- EverVigilant.net - "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." - John Philpot Curran
Coffee provides more than just a morning jolt; that steaming cup of java is also the number one source of antioxidants in the U.S. diet, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Scranton (Pa.). Their study was described today at the 230th national meeting of the American Chemical Society, the world's largest scientific society.
Over the last four years, the message sent by neoconservatives to the rest of the nation has been clear: Get behind the Bush administration's "war on terror" or be prepared to face the consequences. But when the grieving mother of a fallen U.S. soldier tops the neoconservative most wanted list of treasonous, terrorist-sympathizing, America-haters, you know something's up.
To paraphrase the Bard, "Methinks the neocons doth protest too much." Perhaps their violent outbursts against criticism of the war in Iraq are nothing more than feeble attempts to draw attention away from their blatant hypocrisy.
For a glimpse of this hypocrisy, look at what congressional Republicans had to say about sending American troops to the Balkans a few short years ago. Then Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Fla.) spoke out against Bill Clinton's proposal: "It is not within our power to solve all the world's problems," she remarked. She also said that she "could never look into the eyes of a mother or father or spouse or child of a soldier killed in Bosnia and say that American interests in Bosnia were worth their sacrifice."
Fowler's colleague, Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.), also weighed in, saying, "People in my district want to know the exit strategy. Getting answers from the administration is part of our job." Other Republicans joined the protest. House Majority Leader Dick Armey said that troop deployment was "poorly considered and unlikely to achieve our desired ends," and Majority Whip Tom Delay said it was "just another bad idea in a foreign policy without a focus."
The amazing thing is that none of these people were criticized for being unpatriotic or anti-American. Their support for U.S. troops remained unquestioned, and they certainly weren't accused of lending aid and comfort to the enemy. My, how times have changed.
David Frum, former Bush speechwriter and clown prince of neoconservatism, attacked those on the anti-war right in a hit piece entitled Unpatriotic Conservatives: "They began by hating the neoconservatives. They came to hate their party and this president. They have finished by hating their country." In other words, speaking out against a Republican war waged by a Republican president makes you a traitor.
And that continues to be the neocon modus operandi. In an effort to silence any and all opposition to the so-called "war on terror" (or, if you prefer the updated nomenclature, the "global struggle against violent extremism"), they have resorted to name-calling, ad hominem attacks and all out smear campaigns. But what else would we expect? The neocons are desperate because their cakewalk of a war has turned into the proverbial quagmire.
It has been two-and-a-half years since the U.S. invaded Iraq, and what do we have to show for it? Nearly 2,000 American soldiers are dead. Almost 14,000 have been wounded. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed (and that's about as close to a real estimate as we'll get since the U.S. government isn't concerned with determining the extent of "collateral damage"). Thousands more Iraqis, including a sizeable chunk of Iraq's Christian population, have been displaced. Terrorist bombings are a daily occurrence, and the proposed Iraqi constitution promises a system of government based on Islamic law.
Otherwise, Iraq is the veritable democratic paradise President Bush promised it would be. Yet one cannot help but wonder why we went over there in the first place.
Oh, that's right. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was prepared to use them--possibly through his nonexistent network of al Qaeda connections--against the United States.
Unfortunately for the war party, every reason articulated by the administration as justification for waging a pre-emptive, undeclared, unconstitutional war against a sovereign nation has been proven false. Still, they forge ahead, unable to admit their mistakes.
President Bush, having run out of excuses, now thinks we should continue fighting if for no other reason than to legitimize the sacrifice made by those who have already given their lives. In a recent speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention, he said, "We owe them something. We will finish the task that they gave their lives for. We will honor their sacrifice by staying on the offensive … and win the war on terror."
But what about combating the evils that threaten liberty here at home? Let's forget for a moment that the war in Iraq was based entirely on lies. Even if everything the Bush administration has been saying is true, why should that excuse conservatives from addressing the domestic problem of a federal government that is growing bigger, more expensive and more intrusive by the minute?
Contrary to popular belief, tyranny isn't limited to Third World dictatorships. While Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney are deciding when and where to strike next, the freedoms of U.S. citizens are being eroded.
We have the Patriot Act which makes every American a potential terrorist suspect. Campaign Finance Reform is crushing freedom of speech. Washington bureaucrats want your children to undergo mandatory mental health screenings. Thanks to the Real ID Act, we will all be forced to carry national ID cards. The Bush administration talks about fighting terrorists "over there," but has done nothing to secure our borders over here. You'd think that the neocons would at least feign interest in fighting to maintain the same liberties here at home they claim to be fighting for everywhere else in the world.
And yet the single defining issue that continues to separate the patriotic from the unpatriotic is the so-called "war on terror." I just have one question: If winning the "war on terror" means losing our freedom, then what exactly are we fighting for?
When I write anything that ends up on one of my blogs or published on another website, two questions run through my mind:
Is what I wrote relevant?
Who reads this stuff anyway?
I began to think that I had an answer to the latter question when I saw an Aug. 8 National Review article, written by R. J. Smith and Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, entitled Spaceship Earth. I couldn't help but notice some striking similarities between that article and my Aug. 5 blog entry, One Shuttle Commander's Enlightening "Discovery". (Of course, theirs was a rather deliberate analysis while mine was more of a tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic commentary, with bits of cynicism and a dash of hyperbolic vitriol thrown in for good measure.)
Concerning the remarks made by shuttle Discovery's Commander Eileen Collins about how "deforestation" is "widespread in some parts of the world," I wrote:
I realize that we're down here and you're up there, and perhaps we can't see the deforestation for the lack of trees, but do you see those big brown patches? Those are called deserts. ... Deserts are notorious for their lack of forests.
Smith and Murray wrote:
The nonsense is that everything evaluated is done so simply in area extent. The desert is larger!
When it came to the commander's comments that the planet's atmosphere is "so very thin" and, since "we don't have much air, we need to protect what we have," I wrote:
As long as there are plants and algae, I don't think that will be a problem. You've heard of a process called photosynthesis, right? Of course you have. You have two master's degrees.
Smith and Murray replied:
... [W]hat is her concern? That people are using it all up by breathing? This is grade-school environmentalism at best, not the sort of thinking we should expect from the highly qualified scientists that astronauts are supposed to be.
To Collins's statement that we need to "replace the resources that have been used," I responded:
We'll start pumping oil back into the ground just as soon as you rocket scientists invent a car that runs on hugs and happy thoughts.
From Smith and Murray:
What is that supposed to mean? Refill copper mines with more copper or start pumping crude oil into depleted reservoirs?
About the overall sermonizing on environmental issues, I wrote:
Like Bowie's Major Tom, there really is nothing these astronauts can do except talk about what the Earth looks like from a tin can floating in space. And now that the shuttle has become a celestial soapbox for environmentalist ramblings that have no basis in scientific fact, perhaps it's time to ground it permanently.
Smith and Murray:
As for Eileen Collins's comments themselves, a moment's thought reveals them for the platitudinous claptrap we have come to expect from people who don't know all that much about Spaceship Earth.
Now, I sincerely doubt that Smith and Murray have ever read my writings. Any similarity between events or persons, living or dead, was purely coincidental. But since I wasn't the only one to pick up on the environmentalist, PC implications (i.e., the sheer pointlessness) of this latest space shuttle mission I can only conclude that what I had to say was somewhat relevant in this case.
I tried, in my own feeble way, to make light of Commander Collins's doom-and-gloom sermon on the fragility of Planet Earth (which has been around for how long now?). Unfortunately, that message was seemingly lost on those who were offended that anyone would dare to criticize such a "cool" government program like the space shuttle, no matter how wasteful it may be. Let's just say that most of the e-mails I received in response to my breviloquent breakdown weren't exactly positive.
One such e-mail came from "Chris," who saw what I wrote on SierraTimes.com:
You sad [expletive deleted], disrespectful [expletive deleted] moron who wrote this [expletive deleted] column about Collins and Shuttle Discovery. When this sad little site gets named and shamed we'll wreck your server. [Expletive deleted] idiot.
Now, I have received some hateful e-mails before, but this one was so deliciously clever and insightfully eloquent that I had to reply.
I thanked him for reading and asked what it was he found so disrespectful. (It certainly wasn't my use of profanity.) When he didn't answer, I decided to use the online tools at my disposal to find out who this guy is.
Running a Google search for his e-mail address, I came across a few discussion forums that bore his profile. It turns out that "Chris" lives in England, drives a Ford Probe and is a fan of the band Evanescence. Most importantly, he is the U.K. Director of Communications for NASA!
On one hand, I am not at all surprised to learn that the most vile, hate-filled response to my critique of the latest Discovery mission came from a NASA press officer. No doubt he would like to see me shipped off to Orwell's Ministry of Love for a little "rehabilitation."
On the other hand, I am quite flattered that a government propagandist took time away from his busy schedule to read what I had to say. And with readers like that, Lord willing, I won't be quitting anytime soon.
For here Am I sitting in a tin can Far above the world Planet Earth is blue And there's nothing I can do
- from "Space Oddity" by David Bowie
It's amazing what we continue to learn from NASA's space program. Eileen Collins, commander of the latest Discovery shuttle mission, took time out of her busy schedule of wasting taxpayer dollars to make a few remarks on the condition of Earth as it appears from an altitude of 220 miles.
Commander, what would you like to say to those of us who will never see things from your point of view? Can you really see the Great Wall of China from that height?
"We would like to see, from the astronauts' point of view, people take good care of the Earth and replace the resources that have been used."
Right. We'll start pumping oil back into the ground just as soon as you rocket scientists invent a car that runs on hugs and happy thoughts.
Why is it we can see the stars down here at night, but can't see any in the pictures sent back from the shuttle? Is it the lighting in space? The camera setting? Or does it have something to do with Earth's atmosphere?
"The atmosphere almost looks like an eggshell on an egg, it's so very thin. We know that we don't have much air, we need to protect what we have."
Um, okay. As long as there are plants and algae, I don't think that will be a problem. You've heard of a process called photosynthesis, right? Of course you have. You have two master's degrees.
Look, if you don't have any interesting observations or scientific tidbits to share, how about some eloquent quote about the awesomeness of space exploration--you know, kind of like Neil Armstrong when he stepped onto the moon?
"Sometimes you can see how there is erosion, and you can see how there is deforestation. It's very widespread in some parts of the world."
Yeah. I realize that we're down here and you're up there, and perhaps we can't see the deforestation for the lack of trees, but do you see those big brown patches? Those are called deserts. And that really big white one? That's Antarctica and, since it receives less than two inches of precipitation a year, it is also technically a desert. In fact, it's the world's largest desert, spanning an entire continent. Deserts are notorious for their lack of forests.
Like Bowie's Major Tom, there really is nothing these astronauts can do except talk about what the Earth looks like from a tin can floating in space. And now that the shuttle has become a celestial soapbox for environmentalist ramblings that have no basis in scientific fact, perhaps it's time to ground it permanently.
Unless, of course, something interesting comes along--like watching paint dry in zero gravity.
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed ..."
- Declaration of Independence
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
- Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, though not expressly Christian documents, are based on the assumption that our rights and freedoms come from God. But as with all of God's material blessings, those freedoms demand responsibility on our part. Put simply, liberty requires stewardship.
Irish statesman John Philpot Curran stated it perfectly: "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
In an effort to ensure that liberty remained secure for future generations, our Founding Fathers established a system of government that was designed to keep power as decentralized and as evenly distributed as possible. Having lived under the oppression of a despotic king, they understood the dangers of allowing power to be concentrated in the hands of an elite few. They even went to war to throw off the yoke of tyranny.
Today, most Americans have this unshakable belief that everything we have today we owe to those who have donned a uniform and have taken up arms for the state. Many of you have probably seen the following in an e-mail that was forwarded by a friend, co-worker or family member around Memorial Day:
It is the veteran, not the preacher, who has given us freedom of religion.
It is the veteran, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the veteran, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the veteran, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to assemble.
It is the veteran, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the veteran, not the politician, who has given us the right to vote.
It is the veteran, who salutes the Flag, who serves under the Flag, whose coffin is draped by the Flag.
These statements are designed to evoke a feeling of national pride as well as a sense of gratitude toward our men and women in uniform. They are standing on the front lines, willing to sacrifice themselves for the rest of us, so we should thank them for the freedoms we enjoy.
You will note, however, that no particular group of veterans is singled out. The implication is that every veteran--in every declared or undeclared war, in every deployment, in every part of the world--has played a crucial role in securing liberty. If that is true, then how exactly has freedom in the United States been protected by our "humanitarian" actions in places like Bosnia, Haiti and Somalia? How were our freedoms protected by losing 241 soldiers in Beirut or nearly 60,000 in Vietnam? I realize these may seem like callous questions in a time when patriotism is defined by flag decals and yellow ribbons, but since we have already lost close to 1,500 troops in the "war on terror," shouldn't we at least consider what the Founders had to say about protecting freedom? Or are we content to believe that the military is the only thing standing between us and complete annihilation, and that we should "support our troops" no matter what the cause?
We are told that nations like the U.S. are targeted because terrorists seek to establish a worldwide Islamic theocracy. That is why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the Bush administration, "We're fighting them abroad so that we don't have to fight them here at home" (the bombings in Spain and England notwithstanding).
The object, I assume, is to beat the terrorists to the punch and establish worldwide democracy, effectively diminishing the possibility of terrorist attacks (again, recent bombings in democratic nations notwithstanding). So, there is no question that our troops in the Middle East are protecting our freedom, right?
But a standing army, ready and willing to launch pre-emptive attacks against sovereign countries, was never considered by the Founding Fathers as vital to the survival of the nation. Rather, that responsibility lay primarily at the feet of "we the people."
Our framers decided that the natural right of each individual to own weapons, and to form a militia with his neighbors, was the best guarantor of freedom. Further, there is no provision in the Constitution for a permanent, standing army--to the contrary, the framers considered a standing army a constant threat to liberty.
That was the essence of the Second Amendment which recognizes the importance of the militia--a reference to all able-bodied males who owned guns--and the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. In short, a well-armed citizenry is more important than any army when it comes to the defense of liberty.
For proof of this, look no further than the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The most powerful military in the history of civilization was unable to prevent the hijacking of four commercial airliners. One or two guns on each of those planes, however, could have saved 3,000 lives. And yet we continue to think that a Second Generation military is key to winning a Fourth Generation war.
Are you serious about protecting freedom? Do you want to do what you can for the preservation of liberty? Mr. Edmonds has some advice: "Own a high-powered rifle, and know how to use it safely and responsibly. Educate yourself and your friends about the dangers of forcible government."
It is that "forcible government" that has been systematically disarming Americans over the years while at the same time taking more power for itself. One of the reasons we have stood by and let it happen is our love for the military. But massive armies haven't prevented nations and empires from crumbling in the past. Why should we think that the U.S. is the exception?
If freedom is a gift, then let us be wise stewards of what we have been given. How responsible can we be if we continue to elect representatives who believe that the best defense of liberty is to send our countrymen off to kill and die for the interests of the state? The result is always an increase in the size and scope of government.
Noted anti-federalist Richard Henry Lee once said, "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." A well-armed citizenry not only provides a defense against terrorists and other foreign invaders, but it also acts as a natural barrier to tyranny here at home.
That, of course, doesn't change the fact that uniformed soldiers marching off to war in a foreign land paints a more noble and romantic picture than a redneck in a pickup with a gun rack. It may sound un-American, but the latter is what has kept America free.
