO2 accumulates in Earth's atmosphere, plants will flourish for a while, since plants inhale CO2 and exhale oxygen.

But if the CO2 concentration becomes sufficiently high, the plants will die. CO2 traps heat inside our atmosphere. It is a major source of planetary warming. A good example of planetary warming is the planet Venus, where CO2 is the main atmospheric constituent, and the average temperature is 872°F. Not a good model for a futuristic vision of Earth.

Earth can process a certain amount of CO2, interacting with water and plant life to convert it to oxygen and carbonate rock. But there is a point, perhaps a point already reached, where the rate of human CO2 production will exceed the rate at which Earth can recycle it.

This is not my opinion; it is sixth-grade Science class.

I don't believe that you really think carbon dioxide CO2 is good for you, but in case you do, here's a simple demonstration experiment that may change your perspective. (To ensure safe conduct of this demonstration, you must enlist another, trusted person to assist you. Take turns if you like, so each of you can enjoy the experience.)

1. Find an old refrigerator, big enough for you to climb inside. You can find one at a salvage yard or used appliance store. Maybe your neighbor, Jethro has one in his back yard.

2. Climb into the refrigerator, and let your helper shut the door from outside. Stay inside with the door closed for fifteen minutes, or until your helper hears you bang on the door to let you out.

As you inhale the oxygen inside of the refrigerator, your metabolism will gradually convert it to CO2, which you will then exhale. After a few minutes, there will be more CO2 than oxygen in your atmosphere. If CO2 is good for you, you will soon begin to feel so good that you won't want to leave the refrigerator. That's why you need another person with you; because if someone doesn't open the refrigerator and let you out, the CO2 will make you feel so good that you will suffocate.

If you want to wallow in your own waste, be my guest, but don't ask me wallow with you. Your advertisements demonstrate either absolute stupidity or or a diabolically porcine lust for profit, or both. I sincerely wonder if you have sense of responsibility to anything but yourselves.

[jj]

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

 

Senator Salazar, Please Come Aboard!


Dear Senator Salazar,


I recently wrote to urge you to support and vote for Senator Feingold's Resolution for Censure. I must say that I found your reply less than encouraging.

There is no doubt that the president has broken the law. He has openly and notoriously admitted so on national TV. I see no reason why the Congress should not document this in the Record.

Many people seem to believe that to attack this president in even the slightest way will backfire, by causing the Republicans to rally around the Dear Leader. Given the numerous polls that indicate that nearly 70% of Americans generally disapprove of his policies, I do not see the downside for us.

When you were running for election, my friends and I canvassed Colorado Springs neighborhoods on your behalf. It was not always pleasant, here in the Conservative Holy City.

You were elected, and now, it's time to fight for the values of the people who fought to help you into office.

I know and appreciate that you are working on many worthy initiatives. Water and forest Management, Veterans Support and other noble causes are important to me too; but they will fall by the wayside if we don't restore our Government of the People.

I become sick when I remember that we allowed President Clinton to be impeached because he lied about an affair with an intern. Surely, the president's open and notorious disregard for the US Constitution is worthy of a slap on the wrist. It is time for Democratic Representatives to stand up for what Democrats, and most Americans believe in.

Please get on board, and support Senator Feingold's Censure Resolution.

Yours truly,
[jj]

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

 

Senator Roberts -- Chairman, Senate Cover-up Committee


Dear Senator Roberts,


I am very disappointed that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence rejected a proposal by Vice Chairman Sen. John D. Rockefeller to conduct a Congressional review of the NSA warrantless spying program. As Chairman of the Committee, I trust that you can take significant credit for that outcome.

From reading the news, and other research, I estimate that more than 60% of Americans are feeling the way I do. We were really hoping that this time, our Congress would stand up for its People. The President of the United States first told us that "Wiretaps require a court order," and he later admitted on national TV that he had been authorizing and conducting warrantless domestic surveillance activities for nearly four years. One of those statements is a lie, which the president told all of the People.

Senator, do you represent the People of the United States; or do you represent the Secret Police?

I will spare you from the litany of instances I've observed, when you have supported the Administration's subversion of the US Constitution and the Rule of Law. It seems adequate to say that you have a consistent track record of having taken positions that favor the expansion of Executive privilege and power, while taking that privilege and power away from citizens. Your positions regarding warrantless domestic spying, Iraq intelligence, intelligence leaking and torture are contrary to everything I understand about the US Constitution and what it means to live in this country.

I believe that it was Franklin D. Roosevelt who told Americans that "We have nothing to fear, but Fear, itself." And I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who told us that if we gave up our Liberty for security, then we would have neither.

America and the world face a grave challenge from Terrorism. However, to meet that challenge, we need leadership; not governmental fear mongering.

We must play by the rules that have served us so well for nearly 220 years. If we must surrender our civil liberties to protect our national security, then I believe that the terrorists have already won.

As a US Senator, you are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, even if many citizens are sufficiently naïve that they would waive their Constitutional rights out of government-inspired fear. Your support for laws and policies that would nullify the Bill of Rights contradicts your Oath of Office, and it undermines the rights of all Americans.

Sincerely,

[jj]

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

 

"Civil liberties do not mean much when you are dead." Sen. Jim Bunning, R-KY


Dear Senator Bunning,


You are widely quoted, having said, in support of certain controversial provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, that "Civil liberties do not mean much when you are dead."

I offer a corollary to your hyperbolic statement:

Being alive doesn't mean much when you live under an authoritarian dictatorship. Life doesn't mean much when the secret police can listen to your phone, read your mail, and audit your library records. Being alive doesn't mean much when the secret police can apprehend you without warrant, probable cause, criminal charges or legal counsel, - indefinitely - while denying you all of the due process that our Constitution guarantees to everyone.

As a US Senator, you are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, even if many citizens are sufficiently naïve that they would waive their Constitutional rights out of government-inspired fear. Your support for laws and policies that would nullify the Bill of Rights belies your Oath of Office, and it undermines the rights of all Americans.

In applying PATRIOT Act, the president's warrantless-wiretap, and other off-the-record domestic spying programs, the criteria that may justify governmental waiver of a citizen's Fourth Amendment protections are nebulous, if they are defined at all.

Certain over-reaching provisions of the PATRIOT Act, as well as the president's no-warrant wiretap activities, the torture and humiliation of prisoners, and the existence of secret, offshore gulags are a black eye on America, and no one who loves the United States of America should lend countenance to such conduct.

I see no reason why the government cannot do its job and still play by the rules that have served us so well for nearly 220 years. If we must surrender our civil liberties to protect our national security, then I believe that the terrorists have already won.

Sincerely,

[jj]

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

 

Junkies and Compulsive Gamblers Sell the Family Jewels to Feed the Habit, Perpetuate the Denial.


The FY2007 federal budget includes a scheme to raise money by selling off as much as 800,000 acres of America's treasured public lands. I oppose any such sale, and I reject these plans to privatize our national lands.


I am dumbfounded that everything in America, including access to the White House and Congress, our seaports, and now, our natural resources and public lands, seems to be for sale to the highest bidder.

Those lands are national treasures, to be preserved for all, and to be handed on to Posterity.


It would not be conceivable to liquidate public lands, were America not a bankrupt nation. And we would not be bankrupt, had we not squandered our FY2000, $230-billion surplus on an illegal, undeclared war against an unarmed, third-world country, and had we not given several successive, massive tax cuts to multi-national corporations and the people who control them.

I'm going to quit my job. Then I'm going to buy a new car and a big house. Then I'm going on a 'round the world vacation. I'll live on borrowed money -- from China. Why not? That's the kind of book keeping that the whole country seems to be doing these days.

Actually, this land-disposal scheme is analogous to a drug addict or a compulsive gambler who mortgages his home to feed his habit.

Before we resort to selling off our family jewels, perhaps we should consider making the Mineral Industry pay the $7-billion in royalties that we recently waived from them. We might also hold accountable the war contractors who are responsible for the missing $9-billion in Iraq Reconstruction funds. If that won't restore our national solvency, perhaps we should repeal the tax cuts we've enacted during the past five years.

Members of Congress should live up to their charter to represent the People, and publicly declare their opposition to this idea, immediately. Our public lands are not the government's slush fund.

It's time to contact your Members of Congress. Tell them to start doing their job.

For more details about what you can buy, (for the right price), see America for Sale: A Congressional Report on How America Is Being Sold to the Highest Bidder, by the US House Rules Committee Democratic Staff.

[jj]

Friday, February 17, 2006

 

$400 Billion, and Counting...


The Iraq war would pay for itself, we were told. Three years later, after countless cuts to vital domestic programs, with massive tax cuts and outright giveaways to big multinational corporations and people who live off of inherited wealth, we're up to $400 billion.

There's no end in sight, either. Indeed, our illustrious leaders recently have gone from calling this the War On Terror, to calling it The Long War. How long?

Is this how the USA would prosecute a war?
Numerous military and other strategic experts have said that we don't have enough troops, and we're not adequately supporting the ones we do have. Far from supporting the troops, it often looks like we are abusing them.

Stop-loss orders keep our troops in service long after they have fulfilled their obligation. This imposes unfair, unreasonable hardship and risk to them and their families.

To cut funding for Veterans' services, and to charge veterans for the services they do receive is ungrateful.

Charging combat soldiers for lost equipment is absurd. It is also obscene.

Today's army is not the army in which I served. It sure as hell is not my father's army. I grew up in my father's army, and that army's motto was "The Army takes care of its own." What has happened to us?


Is the USA really at war?
I wonder whether, in spite of all the blood spilled and lives ruined, the huge price tag, as well as the degradation of morale and prestige within the Military Services, indeed, within the whole country; is the United States even really at war?

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war. But our forces are in Iraq today because Congress gave President Bush the authority to use force against Saddam, who was falsely accused of an evil plot to launch an Armageddon upon everyone who is free. Is this what Congress had in mind? Did Congress really intend to give the president an open-ended, refillable debit card, with which to endlessly consume our national blood and treasure? I'll bet that if you could get your congressperson to tell the truth for just one second, he or she would say, "No."

I don't think we are at war at all. Were we at war, I don't think that we would have any idea who our enemy would be, much less, how we would know if we had defeated it.

I think we are victims of a very cruel hoax. A hoax that brings enormous rewards to a handful of hoaxters, while it bleeds us and our country dry. The hoax must be stopped, and the hoaxters must be called to account.

Your Congress people need to hear from you today. Tell them to start doing their jobs.

jj

February 17, 2006

Dear Rep. Hefley,


This latest $65 billion supplemental request is the fourth time in three years the Administration has requested off-budget billions to be taken from other critical needs and poured into the unending war in the Middle East.

I am ashamed and angry that we neglect health care, education, scientific and medical research, veterans' support, and other vital programs , while we pour limitless funding into an illegal, undeclared war, that is still being justified by ever-changing lies and misrepresentations; and which only benefits wealthy companies, such as Exxon and Halliburton. Insult adds to our injury as we watch massive tax cuts going to those corporations and the class of people who control them.

(Exxon earned nearly $37 billion last year, as America paid record fuel prices. According to Halliburton's latest quarterly report, their annual operating income more than tripled in 2005, and yesterday, the company declared a 20% dividend hike, a $1 billion share-buyback program, and a 2:1 stock split).

The war in Iraq is not helping the Iraqi people, it is not helping the future of the Greater Middle East, and it certainly is not helping the United States.

If Congress believes that we must wage this war, then Congress should ascend to its Constitutional charter with a legitimate Declaration of War, against an authentic, corporeal enemy that can surrender to us when they are defeated.

Congress should then call for the sacrifices that are necessary to quickly win the war from all American citizens and Industries. Finally, Congress should raise and support appropriate armies, to win.

"Staying the course" in "the Long War" is costing our nation $100,000 a minute. Our soldiers, our children and our nation are not served by continuing to plunge heedlessly ahead. We look to you in Congress to exercise responsibility for our future.

I urge you to vote AGAINST this supplemental appropriation.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

 

Senator Allard: Live Up To Your Oath.



February 10, 2006


Senator Wayne Allard

521 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Via Fax: (202) 224-6471

Dear Senator Allard,

I am writing to you in reaction to an article I read in today's Pueblo Chieftain, entitled "Allard backs wiretaps, attacks public disclosure." The article's subject is a floor speech that you made on February 8.

You are quoted in that article, saying that "Most Coloradans are not alarmed by the use of this tool as many of my Democratic colleagues might think," he said. "Most Coloradans see the common sense and know why it is so important to our national security that we conduct such a program."

Senator Allard, this Coloradan is indeed alarmed, not only by the domestic spying, but also of your apparent lack of appreciation for our Constitutional rights, the necessity for Due Process, and the Rule of Law. Please do not count me, nor anyone I know among the Most Coloradans to whom you refer. Furthermore, as most Coloradans are generally perceived as rugged individualists who cherish their privacy and their property rights, I am certain that if you talked to more Coloradans, you would find that your statement is inaccurate.

You are quoted, saying that "This program is not being used to listen to communications of innocent Americans."

How can you be sure of that? How do you define "innocent?" How does the U.S. Government define what is a "terrorist?"

Is a peaceful environmental activist a terrorist? Were the vegan protesters who were subjected to false imprisonment, false arrest and harassment by officials of the Homeland Security Division of DeKalb County, GA terrorists? And what about those who openly criticize the president or the government; are they terrorists?

Was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a terrorist?

It may be true that many people would not object to the government listening to their phones or reading their email. However, as our elected representative, you are sworn to uphold and defend our constitutional rights, even if some of us are nevertheless naive enough to surrender those rights out of government-generated fear.

Our Constitutional Bill of Rights, Fourth Amendment guarantees our privacy. It explicitly states that the government may not invade our privacy except upon a duly-issued warrant, on Probable Cause, and supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing what the government is looking for.

I realize that modern times require modern methods, and so did the legislators who wrote the 1978 FISA law.

As you may know, FISA permits the government to spy on Americans, provided that the spy agency requests a warrant from the secret FISA court, within 72 hours (or 15 days in time of war), of the conduct of the surveillance activity. I understand that only four, of nearly 2000 such requests have ever been declined. Given that minimal rejection rate, along with the 72-hour grace period to file for a warrant, I don't see why the government cannot spy on whomever, whenever it pleases, while still complying with the requirement to issue a warrant when it believes it has acquired legitimate evidence of terrorist activity.

Here is the difference between the FISA regulation and the president's unwarranted domestic spy program:

Under FISA, the government must demonstrate just cause and reason for spying on its citizens. When incriminating evidence is acquired, charges must be brought and prosecuted through Constitutional Due Process.

On the other hand, if no warrant is required, then the government may spy, without documentation or accountability, on anyone. Such power, when coupled with a vague policy concerning what constitutes terrorism; as well as the fact that so-called "enemy combatants," (another vaguely defined presidential concept of dubious legal merit), may be apprehended, held and even tortured --indefinitely -- without warrant, charges or access to legal counsel; one could only describe the United States of America as an oppressive, tyrannical police state with unfettered governmental powers to abuse its citizens whenever it becomes expedient to do so.

I think that Most Coloradans would strongly object to the president's domestic spy program if they truly understood all that it implies. However, your speech appears to willfully mask those important implications.

All Coloradans expect you to uphold your Oath of Office to defend the Constitution. Your support of the president's warrantless domestic spying activities contradicts that oath, and it encourages the violation of all Coloradans' rights. You should reconsider your position on the matter.

Sincerely,

[Jedi Jew]


PS: It is widely reported that I. Lewis Libby testified before a grand jury that Vice President Cheney directed him to release classified information to discredit critics of the war in Iraq. This may have resulted in the exposure of a covert CIA agent and rendered ineffective whatever operations the agent may have been conducting. It also may have jeopardized life and limb of other friendly covert operatives, as well. Such flagrant disregard for national security in the pursuit of political advantage deeply troubles me. All of those involved must be held accountable.

[jj]


[For more on this, please read Senator Robert Byrd's speech from February 15, 2006.]


Thursday, July 28, 2005

 

You can lead a horse to water, but...


I recently wrote to Senator Wayne Allard to ask him to support Congresswoman Barbara Lee and 29 co-sponsors, who are backing a Resolution of Inquiry which, if passed, will require the White House and the State Department to "transmit all information relating to communication with officials of the United Kingdom between January 1, 2002, and October 16, 2002, relating to the policy of the United States with respect to Iraq."


For anyone who may have been living in Antarctica for the past couple of months, the Downing Street Memos are secret British government documents that provide a "smoking gun" that strongly demonstrates that Bush had decided to go to war long before the March 2003 invasion, and that he was willing to contort existing evidence in any way necessary to support his policy. If you'd like to read the Downing Street documents, you can find all of them online at www.afterdowningstreet.org


I don't launch such endeavors with any expectation that I will sway the senator; it's rare that we agree, and I hardly expect him to support an investigation of his beloved Supreme Leader based on something I've said. Nevertheless, I try. I think it's every citizen's sacred duty to speak up, and let your representatives know how you feel about matters of public policy that concern you.


The Senator's reply to my entreaty is contained in my subsequent letter to him, below:

Dear Senator Allard:


I recently contacted you to encourage your support for further investigation into the Downing Street Memos, the official British briefing documents that contain strong evidence, stated by senior British government officials, that President Bush and his administration had a pre-determined objective to attack Iraq, and that the president, at the very least, grossly misrepresented the facts in order to persuade the American People to support the Iraq war.


In your reply to my message, you said:


"I do believe that President Bush has truthfully stated the reasons to go to war in Iraq. In doing so we have maintained a coalition with many other countries throughout the world, including Britain. I do feel that the President has done a good job at trying to rebuild Iraq. It will not be an easy or quickly resolved task, but we will do our best to help Iraq to become a stable and productive country."


I wonder which of the president's reasons you believe? These are four of the justifications for war that the president has offered the American People at different times:


Did we attack Iraq to disarm its WMDs?


Did we attack Iraq to halt its "WMD Programs?"


Did we attack Iraq to liberate its people from an evil, despotic dictator?


Did we attack Iraq to establish a democracy there?


Each of the previous justifications was proven to be unfounded. The Downing Street Memos are among the latest in a series of revelations that support a thesis that the president was indeed not truthful about his reasons for going to war. As his deceptions have become more and more obvious, the administration has several times changed its rationale for going to war.


Blaming the CIA for generating these false justifications simply shunts responsibility off of the president, who is ultimately responsible for his decisions.


We have made a horrible mess of Iraq. I don't know how hard the president is working to rebuild that country, but I do know that its people are lucky to have electricity a few hours each day, that they don't have enough fresh water, that there is sewage running through the streets of Baghdad, and that a bloody insurgency kills many innocent people, nearly every day.


We have lost nearly 1,800 American GIs in this war, and maimed more than 35,000 others. I have read several estimates stating that between 35,000 and 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. We have already spent nearly $300 billion on this war, and there is no end in sight. I feel heartbroken and ashamed when I consider all of the ways this blood might have been spared, and how all of this money might have been spent on things to better the lives of the American People.


Senator Allard, I know that you believe that the president has been truthful, and I don't begrudge you the right to hold that belief. But how can you be sure if you refuse to look at any evidence to the contrary? It's time to put politics aside, and to be an American first. Once again, I urge you to support further investigation into the evidence in the Downing Street Memos. In light of growing criticism of the war policy, not to mention the many pre-war assertions by the Administration that have subsequently been discredited, this is your greatest opportunity to prove once and all that my doubts, along with the doubts of many other Americans, are unfounded.


Sincerely,


(Yours truly)


I think that the senator and many others will eventually have to capitulate to the overwhelmingly obvious. In the meantime, I am deeply troubled by how transparently his hypocricy, in the cause of political expedience, shines through. This is the same senator who, several years ago, so adamantly assured me that Bill Clinton's lies about his sex life were indeed an impeachable offense

To which I say,


"Never, ever trust a man who says he has never lied about sex."


JJ

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

 

Ask Your Representative to Investigate the Downing Street Memos

Now is the time to write to your congressional representative to request an investigation of the Downing Street Memos and other evidence that we were hoodwinked into going to war against Iraq. Congresswoman Barbara Lee and 29 co-sponsors are backing a Resolution of Inquiry which, if passed, will require the White House and the State Department to "transmit all information relating to communication with officials of the United Kingdom between January 1, 2002, and October 16, 2002, relating to the policy of the United States with respect to Iraq."

Today I wrote to my representative, Congressman Joel Hefley, of Colorado. So far, he does not support this resolution. Here's what I said to Mr. Hefley:

"I contacted you several years ago to ask you not to support the impeachment of President Clinton for a lie that he told about a personal matter that was of no consequence to the People of the United States. In your reply, you strongly disagreed with my position, and you stated your belief that lying about a personal indescretion was indeed a Constitutionally "high crime or misdemeanor," which was quite worthy of impeachment.

The Downing Street Memos and other evidence persuasively indicate that President Bush and members of his administration willfully misrepresented the facts and even lied in order to lead this country into an unprovoked war against a sovreign, unarmed country. This resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and nearly 1800 U.S. military personnel. Tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers are wounded, and this senseless war has cost the People of the United States more than $300 billion, which would have been more wisely spent on Education, Healthcare, Energy Independence and many other worthy endeavors. We shall continue paying for this war in many ways, for many years to come.

I sincerely hope that you find the evidence in the Downing Street Memos a bit more troubling than President Clinton's lie about his sexual indescretions, and I urge you to support Rep. Barbara Lee's iniative to investigate these matters further."

JJ



Friday, July 22, 2005

 

Senator Wayne Allard (R Colo.) on Flag Burning

Shortly after posting my thoughts about the pending anti flag-burning legislation, (June 23, below), I sent similar letters to my congressman (Joel Hefley), and both senators, (Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar). To his credit, Senator Allard is the only one of them who actually replied to my letter. To his discredit, he completely overlooked, although I'm sure he did not miss my point: The American flag is a symbol of freedom; and that if we take away the freedom it represents, the flag is just a rag.

I guess I should cut the senator some slack. He doesn't know any better. Before becoming a U.S. senator, he was a veterinarian, practicing his noble craft on the desolate plains of northern Colorado, where there live very few green things (making a lot of the locals not-so-regular guys), and a lot of very bored people who spend their cold, lonely nights BS'ing about God, Gays and Guns. I also would bet that his veterinary studies earned him a double PhD in Bovine Scatology.

(That reminds me of a point that I'll rant another time: We often hear legislators complaining about all of the lawyers in the Legislature. When Pete Coors ran for Senate in 2004, a primary plank in his platform was that he wasn't a lawyer. I don't believe that one must have a Law degree to serve in Congress, but I do believe that a profound ignorance of and a lack of respect for our legal process is in large part the reason why so many senators and congressmen come up with so many harebrained laws, many of which end up being "de-legislated from the bench." Why do you think they call them legislators, anyway?)

Here's Senator Allard's response to what I had believed to be my thoughtful appeal for him to stop this ridiculous exercise of panderbation:

"Thank you for your letter regarding an amendment to prohibit desecration of the flag. The American flag is a great symbol of this nation, and it should be regarded with highest honors.

The American Flag represents all that is good and just in this nation. In the past few years, 49 states have passed memorializing resolutions that ask Congress to give states the opportunity to ratify an amendment to the Constitution protecting the flag. This is well over the three-fourths majority needed for ratification and clearly demonstrates the popularity of protecting the American Flag.

I am proud to state that I am one of the original Cosponsors of S.J.RES.12, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. S.J.RES.12 was introduced on April 14, 2005 Senator Orrin Hatch, and was referred to the Judiciary Committee where it awaits further action.

Thank you for writing to share your concerns. I look forward to hearing from you again. If you would like more information on issues important to Colorado and the nation, please log on to my website at http://allard.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

A Wayne Allard
United States Senator

WA:SM "

###

Well, Senator... If three-fourths of the states approve, would you support an amendment to imprison anyone who refuses to salute the flag? Maybe we could have an amendment that would extend Bill-of-Rights protections only to Christians. How about an amendment to lock up all of the homos, or to burn witches? And what should The Majority do about all of those nasty people (including Yours Truly), who dare to question the wisdom of our illustrious Supreme Leader?

To quote nearly everyone's dear old Mom, "If everybody was jumping off of a bridge, would you follow?" And have you never heard of "the Tyranny of the Majority?"

I'll soon be writing to you again, Senator, to once again ask you to stop wasting your time and our tax money on this flag-burning nonsense. I'll be asking you to get busy "forming a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defence, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Isn't that what you are sworn to do?

JJ

Thursday, June 23, 2005

 

Who Desecrates the Flag?

Our illustrious House of Representatives yesterday passed a measure toward a Constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to outlaw desecration of the American flag.

To become an amendment, the resolution also must be approved by the U.S. Senate, and it would have to be ratified by 38 of the 50 states. That's not likely, but it is likely that the discussion itself will further divide our country. Chalk one up for the pander bears.

I don't know anyone who wants to burn our flag, but it happens. From time to time, we see flags being burned in the news, usually by protestors in another country, beyond jurisdiction of U.S. law. We can't do anything about those actions, except perhaps to ask ourselves what we have done as a nation to arouse such ire.

For those on American soil who would vent their grievances in this harmless way, I defend their right to do so. The American flag represents our right to burn it. It is precisely that right that makes our flag -- and the people it represents worthy of honor. Jailing protesters and legislating allegiance to symbolism is common under authoritarian regimes, but it is not acceptable in the Land of the Free, or the Home of the Brave.

Are the American flag and the ideals it represents so weak and meaningless that we must protect the flag by penalty of law? I hope not. I am more afraid of the anti-desecration folk. They desecrate our Constitution by the mere suggestion that we must surrender our First Amendment rights to protect their precious symbol. If those people have their way, that symbol won't be precious any longer.

To criminalize flag desecration would desecrate Old Glory much worse than the occasional flag-burning protestor. Such a law would make great folly of the U.S. Constitution and the very freedoms our flag symbolizes. If flag burning were outlawed, it would be the duty of every freedom-loving citizen to Burn a Flag for Freedom, because that flag wouldn't represent Freedom anymore.

All of this flag-burning rhetoric is just political pandering that distracts the People and their representatives from the truly important issues to which they should be attending. 40-million Americans have no health insurance, thousands of hard-working employees at big companies like United Airlines are losing their retirement benefits because of managerial duplicity and incompetence, we are spending $1-billion per week in an illegal war against an unarmed, sovereign country, the U.S. Air Force Academy has become an evangelical seminary, and the polar ice caps are melting. There are many issues that are far more important than the occasional flag-burning crackpot.

It's unlikely that yesterday's measure will actually become law, but rest assured that if and when it does, yours truly will be one small point of light in a huge constellation of flaming Stars and Stripes.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?