The Dems Left the Building!

Saturday, November 06, 2004

This was no Kerry loss. This was a failure of the Dem leadership to give 100%. Why help John Kerry win when another four years of George Bush gives the rest of the Dem primary field another shot at the prize? 2008 will bring a new election with no incumbent to worry about, and an open chance to replay the primaries, with Hillary Clinton on board this time.

How unhappy are the Dems with this loss? I'd like to take a "happy" meter and attach it to Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Dennis Kucinich, or even John Edwards. They must be partying hardy in those back rooms over the prospect of another chance to grab the ring. The alternative would have been to wait 16 years while a victorius John Kerry and his VP, John Edwards hijacked the white house.

The people are the real losers here. We needed John Kerry, for no other reason than to liberate ourselves from George Bush! Too bad the Dem leadership couldn't place the needs of the people ahead of their personal agenda regarding 2008. This is what self-service is all about, I guess.

George Bush is now conning the nation into thinking he has the "will of the people". What will? This election was too close to call it an endorsement, but leave it to W to spin what he wants. The Dems let us down. They had the power to defeat George Bush, but the elite failed us with their lack of 105% effort to push John Kerry and John Edwards into the white house. Let us hope that whoever emerges as the Dem presidential candidate in 2008 will get the full support, not just of the dem constituency, but if the Dem power elite as well.

posted by BH at 1:38 PM

Defense of Freedom?

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

I went into a bar two nights ago to get some chicken wings. I was on my way home from work. This was a neighborhood bar, a downscale, dart-board, Karaoke, beer-on-draft, T-shirt kind of a place. Everyone was smoking and drinking and I immediately knew that I would be there only as long as it took to get my wings. I took a seat forward of the bar near the Karaoke setup to wait for my order.

The drinking was excessive, and I was being harassed by a drunken mumbling patron who was trying to make conversation with me as I sat watching the wailing Karaoke singers wreak havoc on the music culture. Suddenly I had this vision of American freedom as I sat there. Our system enables this kind of freedom. Our system encourages the sale and use of alcohol and cigarettes. This was not the first time since my the onset of my sobriety that I have been able to recognize the deep and profound level of social destruction that substance use/abuse engenders. This was truly a place where I would have to "shake the dust off my sandals" after I left.

It is no wonder why Arab nations are struggling to build Islamic republics which ban such activities, including (God forbid) music. I am not in favor of this, but I understand it. "Freedom" can bring on this kind of social dissolution, immorality, cheating, drunkenness, gambling, etc. that we find so entertaining over here. The Muslims have issues against "freedom" and these issues possess a degree of validity, I think. At any rate, they should be "free" to determine the moral character of their own country and not have to pander to West just because we have the military force capable of overpowering them with death and destruction if they refuse to accept our "gift" of freedom.

When I considered Christian freedom during my Divinity School days, I thought this way: We are free to choose to follow or reject God. Freedom to choose God means freedom to accept the "blessed tyranny" that comes with the package. It means that you are free to either live your life willy-nilly without God or any observance of legislated morality, or choose God and decide to live according to His law. In God's law, there is no freedom to live as one chooses. Christians are yoked (through a "loving" relationship with God) to a narrow morality very similar to Islam. Their existence in a free secular society, however, encourages them to redefine and re-invent their concept of Christian morality to include behaviors that some Muslims find appalling.

The very freedom that we are said to be fighting for in Iraq is the same poison that is enabling the dissolution of our society. It helps to create the same affect that Christians describe as sin. We are free to live as we choose, but not enough of us embrace the degree of responsibility and self-management that needs to accompany such freedom. Many Muslims don't like what they see in our world and blame it on our attitude about personal freedoms.

What about guidance? What about legislated morality? I don't believe in legislated morality, but many Muslims do and all they want is the freedom to enact their own forms of government in a quest to assure morality and control of self. If what that takes is Imams, Princes, Dictators, and Sheiks, then so be it. That is their history. That is their culture. We have Priests, Rabbis, Potentates, Elders, Reverends, and the like fomenting evangelistic influence upon our elected leaders as well as the constituency that elects them. If our "freedom" is so great and desirable, then why do we have to bomb it into their throats and declare it with their blood?

Finally, I should point out that my understanding of freedom in America is that we are able to choose our leaders. We are able to reject our government through free elections. I think the idea of living anyway you want to live is distorted from the principle of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. This comes with a commitment to responsibility which is often neglected in the way some people live their lives. I understand the concept of supporting these elected governments, but there is a limit. The following excerpts are from our beloved Declaration of Independence:

“to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

“when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Here are some excerpts from the grievances named in that same document directed against the British Crown:

“For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us”

“For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States”:

“He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.”

Now George Bush has quartered large bodies of troops among the Iraqis. He has plundered their seas, ravaged their coasts, burnt their towns, and destroyed the lives of their people. I don't even have to paraphrase the Declaration here. I'll just repeat it verbatum:

“He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized” nation.

For these and other grievances, the colonists formed a band of "insurgents" who hid behind rocks and trees, sniping at the British, and committing acts of what could be described as terrorism in defense of their fledgling nation. We must remember our roots. We must respect other nations and their will to self-govern. We must depart from Iraq.


Robert Hamilton 11-9-2004

posted by BH at 2:03 PM

The Iraq Blunder

Monday, November 08, 2004

I think George Bush blundered by getting into the war in the first place and now he's trapped. Retreat has become difficult and dangerous. The opposition will attack in the vacuum left by our tracks. We are not getting the truth in the news reports. Trust me. The attack on Fallujah will fail. The "insurgents" will go elsewhere. They're already counterattacking in other cities and reassembling. They are the ones with the moral high ground. They are just trying to defend their country from outsiders. I truly believe Iraq can work things out without us and come up with a representative government.

Many of the Iraqi soldiers are deserting and defecting. You don't hear about that. Who is George Bush to bomb democracy into somebody? And what is freedom? The Iraqis see our society as sin-soaked and evil. They truly believe we are the Great Satan. They see our crime, our drug addiction, our greed, our corruption, our love affair with alcohol and wanton sex, and say "this is not for us". The "insurgent" Iraqis will never rest with Allawi's effort to structure a puppet government through the charade of "free" elections. There must be a LOT of them. Consider the all out effort being lodged against Fallujah. Does this look like an opposition of rag-tag mercenaries and foreign fighters? HELL no. They are organized, equipped, funded, and motivated, taking on as many recruits as they lose in battle. They are legion. They are strong and all over the country. Read between the lines. The US Coalition is nowhere near a victory in this campaign, and Iraqis are dying every day, along with Americans.

They don't want freedom for the sake of freedom, especially if women, children, and innocent people have to die for it, and lose their homes, their infrastructure, their livelihoods, etc. How can you look at that carnage and destruction without hatred for George Bush and co? I can't STAND watching the coverage of this attack. It is cruel, criminal and downright WRONG. It is sickening to see babies crying, and elderly women limping through the streets. We will eventually have to leave, just like we did after Tet in Vietnam. Any moral argument regarding Saddam's behaviour has validity in its own right, but reality is making that argument irrelevant. The question is, do we need to be there, spilling the blood of our soldiers, and innocents? Is there a clear mandate to crush the insurgency in order to protect our lives here in the USA? HELL no again. They had nothing to do with 9/11. I'd sooner see Bush invade Pakistan, because THOSE are the people protecting Osama Bin Laden! Musharif probably knows where he is, but hey. THEY have nukes, so we are best to leave them alone, right? Korea's got nukes too, and soon Iran will have them. The whole thing is getting out of hand and we need to bring a man like Cyrus Vance into the picture and begin to talk and negotiate.

We are going into the hospital and taking patients out of their beds! Handcuffing them. What are people there to think about the Americans? What do those screaming kids think is happening to them and why? How can they be reasoned with after they see their family and friends obliterated by US Bombs? They are being de-limbed, blinded, infected by their wounds, and run out of their homes. All for what? I believe a Cease Fire with the protected retreat of Coalition forces is the first step. Get US out of there. Then let the cards fall where they may. Something strong and stable will rise out of the dust of this war. If the people know they are getting their country back and being left alone to establish stability and security, there will be a pride factor in that. Iraq for Iraqis.

There will be continued bloodshed, but a strong leader will emerge and then there will be peace, and they will be more than happy to sell us their oil at a reduced price. Right now I believe we are stealing that oil. I have always believed that. If you want my assessment of a motive behind the actions of this lunatic president of ours, its is pure thievery. He has been stealing that oil from day uno, right out of the port there in Bashra where the British went in the early days of the war and met a LOT of resistance. They secured that port immediately and that is where the oil leaves that country by tankers. Halliburton oversaw the entire operation. It was a Heist. That's what it was. It had nothing to do with Kurds, Freedom, WMD, or anything else. All that was cover. Bush is an oil man from an oil family. Cheney and Rumsfield are all about oil. That's my answer for this war; OIL.

I take no issue as to the nature of Saddam Hussein. All I know is that he was in his box when 9/11 happened and we invaded his country for no reason whatsoever. You don't invade countries just because their dictators shoot people who disagree with them. That is an issue for the country itself. Foment a revolution. Use Covert Ops to assassinate the bastard. But tomahawk missiles, M.O.A.B. bombs, gunship artillery, etc.? THIS is crazy considering they did nothing to us. It was up to Saddams own people to take him out, and they should have. They could have. History proves that the US panders to dicators when they keep control in a country where the cultural and religious differences are overwhelming. Fear and murder become viable tools of control, and we knew all about Saddam and his ways long before this war. We supported him against Iran. We GAVE him the WMD technology used against the Kurds. When we have this conversation twenty years from today, there will be an Islamic Republic in Iraq, just like the one in Iran that we could not prevent as hard as we tried, even using Saddam to wage war against that country. He was our friend then.

Look at Vietnam. Communist from north to South. All the South Vietnamese Army folk who fought under us are now begging mercilessly in the streets and trying to sell trinkets to stay alive. You just cannot beat a people into submission. Why we haven't learned that, I don't know. We will Bomb and Bomb and Bomb, but will not break the will of the Iraqi people even as much as our journalist agents try to get us to believe these are just renegade insurgents we are fighting. "Terrorists", we call them. Just because they disagree with us and want us out of their country and are willing to use any means necessary to so so. The blood will continue to run in the streets of these Iraqi cities until maybe congress or some church group mounts a full scale protest against our actions there. Hopefully the college campuses will re-awaken and sound the trumpet of dissent and get our troops OUT of that country and back home where they belong.

posted by BH at 11:13 PM

Separation Violation in AZ Debates

Saturday, November 06, 2004

(Composed 10-14-2004)

There was a tragic and sad pandering to religious sentiment last night at the Presidential debate in Arizona. It was trite, insincere, and unnecessary, especially on the part of John Kerry who almost de-constructed a well balanced attack against Bush on domestic issues with a spiritless salute to the faith of his opponent. Bush himself was caught off guard and came up with a watered down version of his standard sermon regarding that issue. Why can't they just say "My religion is a personal matter and not to be used as a vehicle to win this election." They could go further and say "With the grace of God I will serve diligently as your president once I am (re)elected, and leave it at that. Why must this become an issue in this election?

If it was so catastrophically important to query the candidates on their religious background, why wasn't that question asked FIRST? That last minute "Oh by the way" inquiry into their Faith Issues was highly subordinate to a Power that is supposed to have primacy in everything. My point remains solid here. These guys are just saying what they have to say to get elected. Bush has already said that America is being led by the hand of God. If that is not true, then the invasion of Iraq was morally wrong. If it IS true, then God is back to His old Testament ways of utter violence and murder. Woe be unto us!

There is no need for a moral argument in Iraq. The UN Charter is sufficient. Saddam Hussein did nothing at all to warrant an invasion of that magnitude by a country acting in absence of a UN mandate. Sanctions, perhaps, but a horrific, and bloody bombing attack? I don't think so. With the understanding of God left to the imaginations of those who serve Him (or not), there is no moral singularity to sanctify such an invasion. There IS International Law, however, and that law was ignored by this action. If the deaths, violence, carnage, and destruction over there was done according to the will of God, then I don't know God at all. President Bush had no right to extend his religious beliefs to the slaughter of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens in the presumed moral campaign to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

Self-serving politicians need to corral testimonies to their Faith and invocations of the name of God. This religious pandering is uncalled for in a free country where Church and State are supposed to be separate. It was a clear test of religion for the moderator to ask that question because it mandated a positive answer no matter how feebly constructed as to the truth. If either man had simply responded that they had no faith or did not believe, their campaign would have crashed and burned right there in the auditorium at ASU.

The Constitution clearly states that there should be no test of religion for the attainment of public office, and that question forced their hand.
Article VI, Section III:

"...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

"The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States.'


They simply HAD to answer in the affirmative, or they would have lost any chance to gain ascendancy to the office of President, a public office if there ever was one. The loophole would have been, or is, the fact that the law does not require them to respond favorably, just public sentiment. The effect, however was the same. I have said (I think) in the book that no president can gain office without declaring his belief in God, and Christianity. Even though the Constitution forbids that restriction, the electing public demands it. This is what makes the USA a Christian nation in spite of the Constitution, and despite the many different religions, and atheistic positions that abound in this pluralistic society. The public, seems to no problem with this, apparently because it matters so much to them that their candidate has faith in God.

After such a proficient and well spoken deliverance, John Kerry fumbled and mumbled as he tried to reply positively to the patronized ramblings of a beleaguered and vanquished George Bush, reeling and floundering on the ropes against the persistent, attack of his opponent. Even his death rattle cry of allegiance to God was sophomoric, weak and predictable. That one question took us all the way back to the birth of this nation when God-Fearing men penned the Constitution, carefully avoiding and direct connection between the Government of the United States and a mandated religious conviction. They had had enough of the Anglican experience and did well to leave the matter unstated. They knew their zeal for religion and their faith was tacitly understood. They also knew that a clear statement regarding the association of God and the Law of the Land could be disastrous in some future time when Religious zealotry might result in an attempt to replace the republic with the same theocracy they fled from in England. When pressed for clarification, it was left up to Thomas Jefferson to imply the separation of Church and State in a letter he wrote on 10/7/1801 to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

In a letter to Samuel Miller in 1808, Jefferson went on to explain his opinion about this matter:

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority (letter to Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808).


How powerful it would have been for one or both of these candidates to quote or paraphrase the Danbury letter, or Article IV.III of the Constitution! How I (alone) would have stood and cheered at this gracious respect for the name of the Almighty as well as for those in the electorate that choose not to believe in an Almighty. It will be a long time before presidential candidates will run for office without pandering to a test of religion, be it innocuously proposed by a seemingly innocent moderator, or somehow drafted into the Constitution at the behest of a public looking to settle the issue once and for all regarding the separation of Church and State in the USA.

posted by BH at 9:12 PM

Faith and the Iraq Morass

posted by BH at 1:32 PM 5 comments
Thursday, November 11, 2004
(

This is a reply to a friend of mine who is a Christian and a supporter of the current US-led operations inside of Iraq. Comments are always welcome ).



So you want Christianity for the Arab world? That's incredible. How myopic. You just want to trash 1400 years of their history and culture and render them Christian through bombs, missiles, exploding shrapnel and murder. Then you want to about face and talk about the force of war being the only way THEY were able to promote ISLAM. Do you proof read what you write?

How do you "make" Iraq a free society? How? Oh yeah, just read the newspapers from 3-22-2003. While you're at it, find the front page of the NY Times 6-19-2003, and meditate on that picture. You bomb Iraq into being a "free" nation, and then when Christianity comes, you eradicate the link between it and the violence that made the way for it. Go back to the history of the war in Lebanon 1974 when it was over and the Lebanese Christians went into the Palestinian camps and murdered thousands of non-Christians in cold blood.

A search for the true God, huh? He's that hidden isn't He? He can't do anything at all to end the confusion? We covered that in the book. Like YOU have the keys to the secret. You feel emboldened enough to declare Allah a false God? The Qur'an links Allah directly to Abraham and all the prophets. You differ with that? Can't you see the ongoing manufacture and re-manufacture of God on the part of humans? Can't you see the invention, the rationalization for all this violence? Did you jump and shout when Bush said America was being led by the hand of God? You didn't find that appalling? The most warmongering and murderous president we have had in recent times, and you think there is no link between violence and the infusion of Christianity?

There is plenty of impetus for change in Iraq and there are people who LIVE there who have ideas about that. You are dedicated to either changing people or killing them. That makes you party to the mass homicide going on in Iraq. You say what you couldn't do, but you support young men and women going over there and committing murder. Murder is what it is because we have no right to be there. We invaded on false pretenses and without the consensus of the Security Council of the UN.

You are a Unique Christian because you write out of both ends of your pen. You should be disgusted with this government, considering your Christian nature. Yet you support this gang of criminals in their illegal incursion into a sovereign nation. You support continued bloodshed and bombing. Just leave those people alone to form whatever government they want to form. Their violent posturing is a mirror of what they face in opposition. If they weren't so ready to be violent, the Western nations would have overrun them hundreds of years ago. Beat all the swords into plowshares and see who is first to forge some of them back into swords.

3,500,000 is not a huge majority. George Bush almost got run out of office. He is because he is wasting serious billions of dollars killing Iraqis, trying to subdue them and force them into "freedom". If freedom was so desirable, then why didn't Mr Bush use that idea in the first place? Why didn't he go to the UN and say, "Iraq needs freedom. We have the bombs and the missiles to start killing them off until they submit, and we need help. Help us bomb Iraq into democracy"? He used the word freedom as a last resort when he ran out of reasons for this war.

The most intelligent sector (the Northeast) voted against George Bush. So did California. We almost got him. This country is virtually divided over who should be in the White house and it's great that we only have four more years to deal with this president.

The government cannot wage war against another nation without a declaration from congress. They got away with it in Vietnam, and now Iraq. You can't just "trust" your government to make the right decisions when that means sabotaging a balanced budget and sending more than a thousand (and counting) young Americans to a needless death. What will it take for you to question your government? A missile attack on North Korea? An invasion of Iran? Cuba? How aboutPakistan? Now THAT's a place that could get invaded, but they have nukes. Why Pakistan, you ask? Because i have a feeling they are protecting Bin Laden. I think they know where he is and he has a lot of support in that country. President Masharif fears for his life if he dares to make a move against the factions that are protecting Osama. Ordinarily, I would understand Bin Laden's point of view, but he took a srike against us. That makes capturing and/or killing him a legal enterprise.

It was legal to disarm and dispel the Taliban. They had a chance to produce bin Laden and protected him instead. There is a time for war, as the Bible says. There is also a time for peace, and the UN is an agency set up to try to bring peace into the world. They have rules, and we violated those rules. Stay with the news. We are not getting anywhere in Iraq. Grab up a handful of sand and close your hand into a fist. Most of the sand rushes out between your fingers. To even hope to avert the "insurgency", We would need an infusion of about 500,000 troops all over Iraq. We admit to there being about 75,000 "insurgents". I think there are way more. We would need to create Buffer zones along the Iranian, Syrian and Turkish borders. There is no strategy for winning this war as I can see. Every day American soldiers die while the "insurgency" inflicts heavy causalities in other areas of Iraq, esp. in Baghdad.

Not only do I mistrust this government, I mistrust the reporting regarding the war. They are lying just like they did in Vietnam. They are inflating enemy casualty figures and holding the line on American casualty figures. Who's checking? When you get your 19 year old son back in a body bag, how do you know how many more families are receiving such parcels? Who can verify American casualty reports? Who can verify enemy casualty reports? Who can verify casualty figures of innocent Iraqis?; friendly fire? I just wish there was a point to this war, but there isn't. Just the belated expressions of freedom coming from a our government in Washington DC who which erred that day in March, 2003 and has been trying to Cover its tracks ever since.

They won the election because the democrats put John Kerry up as a sacrificial lamb. They knew the chances for loss against an incumbent would be high, Bill Clinton's 1992 success notwithstanding. I think 2008 will be a different picture for the Democrats. I can't help but think they "threw" this one because they weren't 100% about Mr.Kerry. Lieberman will run again. So will Kucinich, Dean, Clark, and even Hillary. Maybe Al Sharpton will do us all a favor and run his campaign as reality TV so we can be entertained! When they saw John Kerry emerge as the front runner, I think they all withdrew their money from their own campaigns to save it for 2008. I think their support was less that what it could have been. The fact that John Kerry won as many votes as he did indicates that the people of this country prefer him. 3,500,000 votes was too much to get out of the elite Democratic leadership? They are currently oiling up their guns for the 2008 primaries, along with John Edwards who will have a different take on John Kerry in 2008. Watch and see.

What does it take for you to see the mass charade being carried out in the name of freedom and God? Now don't blame me. George Bush brought God into the picture. So did the debate moderators who relentlessly challkenged both candidates to account for their faith. George Bush, like it or not, became the "God" candidate. The harbinger of faith. the protector of Christian values. He is the Head Christian of this nation right now. How can he do wrong now that he has declared GOD to be leading America? You have to be BLIND not to see through this buffoonery; this sacrilege; this indecent pandering to Theism at the expense of human blood being wasted on the sands of Iraq.

The only faith I have concerning Iraq is that cooler heads will prevail on both sides, once there is a cease-fire and a truce preceding a departure of the US-led Coalition.


BH 11/11/04

Not Noble

Wednesday, November 24, 2004
To Joe Scarborough,
MSNBC News (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6330851/)

I think, sir, that you are 100% wrong about Iraq. You speak as though we went in there with the intent to bring our values into their lives. We did not. We went in search of WMD, according to President Bush who used this line to get support from the US Congress and the UN. Once the lies and discrepancies, as well as the failure to find any such weapons surfaced, we had to change our tone and sing a new song. This was one of freedom, democracy and all its glory. We rained bombs and decimated the landscape. We killed and maimed innocent citizens and mired our forces in a situation for which there seems to be no escape. We have spawned more terrorists than we have eliminated by our actions. We remain there because we are logistically stuck there,

This is a new Vietnam in the making, and there is no nobility whatsoever in the illegal and unsupported invasion of a country which had no partnership in any attack upon us. All the talk of regime change and bringing freedom to Iraq is C.Y.A. nonsense. What we need is an exit strategy using the combined forces of the European community seasoned with the blessings of the UN. They could pledge not to attack the Iraqis and stand by as we get out. Then they themselves, having stood by as protective non-combatants, could exit. Once we have departed that country, a major thorn in their side will be gone. Whatever government rises out of the smoke may well be not much different from any other totalitarian government in the Middle East, many of which are friendly to us. Why scorn a totalitarian government in Iraq when we cooperate with the likes of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Oman? Syria, Jordan, Iran are all basically totalitarian governments. Shall we bomb them into a state of freedom as well?

Robert W.. Hamilton