The Doctrine of Inalienable Rights

The Self-Evident Truth about Society, Religion, and Politics in 21st Century America

"One Nation, Under God"

In the works: A Primer on Media Bias, The Truth About the ANWR, and American Tsunami Relief Efforts, the Fact Behind the UN's Oil for Food Scandal.

Key Findings in Duelfer Report - To view the outline, cllick the button >>>  

Election 2004 Tribute to VICTORY - Join the Celebration! Press the button >>>

The Facts About Terri Shiavo

The Facts About the American National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)

Salute to Stupidity

Radical Christian Right

1000. . .

President Bush's State of the Union Speech

"So Help us God" - The Truth about the World War II Memorial

A Modern Day Ottoman Empire

The Truth About the Swift Boat Veterans

13-Point Manifesto - Why Same-Sex Marriage is Wrong

Supreme Court & Terrorism

Yellow - Indicates New Weekly Articles Written by PaprTigr

Aqua - Indicates Articles Posted on the ParTigr Doctrine but were Penned by Another Party

White - Indicates Articles Written by PaprTigr, updated Periodically

Media Reality Check - http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/realitycheck/welcome.asp     ><

The Annenburg Political Institute - www.factcheck.org  ><

A Satirical Political Beliefs Assessment Test - http://www.geocities.com/donaldjhagen/humoroustest.html

On Friday, March 18, 2005, the feeding tube that has kept Terri Shiavo alive for more than a decade was removed. The nourishment tube was removed despite an extraordinary last-minute push by Republicans on Capitol Hill to employ subpoena powers of Congress to keep Terri alive.

Terri Shiavo will die sometime in the next six to fourteen days, provided no one intercedes and has the tube reinserted - it's been done twice before.

Many people from all over the country have come out of the woodwork in support of keeping Terri Shiavo alive. In my opinion, there would be much more support in keeping Terri Shiavo alive if only the facts were more readily available.`

Think you have the facts on Terri Shiavo? Go through the following list of facts and know for sure. From Priests For Life:

* Today, Terri Shiavo is fighting for her life. She is not dying...has no terminal illness...is not in a coma...and is not on life-support equipment.

* She is not alone. Her loving parents and siblings are ready to care for her for the rest of her life.

* She has not requested death.

* She has sustained brain injuries and cannot speak or eat normally. Nevertheless, the only tube attached to her is a feeding tube that provides nourishment directly to her digestive system.

* She tries to speak. She focuses her eyes. She smiles. She attempts to kiss her parents.

* She has received no physical therapy or rehabilitation since 1991...or tests since 1993.

* She was not treated for life-threatening infections in 1993 and 1995

* Her teeth have not been cleaned since 1995...five teeth were extracted in 2004.

* She has been denied the use of a wheelchair since 2000.

* She has been forbidden from going outdoors since 2000.

* Terri was fraudulently placed in hospice with the false claim of terminal life expectancy (six months) since 2000.

* She was denied the Sacrament of the Sick and the Eucharist during an execution attempt in 2003.

* There is "exit protocol" in place for Terri at the hospice to hide evidence of her execution...with cremation ordered immediately upon her death.

* She is forbidden to practice her faith ...no Mass, no Communion; attend hospice home functions; be photographed or videotaped to reveal her abilities.

* Her parents have begged her estranged husband to let them take care of her, but he has refused; have been denied medical information on Terri since 1993, in violation of a court order; were taken off the visitors list for a total of eight months from 2001-04.

* Her estranged husband, Michael Shiavo, obtained a court order to euthanize Terri by starvation and dehydration in 2000...and Terri was forbidden her own legal representation.

* A jury awarded him Terri's Medical Trust (nearly $1,000,000) because he promised ti use it for Terri's life-long rehabilitation and therapy. However, he has spent the money to pay for his attorney, George Felos - a "right to die" activist - and Felo's partners so he can kill her.

* He lives with another woman and has fathered at least two children since Terri's brain injury.

* He killed her beloved cats...even after Terri's parents offered to take care of them.

I'll bet there were things in that fact check list that you were not aware of. I hope this list of facts has motivated you to do something about Terri Shiavo. If you would like to help, perhaps you could start with the people who provided this list of facts:

Priests For Life

P.O. Box 141172

Staten Island, NY 10314

(718)880-4000

Fax (718)980-6515

Email: mail@priestsforlife.org

Website: www.preistsforlife.org

Remember, Terrir Shiavo is off her feeding tube, so time is short.

3/19/05

Return to Top

In early 2003, when the race for the Presidency was beginning to heat up, CNN.com posted a list of Democratic, Republican, and Independent candidates seeking their party's nomination for the election. The list included a rundown of where each candidates stood on all of the major issues, as well as some significant minor ones.

One of them was Drilling in the ANWR. I have to admit, when I first saw that I did not know what the ANWR was or where it was. But I was immediately intrigued because it has something to do with oil drilling. By the conclusion of the election, I was chock full o' propaganda from both sides.

One side wants you to believe that proceeds from drilling for oil in the ANWR could dramatically lower the price of oil, leading to another economic boom. It would lessen our dependence on foreign oil, especially in the Middle East. Drilling could easily be done without disrupting the refuge or damaging the environment. It would dramatically help the economy and the people of Alaska.

The other side wants you to believe that drilling for oil in the ANWR will take the focus off the real cause of the oil shortage -- our excessive consumption. A beautiful wildlife refuge would be disturbed by humans once again, with animal lives changed in the process. Not to mention, the drilling may not yield much of anything. The reserve can be saved as a last resort decades from now when we've exhausted other supplies.

How do you cut through this propaganda and get the real story? Go for the facts - because the truth has nothing to hide. Let's do that and let's take it slow:

History Timeline of the ANWR:

* Jan. 3, 1959 Alaska Statehood

* Dec. 6, 1960 Arctic National Wildlife Range created on this date

* Dec. 18, 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

* June 20, 1977 Trans-Alaska Pipeline start-up

* Dec. 2, 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)

* Winter, 1983-84 Approx. 600 line miles of geophysical data acquired on Coastal Plain for Department of Interior Resource Evaluation Report

* Winter, 1984-85 Approx. 580 line miles of geophysical data acquired on Coastal Plain for DOI Report

* Dec. 2, 1985 Coastal Plain closed to further geophysical surveys

* Sept. 2, 1986 Secretary of Interior's Report to Congress

* March, 1987 Dept. Of Interior recommends to Congress to open the Coastal Plain

* Feb. 1987 Final Environmental Impact Statement for ANWR exploration published

* 1988 House Merchant Marine & Fisheries Committee approves an open ANWR Bill

* Early, 1989 House Merchant Marine & Fisheries Committee again approves an ANWR Bill

* Winter/Spring, 1989 Congress leaning toward ANWR development

* March 24, 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound

* 1990 Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait

* 1991 Congress debates National Energy Policy Act, Title 9 of which allowed for development of the Coastal Plain

* Senate Energy Committee approves Title 9

* Nov., 1991 Senate Roll-call vote on Sen. Wellstone amendment to cut off debate on ANWR, 50 to 44. (60 votes needed to defeat filibuster)

* National Energy Policy Act shelved

* 1992 New National Energy Policy Act, without ANWR, passed

* Nov., 1992 Mr. Clinton elected President

* 1995 ANWR resurrected as part of the Balanced Budget bill

* May 24, 1995 Senator Roth amendment to table ANWR from the Budget Resolution defeated 56 to 44 votes

* Sept., 1995 President Clinton tried to create a National Monument of ANWR under the Antiquities Act - this was prevented

* Sept. 19, 1995 Congressman Vento motion to strike ANWR from the Budget Reconciliation bill in the House Resources Committee, defeated 27 to 14

* Oct., 1995 House vote on Budget Reconciliation plan including ANWR, passed 227 to 203 votes.

* Oct. 25, 1995 Sen. Bumpers asset sale amendment (which would drop ANWR from the Reconciliation bill), defeated.

* Oct., 26, 1995 Sen. Baucus anti-ANWR amendment defeated 51 to 48 votes.

* Dec. 6, 1995 President Clinton vetoed the Balanced Budget Act which included a provision to open ANWR.

* May, 1996 A new Budget Resolution was initiated by Congress.

* May 24, 1996 Sen. Bumpers again tried an asset sale amendment on the floor of the Senate as a way of killing ANWR. The first amendment was modified and defeated 98 to 0, but a second attempt aimed directly at ANWR was defeated 52 to 46 votes.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is located on the northeast corner of Alaska. It is so far north that the entire 19 million acre refuge (roughly the size of South Carolina) lies north of the Arctic Circle roughly 1,300 miles south of the North Pole.

The Costal Plain Area, where the oil is, accounts for 1.5 million acres on the northern edge. It is bordered on the north by the Beaufort Sea, the US/Canadian border to the east, and the Canning River to the west.

At its widest points, the Coastal Plain is about 100 miles across and about 30 miles deep and covers an area slightly larger than the state of Delaware. The coastal plain itself is an almost featureless expanse, barren and dotted with thousands of unconnected small ponds. To the south gently rolling, treeless hills merge into foothills and then into the northern edges of the Brooks Range.

Already, I'm sure your perception of the refuge has changed. When you hear the term "wildlife refuge" you can't help but picture a large plot of land overgrown with vegetation and crawling with countless species of animals. When in fact, the ANWR is tundra; rocks and snow, nearly void of vegetation.

In addition to the relatively small number of animals that inhabit the area (we'll get to them later), there is a Native population of about 220 residents at Kaktovik, a village on Native owned lands at Barter Island, adjacent to the Coastal Plain and within the boundaries of ANWR. The Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (both Alaska Native corporations) own 94,000 acres in the Coastal Plain surrounding the village of Kaktovik.

Why is this wildlife refuge, that is seemingly out in the middle of nowhere, is such a hot political topic. We know there's oil up there, but again, why does this fact alone make ANWR different from other wildlife refuges that also have oil underneath the soil?

Less that 100 miles west of ANWR lies Prudhoe Bay - the largest oil field in North America. Prudhoe, along with Kuparuk, Lisburne, and Endicott account for 25% of America's domestic oil production. Given that there is already established oil drilling facilities in Alaska's North Slope, millions of dollars been invested into researching wildlife and their habitat in the presence of oil drilling. This research has immeasurably increased the scientific understanding of arctic ecosystems and have proven that wildlife and petroleum development can and do co-exist.

Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk oil fields and facilities are located and designed to accommodate the wildlife and utilize the least amount of tundra as possible. Regardless of the presence of these oil facilities, thousands of waterfowl and other birds nest and reproduce right in the oil fields themselves. Herds of caribou migrate through the area in increasing numbers. They too move to the area to breed calves, unencumbered by the facilities in the oil fields.

As the oil facilities in Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk have demonstrated, their presence does not have as significant an impact on local wildlife as some environmentalists would have you believe. In addition, advancements in oil drilling technology further minimize impact on the environment.

Since the 1960s, a sophisticated framework and permitting process has been developed at the federal, state, and local level. In other words, no oil drilling permits can be issued without measured, thoroughly researched and planned development of the facility and activities to ensure environmental impact would be held at an absolute minimum.

The geological community consensus is that the Coastal Plain of ANWR possesses the highest petroleum potential onshore drilling area in North America. The potential yield of an onshore ANWR oil drilling facility is believed to be in the billions of barrels. This output might very well rival that of the existing Prudhoe Bayfield facility.

It's worth noting that, should leasing be permitted today (hypothetically speaking), the oil from the ANWR facility would not reach the market for an estimated fifteen years. Given the oil crisis's America has already endured in this young century, it's not hard to imagine just how urgent the country may require this stockpile of oil and gas by 2019. With domestic crude oil production falling annually since 1985, by 2010 America's domestic output might only reach 5 million barrels per day. Bare in mind that America's oil demand is increasing while it's domestic output decreases. This means America will become even more dependant on foreign oil imports as time goes by.

Drilling for oil in the ANWR would require utilizing only 8% of the 19,000 acre reserve - only 8%. Therefore, it's not like America must choose between protecting Alaskan wildlife or protecting American industry. Both can be achieved at the same time. If the other Coastal Plain oil drilling facilities have proven anything, it's that both wildlife and industry can be taken care of simultaneously.

ANWR has long been recognized for possessing high potential for significant discoveries of oil and gas deposits. As a matter of fact, towards the beginning of the 20th century, early explorers to the region found oil seeps and oil-stained sands. However, once the region became a wildlife refuge in 1960, exploration of the region has been restricted to merely surface geological investigations, aeromagnetic surveys, and two winter seismic surveys. No exploratory drilling has taken place in the ANWR. The closest drilling to the ANWR took place in the winter of 1984-85; on the Kaktovik Inupuit Corporation and Arctic Slope Regional Corporations land.

Although little oil and gas exploration has taken place in ANWR, the Coastal Plain is believed to have economically recoverable oil resources. In other words; big finds. Reason being, the Coastal Plain lies between two known major discovery areas. Prudhoe Bay, Lisburne, Endicott, Milne Point, are 65 miles to the west of ANWR and currently in production. The yield is a combined 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, representing 25% of America's domestic oil production. To the east of the Coastal Plain lies Canada, where major oil discoveries have been made near the Mackenzie River Delta and the Beaufort Sea.

US Geological Survey; In 1980, the USGS estimated the Coastal Plain could contain up to 17 billion barrels of oil and 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

In April of 1987, the US Department of Interior issued a report on the oil and gas potential of the Coastal Plain and estimated that there are between 4.8 and 29.4 billion barrels of oil to be discovered in the area. This info was based on years of surface geological investigations, aeromagnetic surveys, and two winter seismic surveys. They also reported identifying 26 separate oil and gas prospects in the Coastal Plain that could contain "super giant" reserves of oil and natural gas.

Regardless, the fact is, only actual drilling will tell. The geological indicators are favorable for the presence of significant oil and gas resources in the ANWR. But the data is relatively limited so there is a high level of uncertainty about how much oil and gas may really be present. Most geologists agree that the potential is on the order of billions of barrels of recoverable oil and trillions of cubic feet of recoverable gas. Such resources would rival, and possibly exceed, the initial reserves of Prudhoe bay. Again, the validity of these scientific estimates can only be proven by exploratory drilling. Authorization for such drilling, given that it is to happen on a declared wildlife refuge, must come from Congress and the President.

Adding to the urgency, it should be noted that in 1996 the North Slope oil fields produced 1.5 million barrels of oil per day; approximately 25% of the US domestic production. Prudhoe Bay alone accounts for more than half of the North Slope's production, and noticeable declines have been documented since 1988. No new fields, outside of ANWR, with the potential to compensate for the decline, have been discovered outside of ANWR.

Environmentalists decry that any drilling at all in the ANWR would lead to environmental disaster that could destroy the wildlife living in the ANWR. When most people think of a "wildlife refuge", they can't help but visualize a landscape that is overgrown with lush vegetation and crawling with countless species of animals.

There's no such thing in the ANWR. Just remember where it is - Northern Alaska up by the arctic circle. It is a land of perpetual winter; where the cycle between night and day takes an entire year to go full circle; where tundra is the prevailing landscape.

That's not to say animals and plants don't exist in the ANWR. They certainly do. Let's quickly define tundra: a level or rolling treeless plain that is characteristic of arctic and subarctic regions, consists of black mucky soil with a permanently frozen subsoil, and has a dominant vegetation of mosses, lichens, herbs, and dwarf shrubs.

As far as animals are concerned, There is wildlife to be concerned about, even in tundra. It's good to know exactly what kind of wildlife is in the ANWR, which is why we are going to take the time. I was surprised to discover that so many different kinds of animals can thrive in tundra.

Caribou - Caribou are the most numerous large mammals in the Coastal Plain. Two herds migrate through the area at different times of the year. The Porcupine Caribou Herd and the Central Arctic Herd. The Porcupine Herd, which numbers approximately 123,000, generally spends time during the summer months on the Coastal Plain. The smaller Central Arctic Herd, approximately 32,000, stay west of the Coastal Plain. The caribou utilize portions of ANWR during their migration and are an important subsistence food source for Inupiat Eskimos and Athabascan Indians who live in communities near the migratory routes of the caribou herds.

Insects - Tundra provides a perfect environment for mosquitoes and other insects who emerge in late June and July continually harass the caribou. By mid-to-late July, most Porcupine Caribou have moved off the Coastal Plain and dispersed in the foothills, only to be plagued by two other insects; the warble fly and the nose bot fly.

The warble fly, which looks like a small yellow and black bumblebee, lays its eggs in the fur and the legs or abdomen of the caribou. The larvae hatch, burrow under the skin, and travel to the back. here they encapsulate and cut a breathing hole in the skin. Caribou commonly carry over one hundred larvae. It is not until May and June of the following year that the larvae cut exit holes, crawl out and drop to the ground to develop into mature flies.

The nose bot produces live larvae, which it deposits in the caribous' nose. The bot larvae move through the nasal passages and settle in the entrance to the throat. By spring the larvae have grown so much that they may actually interfere with normal breathing.

Both of these insects are strong fliers thus the caribou cannot avoid them merely by sneezing or settling in consistently windy places. When the caribou are alert to the presence of either one of the insect pests, the caribou can be seen violently shaking their heads, stamping their feet, and racing wildly over the tundra, for no apparent reason; they are seeking to evade warble or bot flies.

If you are against drilling for oil in the ANWR out of sympathy for the caribou, clearly you cant see that local hunters and insect pests torment the caribou far more than any oil rig would. Other wildlife includes millions of birds, grizzly bears, polar bears, wolves, musk oxen, and moose.

It is highly unlikely that any of the species of animals mentioned above would be overtly effected in any way by the presence of oil rigs. Caribou have acclimated to oil rigs in other areas just fine. The birds are all but unaffected. Grizzlies tend to keep to the southern portions of ANWR, away from where the oil rigs plan to be constructed. The polar bear spends much of it's time out on the frozen ocean hunting for seals, walrus, belugas, and the like. Wolves are in abundance all over Alaska and Canada. Since the caribou, the wolves' prey, are unlikely to be affected, the wolves won't be either. Musk oxen are increasing in numbers but none of the three existing herds are anywhere near the sites where oil drilling is planned. Moose, like wolves, are in abundance but, like the oxen, none are in the area where oil drilling is planned. They tend to stick close to inland streams and such.

None of these facts have been embellished. This is simply the way it is. You've been told what the ANWR is, where it is, what lives there, and why there is so much interest in drilling for oil there. Science and technology are proven to maximize the efficiency of drilling for oil while minimizing any adverse environmental impact of the surroundings.

It's totally understandable why people are concerned about the animals. We should be. I am not an environmentalist, in the sense that I oppose the building of this or the construction of that simply because it would require the destruction of forest or the relocation of wildlife. Do not believe anyone that proclaims all of the ANWR would be contaminated if even a single oil rig was constructed. This is a lie. Avoid people who have no respect whatsoever for wildlife; people who want to drill for the sake of the economy and job creation. Though drilling in the ANWR will strengthen the economy and created many jobs, let's face it, we are talking about drilling in a Congressionally declared wildlife refuge. It would be reckless not to consider the impact of oil drilling on the wildlife. I am not about to allow industry to run hog wild either because that isn't going to do animal species or mankind any good either. I am a true believer in finding the middle ground. I believe in establishing the balance between the environment and industry because I believe both can co-exist and flourish together. The facts dictate that the environmental impact of drilling for oil in the ANWR would be minimal. Therefore, I applaud the idea.

There is one last issue for consideration that, in my opinion, at this point in time, more important than wildlife and industry put together. I am talking about America's national security. Indeed, wildlife and industry are primarily domestic issues. But I believe that domestic issues take a backseat when the nation's national security is compromised - as it is right now.

America is at war with Islamic fundamentalists. Although most mainstream Muslims will profess that Osama bitch Laden and his al-Qaeda thugs do not represent Islam properly, mainstream Muslims cannot refrain from tendering to their militant brothers at least some semblance of sympathy and silent support for their given their common enemy - the United States.

We currently purchase a tremendous amount of our petroleum supplies from Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is an enemy country because it is the home of, and financier of the Wahhibi brand of Islam that is the backbone of militant Islamo-fascists. We are currently fighting these Islamo-fascists, friends of the Saudis. I don't like the idea of depending upon a friend of the enemy for so much of our imported petro supplies. Though it's true that the amount of oil purchased from Saudi Arabia is relatively small, it is much more than it was in the seventies - when Saudi Arabia crippled America with an oil embargo. Remember the problems that caused? Well, if the Saudis ever decided to impose another embargo today, it's effect would be far more devastating than it was thirty years ago.

You might be asking yourself, why did we ever begin buying so much oil from other countries in the first place, especially from such shady characters like the Arabs? Who's fault is that? Who should we blame? As consumers of Middle Eastern oil, we should blame ourselves. It was with our blessing that the oil industry began importing oil on account it is cheaper to import oil than it is to supply it to ourselves.

No one was thinking about national security. People were being selfish, only worrying about how such a move could keep money in our wallets and pocket books. I ask you now - wouldn't it be worth paying a few extra dollars per tank of gas considering the country would not have to rely so mush on foreign oil - from enemy nations of all things - if it means strengthening out national security? It's possible. There is a huge deposit of oil in Alaska beneath an area known as the ANWR. It's there. All we have to do it tap into it. Thanks to science, the technology has been developed to allow this drilling to occur with the least possible impact to the surrounding wildlife.

If there was ever a situation in which you could honestly say "everybody wins" it's this. Here are ten more reasons for your consideration:

1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.

2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates in 1995 on bonus bids alone were $2.6 billion.

3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

4. Economic Impact Between 1980 and 1994, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 943,000 barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil too Costly The U.S. imports over 64% of the nation's needed petroleum. Currently we are spending more than $120 billion dollars a year on importing oil. This does not include the amount spent on military to defend that same oil. Including defense costs the number would be nearly a trillion dollars.

8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.

9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.

10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

The Senate Budget Committee is wresting with the issue now. On Thursday, March 10, 2005, the battle to open the ANWR for oil drilling was won by a 12-10 vote with Republican-led committee electing to forbid filibusters against legislation later on when the vote goes to the Senate at a whole. Filibusters have become popular with Democrats as their numbers continue to decrease with each election cycle. For them, filibustering is the only effective technique they can employ in preventing policy they dislike from being put into effect. This can only be good news for proponents of drilling in the ANWR.

Realistically, the only way drilling in the ANWR can be stopped for sure is if Congress declared the ANWR a wildlife "monument". It's current status as a wildlife refuge does not exempt it from industrial development such as drilling for oil. If it were to be declared a wildlife monument, circa an act of Congress, then industrial intervention would be out of the question.

3/15/05

Return to Top

It's been a while but we finally have a new inductee into the Doctrine of Inalienable Right's Salute to Stupidity Hall of Fame. Before we begin, I just want to clarify that the reason it's been a while has nothing to do with stupid people not having done anything dumb for an uncharacteristically long stretch of time. It has to do with the fact I don't waste time trying to find these idiots. If I did, I'd be adding three or four of these morons every day. I wait until one of them, in a round-about sort of way, find me; catches my attention to be precise.

This one hails from the Dominican Republic. There was a tequila drinking contest in which the 21-year old took the title by downing 50 shots of tequila. That's right - 50 shots of tequila. It wasn't long after the contest that the man's heart stopped - because he had too much to drink; 50 shots.

And, not only did this contest send it's winner to an early grave, it sent three other contestants to the hospital with, you might have guessed, alcohol poisoning. At the time of this writing the contest was four days ago and the three hospitalized contestants remain in critical condition.

I know these kinds of drinking contests are everywhere. I went to college so, believe me, I've seen a few of these myself. But 50 shots? Of tequila?

3/15/05

Return to Top

Radical? Oh, really?

The political buzz-phrase "Radical Right" has, in the wake of Election 2004, been attributed to the demographic that most contributed to Senator Kerry's failure - the Christian Right. Kerry tried to portray himself as the quintessential Catholic, but failed miserably on account too many Christians knew their Doctrine better than the Massachusetts Senator did. But it's more than just anti-Christian backlash coming from sore-loser democrats. It's more than just the equating the Christian Right with the unapoligetically religious President George W. Bush. It has to do with the Christian communities', in particular - the Catholic Church's position on three very hot social issues; Abortion, Euthanasia, and same-sex marriage.

To a lesser extent, Catholics, and Christians in general also disapprove of embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. While the liberal powers-that-be like to concentrate on the first three, they will sometimes through in the latter two, you know, to really makes us Christians look ultra intolerant and insensitive.

Thing is, abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage are one of just five non-negotiable issues for Catholics. Why? Simple. There are no circumstances in which abortion, euthanasia, or same-sex marriage is morally justifiable. It is always wrong no matter what.

Am I, as a Catholic, being intolerant or insensitive because I am against abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage? Am I worthy being classified as a Radical for my beliefs?

We regularly refer to Osama bitch Laden and his band of al-Qaeda terrorists as "Radical" Islamo-fascists. The label ‘radical' stems from the group's willingness to indiscriminately kill anyone that does not subscribe to their belief system. And rightly so, I might add. Clearly these Islamic terrorists have earned the label of ‘radical' on account they do not value human life at all.

Needless to say, it's quite vexing when American Christians are referred to as "radical" because of their resolute intent to defend life. Catholics, and Christians in general, value life. It is our intent to defend it. American Christians believe that abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research kills human beings. The so-called "Radical" Christian element in the Right-Wing Conservative movement seeks to defend life - and for this we are labeled radicals?

Christians have been chastised for adhering to archaic religious text that has no relevance to today's society. It is time for Christians to update their doctrine to fit a more "enlightened" and "politically correct" age. Those Christians that don't are blind and stupid. At least that's how the average liberal on the street sees it.

So if I understand this correctly, and I know that I do, I am supposed to dismiss thousands-year-old, time tested documentation that promotes peace on Earth and good will toward men, so I can be "enlightened" by a brand new "politically correct" doctrine in which there is no such thing as good vs evil, right vs wrong, and where moral relativeness is the reigning social belief system?

No way!

It's no accident that the right-wing is predominately religious while the left-wing is overrun by secularists. Secularists, by their very nature, dislike religion because religion teaches that morality is absolute. In other words, people should be held accountable for their actions. Secularists don't want that. They want to live in a world where there is no right and wrong, good or evil. They can create this world by promoting a political ideology that looks upon morality as something, not absolute, but entirely relative. Rather than hold people accountable for bad behavior, secularists wish to excuse it.

In order to make this ideology a force to be reckoned with, which has been accomplished, they must do everything in their power to discredit the benefits of religion in society. That is why Christians have been labeled "radical". That is why Christians are being accused of "blind faith" and/or being just plain stupid.

The time has come to share with you various passages of Catholic Doctrine that explain the logic behind why Catholics, and Christianity in general, believe what it is they believe. This is to prove that Christians are not nearly as intolerant or insensitive as many in American society are being mislead to believe. What's more, we Christians are certainly not worthy of the label "radical".

Like I said earlier, the three issues that seem to have everyone screaming obscenities toward Christians are our stance's on abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage. Let us begin.

Abortion: The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it". Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide. The unborn child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child's, who should not suffer death for others' sins.

Think this is some right-wing campaign of intolerance and insensitivity? Try acknowledging the fact that this belief stems, not from anti-liberalism, but from time tested religious doctrine. Here is some of that doctrine, taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice, gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."

After reading this, does it sound as if the religious right is as intolerant and insensitive as it sounds? Of course not. Christians are busy looking out for the well-being of the individual so overlooked in abortion situations that this person's humanity is not even acknowledged. Christians are sensitive enough to look out for the rights of the unborn - especially because their parents are not! Christians are tolerant of pro-choice people to help them learn the errors of their ways in a respectful and fair manner.

Euthanasia: Often disguised by the name "mercy killing," euthanasia also is a form of homicide. No person has a right to take his own life, and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person. In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed, by action or omission, out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person.

Again, is Christian intolerance, insensitivity indeed - radicalism to blame for this allegedly fanatical anti-euthanasia bias? Stop and read the following passages from Catholic Doctrine. You will see that much thought and moral reasoning have gone into the Christians' stance on euthanasia as well as abortion:

2324 Intentional euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, is murder. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

As you can see, intolerance and insensitivity are no where to be found in Catholic Doctrine, or Christianity in general, as it pertains to positions on abortion and euthanasia. And don't get angry at us Christians when your decade-old, politically correct enlightenment fails to impress upon people who have been following time tested, thousands-year-old, religious doctrine.

Homosexual "Marriage:True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.

When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral".

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

As you can see, Catholic Doctrine has plenty to say about the illegitimacy of homosexuality, and thus, same-sex marriage. You can also see that Catholics are mandated to respect homosexuals as individuals with basic rights. Again, intolerance and insensitivity is nowhere to be found in the doctrine of Catholics.

The problem is not with the Christian belief system but with it's opposing force; the inherently progressive and politically correct world of enlightenment, where morality among other things is relative. In this world, the word tolerance does not actually mean sympathy or indulgence in beliefs differing from or conflicting with one's own. The word tolerance has come to mean acceptance. Tolerance is NOT acceptance. Perhaps if more progressives practiced real tolerance, not this bogus euphemistic concoction, we would all be a whole lot better off. Insensitive? We have one group of people fighting for the rights of the unborn because no one else will. And we have another group of people of who deliberately ignore and/or are deceived into ignoring the humanity of the unborn. You know which group is which. Now, please tell me - which group is really being insensitive?

The American Christian's stance on the preceding three issues, regardless of the tolerant and sensitive reasoning, has won them the label of "Radical" Christian Right Wing Conservative. Hey, I've got no problem professing my religion. I am a Christian and you are going to have to deal with it whether you like it or not. It doesn't bother me if you don't happen to be Christian, so why do some of you get so ansi when you discover someone you work with or go to school with is a Christian, particularly a Catholic? I consider myself an independent thinker, but I would not be insulted if I were to be counted as a Conservative, or a right-winger. I don't have much a problem being included in the so-called "Christian far-right" element.

What does bother me, and should bother every other Christian out there, is when the label "radical" is used. I am a Catholic; a Christian. I do not believe in so-called abortion rights because it, by design, overlooks the human rights of the unborn individual. And yes, a fetus is human. I also believe euthanasia is wrong for the same reasons. Human dignity is not a factor in euthanasia, or as the left-wing likes to call it "mercy killing". To be fair, unlike other euphemisms, that one is actually half right. Gay marriage? Christians are right about that one as well. I mean really; when science, natural law, God's Law, and common sense, all stack up against it, how ludicrous do you have to be to even entertain the possibility of institutionalized same-sex marriage.

How do I know I'm right? Because God says so. Do you really think you are smarter than God?

You secularists, moral relativists, and just plain ideological maniacs, better get used to it. The vast majority of Americans are God loving and God fearing individuals. This is not the 1990's anymore. This is a new decade and the religious community is now awake and wise to an evil that has embedded itself in American culture.

Secularists are now upset because the fight between them and the religious, dubbed the "culture war" has clearly turned in favor of the religious. The secularists are none too happy about that. And what do they do? Attack the religious. Why not? It's the last refuge of the loser. Anyone reading this commentary knows a secularist can't win a debate with a religious person. So here come the ad hominem attacks. "Radical" we allegedly "Self-righteous" Christians are called. Logically, that means run-of-the-mill Christians are as fundamentalist as those Islamo-fascist terrorists killing anyone and everyone for being different from the terrorists. You better watch out for those "Radical Christians" or those Catholic Extremists or Protestant Fundamentalists will get you! Is this an example of progressive enlightenment?

You progressive secularists better get used to religion. It's part of American culture and it's here to stay. As I like to say, "God is good. Deal with it!"

3/8/05

Return to Top

. . . a number that, according to those in the American military, is meaningless.

Of course no one wishes that the Iraqi Theater of the War on Terror has cost 1,000 American lives. Indeed, I doubt the Pentagon and the White House saw that coming. Nevertheless, wars NEVER go as planned. There are ALWAYS mistakes, miscalculations, errors of judgement, coupled by plain old bad luck. These are not excuses, mind you, this is reality. You see, you haven't heard or seen this reality in the mainstream media. The "elite" of the mainstream knows about it, they just don't want you to know. The rest don't have a clue about the other side of the story, nor do they want one.

I believe in going straight to the source. It's easier said than done, especially for individuals like me who are skeptical of mainstream media. Now understand something, 1,000 dead America soldiers is a terrible tragedy. But the fact that over 1,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq takes nothing away from the validity or worthiness of the fight. In fact, it does the opposite. What representative form of government puts hundreds of thousands of their own soldiers in harm's way, losing 1,000 and counting, and maintains it's resolve when a cause it not justified?

I don't subscribe to the fair-weather-patriot philosophy. I don't endorse a war and then back out - effectively abandoning the soldiers in the field, when the cost exceeds my confront level. It makes no sense to think that the whole cause for the war is just only when the death toll remains under a certain number. Am I do believe the cause suddenly becomes unjust when this totally imaginary casualty figure is surpassed? Give me a break.

There are not many Americans who see the bigger picture in this war. I started off this commentary by referring to the conflict as the Iraqi Theater in the War on Terror. That's not a spin, it's fact. The War with Iraq, as the media likes to call it, implies that it is a second war in addition to the goings-on Afghanistan. Wrong, it's not a separate war, it is the same war. Iraq is not a second war, it is a second front in the same war. One cannot be in favor of the War on Terror, but against the War in Iraq.

But again, when it comes down to who's opinion matters most, as it pertains to the 1,000 American casualties, who's point of view matters more than the soldiers in the field? I am, personally, less interested in the American civilians' opinions. I am, personally, less interested in politicians' opinion. I am, however, more interested in what our soldiers in the Iraqi Theater think.

How many of their opinions have we heard? The media has gone out of it's way to find dissenting opinion among Americans citizens, American politicians, the United Nations, and various other world leaders. Why is it you haven't heard much from the one group of people you would expect to be the most vocal when it comes to 1,000 American casualties; the American soldier? The only logical reason is the vast majority of soldiers know the number of deaths is irrelevant. Fact is, if a cause is worth dying for, it's is every bit as justified whether the death toll is 1, or 100,000.

See for yourself, with the words and opinions of soldiers in the field:

"It sucks. The newspapers glorify it. Everyday, reporting the numbers going up and up, trying to push a point," said Captain Gregory Wingard, 39, at the 1st Infantry Division's Camp Warhorse near Baquba, north of Baghdad.

"Sad as it is for those 1,000 families and their friends, they're nothing to the number of Iraqis that get killed trying to defend their own families," he added, smoking a cigar with friends under the stars.

"There's one word you have to push back at them. Gettysburg: 63,000 killed in a single day," said Sergeant Kimberly Snow, 35, from Ohio, referring to the US civil war battle.

"I'm nervous, sure, because you don't know. When I lay down on my rack for the first 10 minutes I'm listening for mortars," said Wingard.

"There's always a fear in the back of your head, but you can't let it take over," said Snow, speaking about the soldiers' biggest scourge -- the improvised explosive device, known as IEDs to the army, or a roadside bomb to civilians.

"The scary thing is its not like facing a normal enemy and you've got a good chance of fighting back. You're just tooling down the road and boom there's an explosion," said National Guard Major Tony Quinn, from North Carolina.

\"If 1,000 died today, that'd be pretty significant, but its just another number," said 36-year-old Quinn, who is based along the Iran-Iraqi border.

"Every single soldier knows the risk. You do the best you can with your day and don't think about it. If I was to get killed tomorrow by an IED, I would not regret coming over here," said Captain Michael Adams, 37, from Oregon.

"Six months ago people were afraid of their own shadow. Now I've seen kids playing in the park, farmers are out working. Now they can have a chance at rebuilding their country," he added.

"Obviously when you loose people, its a tragic time. But you don't loose morale. It strengthens your resolve," said Specialist Robert Bybee, 21, deployed in Saddam's hometown of Tikrit.

"I'm scared even to take a shower in case they mortar us. I want to go home and be with my wife and start a family," said Specialist Luis Cruz, 21, from Puerto Rico, also based near Baquba.

"Once in a while people make comparisons, but I don't think the majority of soldiers feel there are any similarities," said Quinn.

"We are winning the hearts and minds... It's nothing like Vietnam. We're still missing 60,000, 52,000 were killed. We've had 1,000 soldiers die, how can you make a comparison?" said Wingard.

There you go. Need I say anymore?

3/6/05

Return to Top

Prepared copy of President George W. Bush's inaugural address:

Vice President Cheney, Mr. Chief Justice, President Carter, President Bush, President Clinton, reverend clergy, distinguished guests, fellow citizens:

On this day, prescribed by law and marked by ceremony, we celebrate the durable wisdom of our Constitution, and recall the deep commitments that unite our country. I am grateful for the honor of this hour, mindful of the consequential times in which we live, and determined to fulfill the oath that I have sworn and you have witnessed.

At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together. For a half century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical - and then there came a day of fire.

We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause.

My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it firm.

We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.

Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."

The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.

And all the allies of the United States can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat.

Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens:

From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well - a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

A few Americans have accepted the hardest duties in this cause - in the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy ... the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments ... the dangerous and necessary work of fighting our enemies. Some have shown their devotion to our country in deaths that honored their whole lives - and we will always honor their names and their sacrifice.

All Americans have witnessed this idealism, and some for the first time. I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes. You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself - and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country, but to its character.

America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home - the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty.

In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act, and the G.I. Bill of Rights. And now we will extend this vision by reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time. To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools, and build an ownership society. We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance - preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society. By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal.

In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character - on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before - ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever.

In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service, and mercy, and a heart for the weak. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.

From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many. From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?

These questions that judge us also unite us, because Americans of every party and background, Americans by choice and by birth, are bound to one another in the cause of freedom. We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes - and I will strive in good faith to heal them. Yet those divisions do not define America. We felt the unity and fellowship of our nation when freedom came under attack, and our response came like a single hand over a single heart. And we can feel that same unity and pride whenever America acts for good, and the victims of disaster are given hope, and the unjust encounter justice, and the captives are set free.

We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul. When our Founders declared a new order of the ages; when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty; when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner "Freedom Now" - they were acting on an ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled. History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty.

When the Declaration of Independence was first read in public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said, "It rang as if it meant something." In our time it means something still. America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength - tested, but not weary - we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.

May God bless you, and may He watch over the United States of America.

3/3/05

Return to Top

Atheist Michael Newdow, the person who sued to have the phrase "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, recently failed in a bid to remove prayer from President Bush's inaugural ceremony. That attempt obviously failed as well, thank God.

There are things about America that Michael Newdow, and those like him, hate about this country. Most notably the Freedom of Religious Expression which is guaranteed by the Establishment Clause in the Constitution of the United States.

Despite this obvious and unchangeable fact, Michael Newdow, and his atheistic goons, will undoubtably try again. It'll happen. There's no shortage of opportunities. God is mentioned on American currency and coin, government buildings, monuments, you name it. God is everywhere in American society, as well He should be. After all, we are a nation that claims to be blessed by God. It's only appropriate that we pay homage to Him whenever and where ever there is time and/or space.

It's good to know there is plenty of time and space for God right in our own national Capital. Having been there for the Fourth of July, I saw firsthand myself - God is alive and well in America.

The Lincoln Memorial, on one end of the national mall, includes President Lincoln's second inaugural address which makes six references to God in a mere 700 words. The Gettysburg Address, also in the Lincoln Memorial, contains the phrase, "This nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom."

On the other end of the national mall is the Washington Monument - which includes a bible in it's cornerstone.

The Supreme Court building has the Ten Commandments inscribed in four places. Take that Alabama!

The Library of Congress, the White House, and Jefferson Memorial, all have references to God.

Some artwork in the Capitol contains images of bibles and angels.

The Declaration of Independence includes the phrase, "We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights." And some claim this nation was not founded on the principles of deity!

But I recently read a report on FOXNEWS.COM in which a claim was made that the World War II Memorial omits the phrase "So help up God" from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's speech in front of a joint session during which he asked Congress to declare war on Japan. This is a fallacy.

The phrase "So help us God" has not been omitted from the monument. It is there. I know. I've been there. I've seen it. During my Fourth of July trip to DC, I made it a priority to see the World War II Memorial. My father was a World War II veteran, as well as my many uncles. When I found out, as a young child, their involvement in World War II, I set out to learn as much as I possibly could so I could best understand what it was they did for the country, and indeed, the rest of the free world.

Well, it's been a few decades since then. I've learned a lot about World War II. I was itching to see the memorial. I was thrilled to finally get my chance to see the memorial. I was well worth it. Not that I'm a mind reader, but I did wish others visiting the World War II Memorial had as much of a working knowledge of the event as I do. You can tell the ones that have an authentic appreciation for the veterans who fought in that war, as opposed to the other people who were there simply because the monument was there.

Which brings me to the point in this commentary: the alleged omission of the phrase "So help us God." Well, having seen the World War II Memorial for myself, and having a working knowledge of World War II history, I'm pleased to report the allegations are false. The phrase "So help us God" is indeed a part of the memorial exactly where it should be.

At the same time, having seen the memorial for myself, and given my background in World War II studies, I do understand why this allegation is so widely believed.

To most Americans, particularly the ones who were alive at the time, the most stirring words and speeches pertaining to that era were delivered by then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt; his address before Congress on December 8, 1941, being the most charismatic of them all. I would imagine hearing that speech then was much like President George Bush's speech on September 20, 2001, in reaction to the September 11th Attacks and the coming war on al-Qaeda.

When you really think about it, no memorial commemorating American participation in World War II would be complete without at least a portion of President Roosevelt's rousing speech. The controversy, claiming that a portion of FDR's speech was omitted, first appeared in the Washington Times in a June 4, 2004 article. It claimed that the phrase "So help us God" was deliberately omitted from FDR's Dec.8th, 1941 speech, which is inscribed on the side of the memorial commemorating the Pacific Theater. As it turns out, this flawed claim was apparently based on someone's flawed recall of FDR's actual speech.

Here is the complete text of President Roosevelt's December 8th, 1941 address to Congress:

Yesterday, December 7, 1941 —— a date which will live in infamy —— the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And, while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack. It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace. The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu. Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya. Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong. Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam. Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands. Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island. And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island. Japan has therefore undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation. As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense, that always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory. I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us. Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph, so help us God. I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.

Only a very short excerpt from the above speech is inscribed on the World War II Memorial in Washington D.C. Fact is, the phrase "so help us God" was not omitted from the sentence. The phrase in question isn't on the memorial because the sentence that contains that phrase was not inscribed in a much abridged version of the larger speech. That's why it isn't there.

The actual inscription on the World War II Memorial reads:

Pearl Harbor

December 7th, 1941, a date

that will live in infamy...

No matter how long it

may take us to overcome

this premeditated invasion

the American people, in

their righteous might,

will win through

to absolute victory

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

As you can see, the above inscription is of one sentence:

– No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory. -

And the phrase "so help us God", which a Washington Times article claimed was maliciously omitted, appears in an entirely different sentence:

- With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph, so help us God. -

No need to worry. The secularists have not tampered with any inscriptions on the World War II Memorial. This whole misunderstanding seems to stem from a basic unfamiliarity of with the exact text of FDR's famous speech to Congress on December 8th, 1941.

2/5/05

Return to Top

It's a well known fact that terrorists need territory to conduct training, planning, exercises, as well as a headquarters from which a number of terrorist activities can be coordinated.

In short, terrorists need land. Preferably, they would like to conduct their operations from territory administered by a governing authority that is friendly to the terrorist group. If and when this is not possible, terrorists typically seek out territory run by governments who barely maintain control over it.

Most often, this territory is embroiled in conflict with the governing authority, which means the land not only serves as a base for terrorists, the potential to recruit members is great.

As the War on Terror continues, and the number of terrorist state-sponsors decreases, it will become more imperative for terrorists to claim new territory to serve as a base for operations.

Terrorists have already established themselves as the owners and proprietors of legitimate businesses and charities. Hezballah and Hamas both own a number of legit companies in the Middle East. Such activities provide financial backing for terrorist operations and helps maintain a positive public image among fellow Muslims.

You have to remember, terrorists support a fanatical brand of Islam which most mainstream Muslims reject. To America, Hezballah and Hamas, among others, are terrorist groups bent on the senseless murder of innocent people. From the average Muslim's point of view, Hezballah and Hamas are groups of legitimate business owners.

For the terrorists, this is not enough. In the pre-September 11th world, the existence of terrorist groups was tolerated. Now however, they are being actively hunted down and eliminated. How will they respond to this reality?

If the Taliban proved anything, it's that terrorists have already begun to morph into political regimes. The Taliban was nothing more than a political arm of al-Qaeda. Their existence proved that terrorists are not only interested in using territory for bases of operations, they want to be the uncontested administrators as well. What better way to guarantee access to the resources of an entire country?

Fortunately, the ousting of the Taliban proves terrorists can be driven out. But the War on Terror is not going to end anytime soon. As terrorists lose territory, is must find ways of obtaining new territory. With two unapologetic terrorist regimes gone, and many more pressured to regard correspondence with terrorist allies with extreme caution, land is becoming a terrorist commodity.

For the sake of the survival of terrorist movements, terrorists will have to become national administrators as much as soldiers. Like I said, Afghanistan proves the ousting of terrorist governments can be realized rather quickly. However, as Iraq is proving, the ousting can be lengthy and costly.

I believe that, by the close of this decade, al-Qaeda and terrorism in general is going to look a whole lot different. A policy of preemptive assaults on terrorists is widely embraced by Americans. The preemptive assault on a nation-ally of terrorists is another matter entirely. If terrorists could successfully present themselves to the world as legitimate government entities, the War on Terror is going to get a lot more precarious.

If historical precedent mean anything, and they do, we can expect al-Qaeda to deploy political factions to predominantly Islamic nations. Russia's Bolsheviks, Ireland's Irish Republican Army, Palestine's Hamas have already done exactly that. When you consider al-Qaeda will target Islamic nations first, nations that already look upon America or the West with utter disdain, it's not going to be difficult getting the citizens on board with the new al-Qaeda administration.

What's more, Arab countries friendly to America, such as Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Iraq, and Kuwait, could become American enemies virtually overnight. Losing even one of these allies in such a fashion would be a strategic blow to America and Israel.

Let's take it one step further. Imagine if a number of Islamic nations, controlled by al-Qaeda, sign some kind of pact comparable to a wartime alliance. . .

Such a political revolution in the Muslim world could conceivably divide the world between the advanced West and the floundering East. Keep in mind that a number of these floundering Eastern countries are belligerent, reactionary, and armed with nukes in some cases.

Al-Qaeda's current leadership is clearly above and beyond that of the conventional terrorist group. These are practical, determined, intelligent, people. Not to mention cunning warriors.

And it's the cunning warrior that will hit you where you least suspect when you are the least prepared. I'm not sure but I think it was Sun Tzu who said that.

Point being, al-Qaeda's leaders are men with a purpose. Insane or not, they have every intention of carrying it out. Their agenda, in all it's complexity, has the potential to threaten world peace as has not been seen since World War II.

Al-Qaeda's demands are no secret either. Their collective intentions are to drive America out of the Middle East, force an end to American aid to Israel, and force an end to "corrupt" Islamic regimes. In case you haven't noticed, less American interference in Middle Eastern affairs is something that most Muslims want whether they are mainstream or fanatical. It's a "party line" that could united the extremists with the mainstream. Not until it's too late with the mainstream understand that it will have hitched it's wagon to fallen stars. By then, they will be powerless to stop the truly corrupted regimes.

How does al-Qaeda intend to carry out it's agenda? That's the unspoken/unwritten agenda in al-Qaeda's cause - the installation of Extremist Islamic regimes with Osama bitch Laden at the head of it all as the new caliphate of a new Islamic Empire; something not seen since the days of the Ottoman Empire.

An American military presence in the Middle East is the only thing standing in it's way. That's why, number one of the agenda, is to drive the American military out of the Middle East. Once this happens, American aid to Israel will have been hampered thus weakening Israel. Once this weakening has had it's desired effect, Israel could not defend itself against an all-Arab attack. Once this has been done, the "corrupted" Muslim regimes would no longer be needed, and the extremist Muslim nations would proceed with overthrowing them.

With no formidable forces left in the Middle East, al-Qaeda extremists could rule the Muslim world at will.

Not to insult anyone's intelligence but, in case you haven't figured it out, "corrupt" Muslim regimes refers to those Arab/Muslim governments that are friendly to America and the West; hence their "corrupt" nature from the point of view of an extremist.

The CIA has known, for quite some time, that certain "brainwashing" techniques used by Islamic extremists going back to the days of the Muslim caliphate, demonstrate that a mind-mannered Arab can be turned into a fanatical suicide bomber in the course of a few hours of "re-education". This means an almost limitless source of manpower for the extremist causes.

But, then again, it's going to take more than suicide bombers for al-Qaeda to realize it's vision of the world. Terrorism MUST become a legitimate act for al-Qaeda's ambitions to come close to success.

Has anyone noticed how lax the United Nations already is when it comes to terrorist activity?

Imagine a world where terrorism is a politically legitimate act? Well, it's already here. It's been here ever since Fatah became the quasi-government known as the Palestinian Liberation Organization, thanks to gun-toting UN addressing Yasser Arafat.

Hezballah and Hamas already enjoy legitimacy in the business world. Now, Hezballah is acquiring political legitimacy in Lebanon while Hamas is doing the same in Gaza.

Such legitimacy does not seem to be at the forefront of al-Qaeda's attention. But if they wish to keep up the fight against America, sooner or later they will have to consider political legitimacy.

Fortunately, the process al-Qaeda must undergo to achieve political legitimacy is neither easy, nor is it invisible. What's more, it will not be the first time a shady group tried to achieve legitimacy. It's a well documented reality played over and over again in the repetitive world of historical perspective.

Political legitimacy of an illegitimate person or group of people is a three-step process.

First, not only must al-Qaeda continue spectacular terrorist attacks, they must increase in severity as well as frequency, specifically the attacks must be executed in a manner that adversely effects the political process of the enemy For example, the Madrid bombings. The timing and severity of the attacks prompted the Spanish people to elect a leader that is far more appeasing to the whims of terrorists. As a result, Spain withdrew it's contingent of soldiers in Iraq and America lost a once staunch ally. Thus, al-Qaeda has learned that coupling terrorist attacks with political events, such as elections, can quadruple the intended impact.

What's interesting is, given al-Qaeda's success in Spain, they did not make a similar attempt here in America. This, in my opinion, suggests al-Qaeda possesses a much deeper understanding of Americans and their politics. I repeatedly proclaimed that there would not be a terrorist attack just prior to the Presidential Election because such an event would galvanize support for President Bush, thus ensuring his re-election. Then again, they cold have been just plain unwilling to execute an attack.

Though more religious that political, many Muslim Clerics have taken to preaching out-right anti-American and anti-Western sentiment. This is even going on right here in the United States. Radical Islamic Clerics are preaching hatred of America and the West within the American borders. It's been going on for decades and has had an undeniable effect on the Muslim psyche. Such perversion of true Islam is, and will continue to, undermine Western consensus on Middle Eastern policy, and weaken solidarity against Islamic Extremism. This perversion widely happening in Europe was well, and we all know what many Western European nations think.

It's no secret that radical Muslims have little desire to extend tolerance toward more moderate Muslims. As al-Qaeda moves ever more closer to the world of politics, more and more terrorist attacks will target existing Middle Eastern governments. This will destabilize Arab/Muslim governments and increase support for terrorist political movements with the average Muslim in the streets.

Once Step One in complete, and al-Qaeda has become a legitimate political movement, it will begin grass-roots efforts in connection with charities because it's those Muslims in need of charity that will respond positively to al-Qaeda's party line. Charity is a huge element of Islam. It involves social services, schools, job creation, Islamic clergy, along with many other influential Middle Eastern authority figures. In short, many needy Muslims can easily be reached - and it is those needy Muslims that have been drilled with the idea that America and the West is responsible for their quality, lack thereof rather, of living.

Al-Qaeda is hardly the first terrorist group to do this. The PLO, Hamas, Hezballah, among others have not only already done this, their political agendas are far more developed and further reaching than anything al-Qaeda has planned for the near future.

You will recall that is was Hezballah and Hamas that campaigned to have Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11" screened in Middle Eastern theaters. You probably heard about this through the media. What you didn't hear is that this tactic back-fired. Muslims resented Iraq being portrayed as an oasis of peace and civility before all those American bombers and soldiers came in to ruin it all.

I mean really, who did they think they were fooling? These were Muslims who live in the region! Who knows better than them what actually goes on in the region?

Step Two: Once al-Qaeda's grassroots efforts begin to gain favor on the local level, they will begin to export their brand of politics to other regions and nations all across the Muslim world. This is where it's going to get tough. There are numerous Muslim terrorist groups fighting for their respective causes. As al-Qaeda begins delivering it's political agenda throughout the Muslim world, it will have to adapt from region to region for obvious reasons.

And then there's also the issue of what to do about regions where other terrorist groups with political arms are currently entrenched. You have to understand that what matters most to a powerful Arab/Muslim is his power, either real or imagined. Once they obtain power, they will do anything to hold on to it. So don't expect Hamas to surrender any political connections to al-Qaeda.

Alas, despite the ideological differences between any given Muslim terrorist groups; despite any apparent potential for a power struggle in the form of a turf war, a common language, religion, and above all - enemies - will practically guarantee unity among radical Islamic groups. You know the old saying, "The enemy of your enemy is your friend."

Thirdly, political branches of al-Qaeda will almost certainly not bear the same name, thereby covering up any direct connection to terrorist activity. Once these people gain actual positions of authority within a legitimate government, they will at once begin to pervert the idea of true democracy as they have perverted the true meaning of Islam.

You have to remember that Arab/Muslim leaders value their power position more than anything, and they will do anything to protect it. Democracy is about putting this power in the hands of the people, thus limiting the power of those in charge. This is why the ideological fight in Iraq is as fierce as can be. It's a battle of two opposing ideologies in which one side will eventually win it all.

Historically, terrorists have flourished in nations with weak governments that have been torn apart by war. However, when you consider the relative ease in which al-Qaeda forces were driven from power in Afghanistan, and how difficult it is doing the same in Iraq, it is likely that al-Qaeda's political wing will begin entrenching itself not within countries that have weak political and social fibers, but with those that have consolidated their power.

Take Lebanon for example. Even though political factions of Hezballah are firmly entrenched, the administration's relative weakness makes it an easy target for overthrow. Pakistan, on the other hand, is run by an administration that is keeping it's citizens at bay despite the fact that there is a large contingent of anti-Western feeling. When you factor in Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and it's porous borders, a terrorist take-over of this country would constitute a strategic nightmare.

The media, by and large, is treating Iraq as the only Arab/Muslim country that is even remotely interested in democracy. Fact is, there are a number of Arab/Muslim nations working on such a administrative transition all on their own accord. Nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco are in transition from a more authoritarian state to democracy. Qatar is making great strides at democracy and Turkey is proof that Muslims and democracy can indeed co-exist in the same state.

That's the good news. The bad is that the very nature of democracy will make it easier for al-Qaeda's political wing to usurp power by legally running for office in accordance with the regulations set up by the democracy in question.

If Iraq is any indication, driving terrorist forces from well entrenched political systems that have consolidated their power over the people is asking for a quagmire.

Let's not fool ourselves. Iraq is a mess. It's not as bad as the media has lead us to believe, but progress is slower and far more costly than was originally anticipated. If America does not learn from it's mistakes in Iraq, and the removal of a similar regime becomes necessary elsewhere, that could spell doom for America's war effort.

If al-Qaeda creates radical Islamic factions of governments across the Muslim world; a region that is relentlessly hostile to America and the West even without fanatical propaganda; a region that controls a huge percentage of the world's oil reserves; a region in which WMD are deployed; could profoundly change the geopolitical landscape of the world by the next decade. It is the ultimate fulfillment, al-Qaeda's wet dream. It would be a polarization not seen since the days of the Cold War; a situation ripe for the onset of a third world war.

The Soviet Union never wanted to be the one that fired the first shot in any war with America. A nuclear armed Muslim caliphate would love the opportunity to fire the first shot.

1/6/05

Return to Top

Old news you say? Well, yes and no. What the Swift Boat veterans had to say is indeed old news now. But, I am still very keenly interested in whether or not they were, as they claimed, for the truth. Now that we are far enough removed from all the election harangue, I think it's time to make a complete and honest assessment into what they had to say.

Let's start with what the Swift Boat Veterans actually said. Here are the comments that generated so much controversy during the 2004 Presidential Campaign:

"During the Vietnam War I was Task Force Commander at An Thoi, and my tour of duty was 13 months, from the end of Tet to the beginning of the Vietnamization of the Navy units. Now when I went there right after Tet, I was restricted in my movements. I couldn't go much of anyplace because the Vietcong controlled most of the area. When I left, I could go anywhere I wanted, just about. Commerce was booming, the buses were running, trucks were going, the waterways were filled with sampans with goods going to market, but yet in Kerry's biography he says that our operations were a complete failure. He also mentions a formal conference with me, to try to get more air cover and so on. That conference never happened...", Captain Adrian Lonsdale, USCG (retired)

"While in Cam Rahn Bay, he trained on several 24-hour indoctrination missions, and one special skimmer operation with my most senior and trusted Lieutenant. The briefing from some members of that crew the morning after revealed that they had not received any enemy fire, and yet Lt.(jg) Kerry informed me of a wound, he showed me a scratch on his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his hand that appeared to be from one of our own M-79s. It was later reported to me that Lt.(jg) Kerry had fired an M-79, and it had exploded off the adjacent shoreline. I do not recall being advised of any medical treatment, and probably said something like 'Forget it.' He later received a Purple Heart for that scratch, and I have no information as to how or whom. Lt.(jg) Kerry was allowed to return to the good old USA after 4 months and a few days in-country, and then he proceeded to betray his former shipmates, calling them criminals who were committing atrocities. Today we are here to tell you that just the opposite is true. Our rules of engagement were quite strict, and the officers and men of Swift often did not even return fire when they were under fire if there was a possibility that innocent people, fishermen in a lot of cases, might be hurt or injured. The rules and the good intentions of the men increased the possibility that we might take friendly casualties.", Commander Grant Hibbard, USN (retired)

"I served with these guys. I went on missions with them, and these men served honorably. Up and down the chain of command there was no acquiescence to atrocities. It was not condoned, it did not happen, and it was not reported to me verbally or in writing by any of these men including Lt.(jg) Kerry. In 1971, '72, for almost 18 months, he stood before the television audiences and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains, there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief. It just galls one to think about it.", Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)

"My name is Steve Gardner. I served in 1966 and 1967 on my first tour of duty in Vietnam on Swift boats, and I did my second tour in '68 and '69, involved with John Kerry in the last 2 ½ months of my tour. The John Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is portraying. I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy... if a man like that can't handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our Commander-in-Chief?", Steven Gardner

"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust, all absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography. He arrived in-country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future. He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical assignments. He was a 'loose cannon.' In an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days, and with his specious medals secure, Lt.(jg) Kerry bugged out and began his infamous betrayal of all United States forces in the Vietnam War. That included our soldiers, our marines, our sailors, our coast guardsmen, our airmen, and our POWs. His leadership within the so-called Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testimony before Congress in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain an undocumented but nevertheless meticulous stain on the men and women who honorably stayed the course. Senator Kerry is not fit for command.", Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired), chairman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

"We resent very deeply the false war crimes charges he made coming back from Vietnam in 1971 and repeated in the book "Tour of Duty." We think those cast an aspersion on all those living and dead, from our unit and other units in Vietnam. We think that he knew he was lying when he made the charges, and we think that they're unsupportable. We intend to bring the truth about that to the American people. We believe, based on our experience with him, that he is totally unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief.", John O'Neill, spokesman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

"During Lt.(jg) Kerry's tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families. Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive, but the most common phrase that you'd hear is 'requires constant supervision.'", Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired)

"Thirty-five years ago, many of us fell silent when we came back to the stain of sewage that Mr. Kerry had thrown on us, and all of our colleagues who served over there. I don't intend to be silent today or ever again. Our young men and women who are serving deserve no less.", Andrew Horne

"In my specific, personal experience in both coastal and river patrols over a 12-month period, I never once saw or heard anything remotely resembling the atrocities described by Senator Kerry. If I had, it would have been my obligation to report them in writing to a higher authority, and I would certainly have done that. If Senator Kerry actually witnessed or participated in these atrocities or, as he described them, 'war crimes,' he was obligated to report them. That he did not until later when it suited his political purposes strikes me as opportunism of the worst kind. That he would malign my service and that of his fellow sailors with no regard for the truth makes him totally unqualified to serve as Commander-in-Chief.", Jeffrey Wainscott

"I signed that letter because I, too felt a deep sense of betrayal that someone who took the same oath of loyalty as I did as an officer in the United States Navy would abandon his group here (points to group photo) to join this group here (points to VVAW protest photo), and come home and attempt to rally the American public against the effort that this group was so valiantly pursuing. It is a fact that in the entire Vietnam War we did not lose one major battle. We lost the war at home... and at home, John Kerry was the Field General.", Robert Elder

"My daughters and my wife have read portions of the book 'Tour of Duty.' They wanted to know if I took part in the atrocities described. I do not believe the things that are described happened. Let me give you an example. In Brinkley's book, on pages 170 to 171, about something called the 'Bo De massacre' on November 24th of 1968... In Kerry's description of the engagement, first he claimed there were 17 servicemen that were wounded. Three of us were wounded. I was the first...", Joseph Ponder

"Lt. Kerry returned home from the war to make some outrageous statements and allegations... of numerous criminal acts in violation of the law of war were cited by Kerry, disparaging those who had fought with honor in that conflict. Had war crimes been committed by US forces in Vietnam? Yes, but such acts were few and far between. Yet Lt. Kerry have numerous speeches and testimony before Congress inappropriately leading his audiences to believe that what was only an anomaly in the conduct of America's fighting men was an epidemic. Furthermore, he suggested that they were being encouraged to violated the law of war by those within the chain of command. Very specific orders, on file at the Vietnam archives at Texas Tech University, were issued by my father [Admiral Elmo Zumwalt] and others in his chain of command instructing subordinates to act responsibly in preserving the life and property of Vietnamese civilians.", Lt. Col. James Zumwalt, USMC (retired)

"We look at Vietnam... after all these years it is still languishing in isolated poverty and helplessness and tyranny. This is John Kerry's legacy. I deeply resent John Kerry's using his Swift boat experience, and his betrayal of those who fought there as a stepping-stone to his political ambitions.", Barnard Wolff

"In a whole year that I spent patrolling, I didn't see anything like a war crime, an atrocity, anything like that. Time and again I saw American fighting men put themselves in graver danger trying to avoid... collateral damage. When John Kerry returned to the country, he was sworn in front of Congress. And then he told my family, my parents, my sister, my brother, my neighbors, he told everyone I knew and everyone I'd ever know that I and my comrades had committed unspeakable atrocities.", David Wallace

"I was in An Thoi from June of '68 to June of '69, covering the whole period that John Kerry was there. I operated in every river, in every canal, and every off-shore patrol area in the 4th Corps area, from Cambodia all the way around to the Bo De River. I never saw, even heard of all of these so-called atrocities and things that we were supposed to have done. This is not true. We're not standing for it. We want to set the record straight.", William Shumadine

"In 1971, when John Kerry spoke out to America, labeling all Vietnam veterans as thugs and murderers, I was shocked and almost brought to my knees, because even though I had served at the same time and same unit, I had never witnessed or participated in any of the events that the Senator had accused us of. I strongly believe that the statements made by the Senator were not only false and inaccurate, but extremely harmful to the United States' efforts in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world. Tragically, some veterans, scorned by the antiwar movement and their allies, retreated to a life of despair and suicide. Two of my crew-mates were among them. For that there is no forgiveness. ", Richard O'Meara

"I served in Vietnam as a boat officer from June of 1968 to July of 1969. My service was three months in Coastal Division 13 out of Cat Lo, and nine months with Coastal Division 11 based in An Thoi. John Kerry was in An Thoi the same time I was. I'm here today to express the anger I have harbored for over 33 years, about being accused with my fellow shipmates of war atrocities. All I can say is when I leave here today, I'm going down to the Wall to tell my two crew members it's not true, and that they and the other 49 Swiftees who are on the Wall were then and are still now the best.", Robert Brant

"I never saw, heard of, or participated in any Swift boat crews killing cattle, poisoning crops, or raping and killing civilians as charged by John Kerry, both in his book and in public statements. Since we both operated at the same time, in the same general area, and on the same missions under the same commanders, it is hard to believe his claims of atrocities and poor planning of Sea Lord missions. I signed this letter because I feel that he used Swift boat sailors to proclaim his antiwar statements after the war, and now he uses the same Swift boat sailors to support his claims of being a war hero. He cannot have it both ways, and we are here to ask for full disclosure of the proof of his claims.", James Steffes

Question is: Where the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth actually telling the truth?

John Kerry's service in Vietnam as an officer in command of a Swift boat and his subsequent activities as an anti-war protester have engendered a good deal of controversy, especially among those who also served in Vietnam. Never mind his medals; how he earned them or what he did or did not do with them. That was small potatoes, even before the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth came along.

Many Vietnam veterans were angered by Kerry's anti-war stance after he returned to the U.S., viewing his anti-war activities, particularly his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, as unfairly and undeservedly smearing the reputations of all who served in Vietnam. Lord knows, there are multitudes of people who feel what he did/said was right on, as much as there are people who feel he was totally in the wrong.

Having said that, the quotes at the top of this piece, cannot be considered facts in and of themselves. Though it is true that the men named do exist, that they served in Vietnam, that they made the statements attributed to them, the statements themselves are mostly opinion on account they cannot be classified as right or wrong.

What's more, the comments of the Swift Vote Veterans are merely one half of the story. Altogether too many people are content with that, but I am not. As a journalist, I am naturally skeptical. That's not to say I think everything is a lie until proven true. It just means that I never believe I am being exposed to ALL the facts at any given time.

For