Mom & Dad around the time they got married.
Glada Runion at age 16-17.Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Does God Perform Miracles, Today?
Is God still in the miracle business? Was that just for some period of time in the past or does He still work the miraculous in our age? We can read in the Bible about the miracles during the period of the Old Testament - parting the water, speaking from a burning bush, creation, water flowing from a rock, etc. We read more in the New Testament where Jesus performed many miracles - raising the dead, healing the sick, water into wine, feeding the masses with a few fish and loaves of bread, walking on water, calming a storm, etc.
We know that Jesus sent out his disciples and gave them the power to work miracles. We find others performing miracles in various books of the Bible. But, has that all ended or is it still happening? Paul, wrote (I Cor. 12) that God gave miracles as one of the gifts to the church. Was it just for the Early Church or The Church. No where does it mention that the miracles of God were to cease at the end of the first century church.
We have all heard about "big-name" preachers performing miracles. Perhaps you have even watched some of this on TV or maybe even been in a meeting where these "miracles" were taking place. Are these for real or are these just a giant hoax to promote the "preacher", his ministry, or as a tool to raise funds? Sadly to say, much of this is not real or the work of God. Much of it is a show, a man-made display designed to dupe those watching. Sadly to say, the motive is money in some cases.
So, if what we see on TV, for the most part, is not real; are there real miracles performed by God, today? Can we ask God for a miracle and have any reason to believe that He just might answer? If you believe that miracles have ceased, you cannot believe that He would answer your prayer in that time of special need. You cannot look to God and trust that He cares for you sooo much that He would intervene and actually provide a miracle for you.
I admit that we do not seem to be seeing God doing the things like parting the Great Lakes in our age, but He is doing many other miracles in the lives of individuals. They may be small, when you stand back and look at them, but they are big to the one who needed the help He provided. God works in many ways and we cannot put a limit on the variety of forms of help he provides. Your miracle may come from the Holy Spirit speaking to someone's heart and that person following that voice and acting to help you. Another's miracle could be a direct action on your behalf that cannot be explained by natural terms.
God still works miracles! He has never stopped. I have witnessed God working in miraculous ways and have personally seen the result of miracles.
You and I can still go to God and ask for the impossible to become possible. We can have a confidence that our God still has the power and ability to move mountains, meet financial needs, and heal the sick. We can ask, believing that He hears our prayers and that what we are asking is not impossible for God and that He will not come back and tell us that it is too bad that we are in a post-miracle stage of the church.
My God has never lost His power! He is a miracle working Father who loves His children.
Do you need help? Are you in a place that there is no way out? God can make a way where there is no way. He can move the immovable. You can have confidence, when you pray, that God is more than able.
We know that Jesus sent out his disciples and gave them the power to work miracles. We find others performing miracles in various books of the Bible. But, has that all ended or is it still happening? Paul, wrote (I Cor. 12) that God gave miracles as one of the gifts to the church. Was it just for the Early Church or The Church. No where does it mention that the miracles of God were to cease at the end of the first century church.
We have all heard about "big-name" preachers performing miracles. Perhaps you have even watched some of this on TV or maybe even been in a meeting where these "miracles" were taking place. Are these for real or are these just a giant hoax to promote the "preacher", his ministry, or as a tool to raise funds? Sadly to say, much of this is not real or the work of God. Much of it is a show, a man-made display designed to dupe those watching. Sadly to say, the motive is money in some cases.
So, if what we see on TV, for the most part, is not real; are there real miracles performed by God, today? Can we ask God for a miracle and have any reason to believe that He just might answer? If you believe that miracles have ceased, you cannot believe that He would answer your prayer in that time of special need. You cannot look to God and trust that He cares for you sooo much that He would intervene and actually provide a miracle for you.
I admit that we do not seem to be seeing God doing the things like parting the Great Lakes in our age, but He is doing many other miracles in the lives of individuals. They may be small, when you stand back and look at them, but they are big to the one who needed the help He provided. God works in many ways and we cannot put a limit on the variety of forms of help he provides. Your miracle may come from the Holy Spirit speaking to someone's heart and that person following that voice and acting to help you. Another's miracle could be a direct action on your behalf that cannot be explained by natural terms.
God still works miracles! He has never stopped. I have witnessed God working in miraculous ways and have personally seen the result of miracles.
You and I can still go to God and ask for the impossible to become possible. We can have a confidence that our God still has the power and ability to move mountains, meet financial needs, and heal the sick. We can ask, believing that He hears our prayers and that what we are asking is not impossible for God and that He will not come back and tell us that it is too bad that we are in a post-miracle stage of the church.
My God has never lost His power! He is a miracle working Father who loves His children.
Do you need help? Are you in a place that there is no way out? God can make a way where there is no way. He can move the immovable. You can have confidence, when you pray, that God is more than able.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
War Journal - Nov. 26, 1944
A bombed out village.
A bombed out home near our place.26-Nov
Sunday
Had a busy day today - We were on the alert list as the spare crew. Naturally one ship couldn't make it so we had to go. Flew with the 451st. The target was a warehouse area just east of Strasbourg. Could not drop bombs due to weather although we went all the way to the target. No flak & no fighters. Got back to the field at noon & was briefed for the same mission immediately. Had one ship crash on the takeoff but the other extra crew went in its place. We spent the afternoon cleaning guns. The crew escaped from the crashed ship but the ship burned & the bombs exploded - furnished some fire works for us - A new ruling just came out preventing us from taking credit for the mission on the tenth so I have only six missions now.
Sunday
Had a busy day today - We were on the alert list as the spare crew. Naturally one ship couldn't make it so we had to go. Flew with the 451st. The target was a warehouse area just east of Strasbourg. Could not drop bombs due to weather although we went all the way to the target. No flak & no fighters. Got back to the field at noon & was briefed for the same mission immediately. Had one ship crash on the takeoff but the other extra crew went in its place. We spent the afternoon cleaning guns. The crew escaped from the crashed ship but the ship burned & the bombs exploded - furnished some fire works for us - A new ruling just came out preventing us from taking credit for the mission on the tenth so I have only six missions now.
Constitutional Rights
You have read and heard of the plan to try terrorists in civilian courts on our land, giving the enemy Constitutional Rights. You already know how I feel about that.
Now, it has been announced that three Navy Seals are being charged with "roughing-up" the enemy combatant that they captured in Iraq. The bad guy was the one that was responsible for the killing and mutilation of four Americans - private contractors working in Iraq as security guards for Blackwater. This took place in 2004 and these three Seals caught the guy.
Now, the Seals are facing court marshal in a military tribunal court. This setting allows them less rights than they would have in a civilian court. You do not have to read between the lines to reach the ultimate conclusion. Our government is more pro-terrorists and making sure that they have rights they are not entitled to receive, than they are pro-military and making sure our soldiers have the confidence that ALL of us are supporting their dangerous mission to fight to keep us ALL safe.
We now have an announcement that BO, after almost four months of demonstrating that he has no idea what he is doing as Commander-In-Chief, telling us that he will have another announcement in December as to what his decision is as to sending more troops to Afghanistan. The general, who BO appointed to run this war, asked for more troops last summer. It has taken this long for BO to figure out whether or not to send some.
The LWLRDs (left-wing, liberal, radical democrats) have declared war on America. They are openly cooperating with long-standing enemies of America. They are hiding their evil agenda behind words such as "Justice" and "Fairness" and "Compassion" and "Competition" etc. The truth is, they have no interest in any of those concepts. What they do care about are "Power" and "Control" and "Money".
Now, it has been announced that three Navy Seals are being charged with "roughing-up" the enemy combatant that they captured in Iraq. The bad guy was the one that was responsible for the killing and mutilation of four Americans - private contractors working in Iraq as security guards for Blackwater. This took place in 2004 and these three Seals caught the guy.
Now, the Seals are facing court marshal in a military tribunal court. This setting allows them less rights than they would have in a civilian court. You do not have to read between the lines to reach the ultimate conclusion. Our government is more pro-terrorists and making sure that they have rights they are not entitled to receive, than they are pro-military and making sure our soldiers have the confidence that ALL of us are supporting their dangerous mission to fight to keep us ALL safe.
We now have an announcement that BO, after almost four months of demonstrating that he has no idea what he is doing as Commander-In-Chief, telling us that he will have another announcement in December as to what his decision is as to sending more troops to Afghanistan. The general, who BO appointed to run this war, asked for more troops last summer. It has taken this long for BO to figure out whether or not to send some.
The LWLRDs (left-wing, liberal, radical democrats) have declared war on America. They are openly cooperating with long-standing enemies of America. They are hiding their evil agenda behind words such as "Justice" and "Fairness" and "Compassion" and "Competition" etc. The truth is, they have no interest in any of those concepts. What they do care about are "Power" and "Control" and "Money".
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Just Words?
We have heard the saying, "A man's word is his bond." It is similar to the concept of a handshake being sufficient to seal a deal. These both involve integrity. I believe that it is a strong indication of how others see you, as to whether or not they accept and/or believe the words that come out of your mouth. When you say that you will do something, is that just as good as a signed contract to the other party? Have you established that kind of a reputation?
As I observe our political leadership in Washington, I find few who I would believe the words that come out of their mouths. That is shameful! It should be embarrassing to each of them. These men and women are supposed to be the best we have to offer; yet, they settle into the offices and become "professional politicians". They learn to say what their audience wants to hear and then walk away and do whatever they really want to do. They can look you in the eye and make a promise that they never intend to keep or make a statement as if it were a proven fact, when they know that it is not true. It has become a situation where they demonstrate just how stupid they believe we all are and how little respect they have for the people they are supposed to be serving.
Our President leads many of these politicians by example. If you remember, during the campaign, BO was the only candidate on the stage who did not have his hand on his heart and was not citing the Pledge of Allegiance. He also was the only one without an American flag on his suit lapel. He was showing us who he really was, but most who noticed were quick to give him the benefit of the doubt. When it was brought to national attention, he began doing what the others were doing so that he would not stand out in a negative way. Now, he does not mind saying the Pledge when he is in front of other people because, to him, it is just words.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
BO can stand there and repeat these words and continue on to act exactly the opposite from what he just pledged. Let's analyze the pledge against BO's actions. First, he does not respect the flag or our country. He does not like the concept of America being a Republic. "Under God", forget it. He has no time or use for God, he is to busy playing a god himself. "Indivisible", not in his mind. He sets out to create division in the public and then uses that turmoil to launch his next government plan to solve the crisis. Liberty and justice are also not key concepts in his plan for you and me, much less "for all". Just words!
There was another statement he made when beginning his term as President, it was the oath of office. It has one part that would be troubling to BO, if he were concerned about the things he said matching the things he did. This would be the part about the Constitution.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
That last part must have almost stuck in this throat as he was repeating the oath of office. Well, at least it should have as he was well aware that he did not mean any part of that phrase. To him, they are just words that had to be said in order to transition into office. Sure, he would say whatever he needed to say, or do whatever he needed to do in order to take power. Once that has transpired, he felt free to be the real BO - a radical, left-wing, socialist who hates what America stands for and what it was founded to be, fully intending to bring "change" to the nation.
Just words! The Pledge, the oath, the Constitution. All just a bunch of words that he has brushed aside so that they would not get in his way.
As I observe our political leadership in Washington, I find few who I would believe the words that come out of their mouths. That is shameful! It should be embarrassing to each of them. These men and women are supposed to be the best we have to offer; yet, they settle into the offices and become "professional politicians". They learn to say what their audience wants to hear and then walk away and do whatever they really want to do. They can look you in the eye and make a promise that they never intend to keep or make a statement as if it were a proven fact, when they know that it is not true. It has become a situation where they demonstrate just how stupid they believe we all are and how little respect they have for the people they are supposed to be serving.
Our President leads many of these politicians by example. If you remember, during the campaign, BO was the only candidate on the stage who did not have his hand on his heart and was not citing the Pledge of Allegiance. He also was the only one without an American flag on his suit lapel. He was showing us who he really was, but most who noticed were quick to give him the benefit of the doubt. When it was brought to national attention, he began doing what the others were doing so that he would not stand out in a negative way. Now, he does not mind saying the Pledge when he is in front of other people because, to him, it is just words.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
BO can stand there and repeat these words and continue on to act exactly the opposite from what he just pledged. Let's analyze the pledge against BO's actions. First, he does not respect the flag or our country. He does not like the concept of America being a Republic. "Under God", forget it. He has no time or use for God, he is to busy playing a god himself. "Indivisible", not in his mind. He sets out to create division in the public and then uses that turmoil to launch his next government plan to solve the crisis. Liberty and justice are also not key concepts in his plan for you and me, much less "for all". Just words!
There was another statement he made when beginning his term as President, it was the oath of office. It has one part that would be troubling to BO, if he were concerned about the things he said matching the things he did. This would be the part about the Constitution.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
That last part must have almost stuck in this throat as he was repeating the oath of office. Well, at least it should have as he was well aware that he did not mean any part of that phrase. To him, they are just words that had to be said in order to transition into office. Sure, he would say whatever he needed to say, or do whatever he needed to do in order to take power. Once that has transpired, he felt free to be the real BO - a radical, left-wing, socialist who hates what America stands for and what it was founded to be, fully intending to bring "change" to the nation.
Just words! The Pledge, the oath, the Constitution. All just a bunch of words that he has brushed aside so that they would not get in his way.
Monday, November 23, 2009
A Jury of Peers
As mentioned in an earlier posting, the forthcoming trial in a civilian court of the mastermind for the 9/11 attack on America presents several dangerous issues.
The Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by jury - a jury of peers of the one on trial. So, what is a peer? According to dictionary.com, these are definitions for "peers": 1-a person of the same legal status, 2-an equal in civil standing, 3-one of the same age or social set.
Not even considering the fact that this guy was not read his Miranda Rights, so that all confessions and some evidence used previously are inadmissible in court for this trial; just take this one issue and examine it - a jury of his peers.
The accused is a foreigner, a Muslim, a radical Islamist extremist who believes that all people who do not believe as he does should be killed. Who are his peers?
1-a person of the same legal status. His legal status is a foreigner, a non-American.
2.an equal in civil standing. His civil standing is that he is hear illegally and should have no Constitutional rights.
3.one of the same age or social set. Age may not be a problem from the jury pool, but the same social set may be an issue. What is the social status of a radical, Islamist terrorist? To guarantee his "rights" for a jury of his peers would mean there should be strong consideration to including those who he would socialize with if he were free to walk around America.
How do you seat a jury of 12 (more with alternates) who meet this requirement of being his peers? It almost seems that you would have to find Arabs who are also radical Islamists who have no legal status in this country. To make the process a lot easier and faster, we should waterboard this guy and get the names of his buddies who are already here and just use them. Our US Attorney General would probably be fine with granting them all immunity from prosecution or deportation in order to get their assistance for this trial.
If the defense attorneys do their job, they will insist of jury selection of those most favorable to the cause of their client. Remember, it only takes one juror to not go along with the other eleven in order to have a hung jury. To convict this guy will mean that all 12 are unanimous. We have to prosecute this guy, using a jury of his peers, not being allowed to use his confession or any other information we got from him from our "interrogation techniques".
Germany, who holds some of the evidence against him, is against the death penalty and may insist that the death penalty is off of the table before they will cooperate.
The jury, judge, prosecuting attorneys and their families will all be subject to threat or intimidation or violence from other radicals sympathetic to this guy.
As I warned you earlier, there is a good chance this guy will walk out the courthouse doors as a free man.
BO and his AG are well aware of all of this and they do not have a problem with any of it. This IS their agenda for us!
Remember, they were at war with us but we were not at war with them. It is A.R.II.
The Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by jury - a jury of peers of the one on trial. So, what is a peer? According to dictionary.com, these are definitions for "peers": 1-a person of the same legal status, 2-an equal in civil standing, 3-one of the same age or social set.
Not even considering the fact that this guy was not read his Miranda Rights, so that all confessions and some evidence used previously are inadmissible in court for this trial; just take this one issue and examine it - a jury of his peers.
The accused is a foreigner, a Muslim, a radical Islamist extremist who believes that all people who do not believe as he does should be killed. Who are his peers?
1-a person of the same legal status. His legal status is a foreigner, a non-American.
2.an equal in civil standing. His civil standing is that he is hear illegally and should have no Constitutional rights.
3.one of the same age or social set. Age may not be a problem from the jury pool, but the same social set may be an issue. What is the social status of a radical, Islamist terrorist? To guarantee his "rights" for a jury of his peers would mean there should be strong consideration to including those who he would socialize with if he were free to walk around America.
How do you seat a jury of 12 (more with alternates) who meet this requirement of being his peers? It almost seems that you would have to find Arabs who are also radical Islamists who have no legal status in this country. To make the process a lot easier and faster, we should waterboard this guy and get the names of his buddies who are already here and just use them. Our US Attorney General would probably be fine with granting them all immunity from prosecution or deportation in order to get their assistance for this trial.
If the defense attorneys do their job, they will insist of jury selection of those most favorable to the cause of their client. Remember, it only takes one juror to not go along with the other eleven in order to have a hung jury. To convict this guy will mean that all 12 are unanimous. We have to prosecute this guy, using a jury of his peers, not being allowed to use his confession or any other information we got from him from our "interrogation techniques".
Germany, who holds some of the evidence against him, is against the death penalty and may insist that the death penalty is off of the table before they will cooperate.
The jury, judge, prosecuting attorneys and their families will all be subject to threat or intimidation or violence from other radicals sympathetic to this guy.
As I warned you earlier, there is a good chance this guy will walk out the courthouse doors as a free man.
BO and his AG are well aware of all of this and they do not have a problem with any of it. This IS their agenda for us!
Remember, they were at war with us but we were not at war with them. It is A.R.II.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Saturday Night Dates
Have you noticed a new trend in Washington, D. C., lately? First the House and now the Senate have taken to holding very important votes on Saturday evenings. Both had to do with passage of Healthcare. To show the importance of the votes, just take note of how many of our politicians were present to vote - I believe, every single one of them, except for on Senator.
When the House recently passed their version of the Healthcare Reform, The cRats needed at least 218 to have a majority. The final vote was 220 in favor and 215 against. One iCan't voted yes and about 35 cRats voted no. Tonight, the Senate voted as to whether their version of Healthcare Reform (which consists of Harry Reid's combination of two different bills forwarded out of two different committees and is over 2,000 pages long) would proceed to floor debate in the next few days. In the Senate, they need 60 of the 100 votes to pass. There are 58 cRats, 2 Indecided's, and 40 iCan'ts. If any cRats jumped ship, Reid's plan would sink. The final vote was 60 yes and 39 no. It will proceed to floor debate after Thanksgiving.
I thought you might like one comment made by a Republican prior to the vote, Missouri Sen. Kit Bond said there were so many objectionable portions to the bill that his colleagues had a hard time choosing which ones to go after first. "We're like a mosquito in a nudist colony. We have so many targets to attack in this bill we don't know which one to hit."
When the House recently passed their version of the Healthcare Reform, The cRats needed at least 218 to have a majority. The final vote was 220 in favor and 215 against. One iCan't voted yes and about 35 cRats voted no. Tonight, the Senate voted as to whether their version of Healthcare Reform (which consists of Harry Reid's combination of two different bills forwarded out of two different committees and is over 2,000 pages long) would proceed to floor debate in the next few days. In the Senate, they need 60 of the 100 votes to pass. There are 58 cRats, 2 Indecided's, and 40 iCan'ts. If any cRats jumped ship, Reid's plan would sink. The final vote was 60 yes and 39 no. It will proceed to floor debate after Thanksgiving.
I thought you might like one comment made by a Republican prior to the vote, Missouri Sen. Kit Bond said there were so many objectionable portions to the bill that his colleagues had a hard time choosing which ones to go after first. "We're like a mosquito in a nudist colony. We have so many targets to attack in this bill we don't know which one to hit."
Just a Tidbit
Ran across something while reading in the New York Harold newspaper, dated May 21, 1865.
The English press, prior to the civil war, referred to the U.S. as "Jefferson Bricks". They made fun of American boasting by writing that Americans claimed "to be able to dive deeper, come up drier, and swim faster than any other people on the face of the earth."
When the Civil War was over, they had a new respect for our country and wrote that President Johnson is the ruler of "the mightiest nation in the modern civilized world."
The English press, prior to the civil war, referred to the U.S. as "Jefferson Bricks". They made fun of American boasting by writing that Americans claimed "to be able to dive deeper, come up drier, and swim faster than any other people on the face of the earth."
When the Civil War was over, they had a new respect for our country and wrote that President Johnson is the ruler of "the mightiest nation in the modern civilized world."
Saturday, November 21, 2009
The Gettysburg Address
Some of the dead soldiers at Gettysburg.
President Lincoln on the stage at Gettysburg.It may have gone unnoticed this week that we had an anniversary of an important event on the history of our cournty. Please take the time to read.
The Gettysburg Address
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us --that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion-- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
The Gettysburg Address
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us --that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion-- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
MLK Was Right
Martin Luther King, Jr. is well known and respected for many things, one of which is a statement he made in one of his most famous speeches, "I Have a Dream", given on August 28, 1963; at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D. C. Within this speech, he said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
MLK was one of the key figures in the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's. He was absolutely correct when he desired a time when all men would be judged by the content on one's character and not the color of one's skin.
In the current U. S. political situation, it is time for judgement. It is time for openness and honesty in that judgement. It is time for freedom to judge a man based on his character and not to be afraid of the color of his skin. Fear, not because of him being black or white or any shade in-between, but fear because of the negative connotation of a white man judging a black man and the white man being instantly accused of racism.
If MLK meant what he said, and I believe that he did, then it goes both ways. Whites should not judge blacks because of being black. Blacks should not judge whites because of being white. A man should stand or fall based on the content of his character. If a white man has low standards that have resulted in a bad character, then he should be judged according, no matter what color the judge happens to be. Same for a black man with a bad character, he should be faced with an honest judgement solely because of his low standards, even if the judge is white.
We have all seen pictures of the statue where the lady is holding the scales of justice. Have you noticed that she is blindfolded? Why are her eyes hidden? Because judgement and justice are supposed to be color blind, among other things.
If I do something wrong, I am wrong regardless of the color of my skin and regardless of the color of the skin on the man who points it out.
For the betterment of our future, there needs to be free and open judgement of Obama. He can no longer hide behind dark skin as a shield from criticism. His supporters need to be silenced when their response to Obama being judged, is an automatic accusation of "racism". You have to give them credit, it has worked. Obama has been held out of the path of judgement, by many, due to race, not character.
I believe it is safe to say that Obama won the election because of race. I do not believe he would have been the nominee for the Democratic party if he were not black (or at least half black). He won, without a clear message or agenda or plan. He won with no experience. He won in spite of his associations with anti-Americans. He won without ever having to prove he is a natural born citizen. There is no good reason this man should be President. But he is and it is because he played the "race card".
The result of electing "the first black President", without there being a proper and thorough judgement of the man behind the dark skin, has been a disaster for our country. We have one of two situations: either we have a President who is completely incompetent, in way-over-his-head but to impressed with himself to admit it, and totally unqualified for the position; or, we have an un-American, freedom hater, who covets power and control over the people who voted him into office. It is one of the two. Either one is a disaster for our nation. The first, we should be able to recover from; the second, we may never recover from.
Put on the blindfold - judge the man. He should not get a pass because of the color of his skin, but he should be held accountable due to the content of his character.
(If you are not familiar with King's speech, "I Have a Dream", you should read it. Here is a link to a page with that speech - http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html - happy reading.)
MLK was one of the key figures in the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's. He was absolutely correct when he desired a time when all men would be judged by the content on one's character and not the color of one's skin.
In the current U. S. political situation, it is time for judgement. It is time for openness and honesty in that judgement. It is time for freedom to judge a man based on his character and not to be afraid of the color of his skin. Fear, not because of him being black or white or any shade in-between, but fear because of the negative connotation of a white man judging a black man and the white man being instantly accused of racism.
If MLK meant what he said, and I believe that he did, then it goes both ways. Whites should not judge blacks because of being black. Blacks should not judge whites because of being white. A man should stand or fall based on the content of his character. If a white man has low standards that have resulted in a bad character, then he should be judged according, no matter what color the judge happens to be. Same for a black man with a bad character, he should be faced with an honest judgement solely because of his low standards, even if the judge is white.
We have all seen pictures of the statue where the lady is holding the scales of justice. Have you noticed that she is blindfolded? Why are her eyes hidden? Because judgement and justice are supposed to be color blind, among other things.
If I do something wrong, I am wrong regardless of the color of my skin and regardless of the color of the skin on the man who points it out.
For the betterment of our future, there needs to be free and open judgement of Obama. He can no longer hide behind dark skin as a shield from criticism. His supporters need to be silenced when their response to Obama being judged, is an automatic accusation of "racism". You have to give them credit, it has worked. Obama has been held out of the path of judgement, by many, due to race, not character.
I believe it is safe to say that Obama won the election because of race. I do not believe he would have been the nominee for the Democratic party if he were not black (or at least half black). He won, without a clear message or agenda or plan. He won with no experience. He won in spite of his associations with anti-Americans. He won without ever having to prove he is a natural born citizen. There is no good reason this man should be President. But he is and it is because he played the "race card".
The result of electing "the first black President", without there being a proper and thorough judgement of the man behind the dark skin, has been a disaster for our country. We have one of two situations: either we have a President who is completely incompetent, in way-over-his-head but to impressed with himself to admit it, and totally unqualified for the position; or, we have an un-American, freedom hater, who covets power and control over the people who voted him into office. It is one of the two. Either one is a disaster for our nation. The first, we should be able to recover from; the second, we may never recover from.
Put on the blindfold - judge the man. He should not get a pass because of the color of his skin, but he should be held accountable due to the content of his character.
(If you are not familiar with King's speech, "I Have a Dream", you should read it. Here is a link to a page with that speech - http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html - happy reading.)
Friday, November 20, 2009
War Journal - Nov. 21, 1944
Front of an enlisted men's tent. Our's looks something like this - same size.
What a bomb can do to a building!21-Nov
Tuesday
Pulled another mission today but had to turn back about 20 minutes from the target due to bad weather. Our target was Homberg marshaling yards - the deepest in Germany we have ever gone. Was on detail this afternoon building a new control tower. The alert for tomorrow show several four ship flights & the old timers say that is a low level formation. We are on it and there is a lot of speculation as to what we are going to get. This group has always pioneered all new devices & types of flying for medium bombardment.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Setting Captives Free
As we could go different directions with that title, you must realize that my political thoughts are beginning to pile on top of each other - so, that is the way this will go.
Most of you realize that the Attorney General (AG) for BO (BO) recently announced that the decision has been made to bring at least five of the Guantanamo (not to be confused with Guantonimario) detainees to New York to stand trial. This move has several serious problems, but should not surprise us a great deal based on what they have previously stated and other actions they have taken.
BO's administration (BOA) announced early in the year that terrorists are not really terrorists, but enemy combatants. Also, "acts of terrorism" are "man made disasters" and our government and military are not to use the term "war on terror". BO campaigned on the promise of closing Guantanamo prison and followed through by making the announcement that he was proceeding with that goal as one of his first statements as the new President. He has stated that the prison, which houses known terrorists and some of those captured fighting against our soldiers in the war (in other words, prisoners of war), will be closed this coming January.
When he first made that announcement, it appears that he had no plan or idea as to what to do with the men being held in that prison. Some of these guys are as bad as they come and include men like the one who planned the 9/11 attack on America (we will call him Mohammad - or Momad, for short). BO also promised that we would never use waterboarding again to get information from prisoners. It just so happens that Momad was on the receiving end of waterboarding, several times. This "interrogation technique" resulted in a confession as to his role in the 9/11 attack and his divulging other terrorists names, their locations and plans that were in the works. This information gave us the needed intelligence to make arrests, stop attacks on our soil, and save American lives.
Those goals are not the goals of the BOA. Their goal is to weaken our nation, apologize for America, embarrass our military, negate our advantage in intelligence gathering, and appease the rest of the liberal countries in the world.
During the past few months, we have observed two released Gitmo prisoners on the beach in the Bahamas. Evidently, since the BOA could not find any country to take these two guys, our tax money was being used to house them in a resort.
So, now the AG is going to bring Momad and at least four other prisoners to New York, where they will be tried for crimes in our court system. Momad will be in a courtroom that is only a few blocks away from the result of his handiwork - Ground Zero - the hole in the ground where the twin towers once stood.
Momad has already had a military trial. He confessed in the trial, was found guilty, and he asked for the death penalty. That was not good enough for BO. We will take him onto our soil, where we grant all residents Constitutional rights and protections, and try him in a public setting in a civilian court.
This man is a part of Al-Quaida, the organization that declared war on America. He not only is a terrorist but is a part of our enemy in a war they declared on us. He is a prisoner of war (POW). In the history of our country, we have never taken POWs and granted them Constitutional rights and tried them in open court on our soil. This situation is exactly why we have military courts.
Bringing him to NY for trial poses the following problems:
1. It opens up emotional wounds to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11.
2. It invites terrorists actions against NY, again, in a possible attempt to rescue Momad.
3. It will be a media circus and cost millions of dollars, of our money, for security.
4. It puts the jury, their families, the judge, his/her family, the lawyers, their families all at risk.
5. We will pay millions more for his defense team of lawyers - even though he has already confessed.
6. Granting him the rights and privileges of a citizen raises several legal issues: a. Was he read his Miranda rights? b. Will his confession be thrown out of court? c. Will he be allowed bail? d. Will anything that he has said in the past be allowed to be used by the prosecution in court? e. Will he have the right to face his accusers and who are the witnesses against him? f. Either his defense team will have access to top secret CIA and FBI intelligence or the intelligence used to find and capture him will not be used in open court. g. Did the AG and BOA hank-pick this district in NY for the trial due to wanting a certain judge who would be more favorable to their agenda? h. Will the trial be an occasion for the left to put the CIA and Bush/Cheney on trial?
7. What about a right to a speedy trial?
8. Where will we find a jury of his peers?
9. His defense team will have numerous issues to place before the judge requesting the case against Momad be thrown out of court. Either the judge will have to seriously consider doing just that and setting him free, or the judge will have to go against legal precedent, which would be grounds for appeal.
There is a good chance that Momad and some of the others will not have to complete a trial and that the judge will order them set free. When that happens, they will walk out the front door of the courthouse (laughing at how stupid and weak we are) and about the only thing that can be done is to deport them for being illegal aliens - and we know how serious the BOA is about that issue.
Mark my words! Some of these guys will walk away as free men!
When the AG was asked as to why some are coming here for trial and others are facing a military trial? He answered that the issue has to do with what they did, where they did it and who were the victims. Since these five attacked US citizens on US soil, this is being considered a criminal act and they will face criminal trial. Others were caught attacking US interests, such as the USS Cole, attacking US soldiers on the battlefield and not on US soil. These will face a military trial.
So, what the summary tells us and future terrorists, is that if you attack US citizens on US soil, we will reward you with granting you special rights and privileges reserved for US citizens.
The BOA has a pre-9/11 mindset. They are treating terrorist activity as individual criminal actions and not a part of a larger war against our nation and our way of life. The guy who killed the soldiers in Texas, a couple weeks ago, is being considered as a criminal who "just snapped" due to the pressure. Trouble is, he had not yet faced any of the pressure they are crediting him with and his "snapping" was planned ahead of time. He bought the guns last August, had clips capable of holding 40 (I believe) rounds, each. He had business cards that stated he was a soldier of Islam. He argued with true Americans about the war, etc. Before the dead and wounded were even removed from the scene of the attack, we were hearing "official announcements" from our government that were reassuring us that this was a random crime and not related to terrorism. They could not have possibly known that, at that time, and have been proved to be wrong since then.
Most of you realize that the Attorney General (AG) for BO (BO) recently announced that the decision has been made to bring at least five of the Guantanamo (not to be confused with Guantonimario) detainees to New York to stand trial. This move has several serious problems, but should not surprise us a great deal based on what they have previously stated and other actions they have taken.
BO's administration (BOA) announced early in the year that terrorists are not really terrorists, but enemy combatants. Also, "acts of terrorism" are "man made disasters" and our government and military are not to use the term "war on terror". BO campaigned on the promise of closing Guantanamo prison and followed through by making the announcement that he was proceeding with that goal as one of his first statements as the new President. He has stated that the prison, which houses known terrorists and some of those captured fighting against our soldiers in the war (in other words, prisoners of war), will be closed this coming January.
When he first made that announcement, it appears that he had no plan or idea as to what to do with the men being held in that prison. Some of these guys are as bad as they come and include men like the one who planned the 9/11 attack on America (we will call him Mohammad - or Momad, for short). BO also promised that we would never use waterboarding again to get information from prisoners. It just so happens that Momad was on the receiving end of waterboarding, several times. This "interrogation technique" resulted in a confession as to his role in the 9/11 attack and his divulging other terrorists names, their locations and plans that were in the works. This information gave us the needed intelligence to make arrests, stop attacks on our soil, and save American lives.
Those goals are not the goals of the BOA. Their goal is to weaken our nation, apologize for America, embarrass our military, negate our advantage in intelligence gathering, and appease the rest of the liberal countries in the world.
During the past few months, we have observed two released Gitmo prisoners on the beach in the Bahamas. Evidently, since the BOA could not find any country to take these two guys, our tax money was being used to house them in a resort.
So, now the AG is going to bring Momad and at least four other prisoners to New York, where they will be tried for crimes in our court system. Momad will be in a courtroom that is only a few blocks away from the result of his handiwork - Ground Zero - the hole in the ground where the twin towers once stood.
Momad has already had a military trial. He confessed in the trial, was found guilty, and he asked for the death penalty. That was not good enough for BO. We will take him onto our soil, where we grant all residents Constitutional rights and protections, and try him in a public setting in a civilian court.
This man is a part of Al-Quaida, the organization that declared war on America. He not only is a terrorist but is a part of our enemy in a war they declared on us. He is a prisoner of war (POW). In the history of our country, we have never taken POWs and granted them Constitutional rights and tried them in open court on our soil. This situation is exactly why we have military courts.
Bringing him to NY for trial poses the following problems:
1. It opens up emotional wounds to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11.
2. It invites terrorists actions against NY, again, in a possible attempt to rescue Momad.
3. It will be a media circus and cost millions of dollars, of our money, for security.
4. It puts the jury, their families, the judge, his/her family, the lawyers, their families all at risk.
5. We will pay millions more for his defense team of lawyers - even though he has already confessed.
6. Granting him the rights and privileges of a citizen raises several legal issues: a. Was he read his Miranda rights? b. Will his confession be thrown out of court? c. Will he be allowed bail? d. Will anything that he has said in the past be allowed to be used by the prosecution in court? e. Will he have the right to face his accusers and who are the witnesses against him? f. Either his defense team will have access to top secret CIA and FBI intelligence or the intelligence used to find and capture him will not be used in open court. g. Did the AG and BOA hank-pick this district in NY for the trial due to wanting a certain judge who would be more favorable to their agenda? h. Will the trial be an occasion for the left to put the CIA and Bush/Cheney on trial?
7. What about a right to a speedy trial?
8. Where will we find a jury of his peers?
9. His defense team will have numerous issues to place before the judge requesting the case against Momad be thrown out of court. Either the judge will have to seriously consider doing just that and setting him free, or the judge will have to go against legal precedent, which would be grounds for appeal.
There is a good chance that Momad and some of the others will not have to complete a trial and that the judge will order them set free. When that happens, they will walk out the front door of the courthouse (laughing at how stupid and weak we are) and about the only thing that can be done is to deport them for being illegal aliens - and we know how serious the BOA is about that issue.
Mark my words! Some of these guys will walk away as free men!
When the AG was asked as to why some are coming here for trial and others are facing a military trial? He answered that the issue has to do with what they did, where they did it and who were the victims. Since these five attacked US citizens on US soil, this is being considered a criminal act and they will face criminal trial. Others were caught attacking US interests, such as the USS Cole, attacking US soldiers on the battlefield and not on US soil. These will face a military trial.
So, what the summary tells us and future terrorists, is that if you attack US citizens on US soil, we will reward you with granting you special rights and privileges reserved for US citizens.
The BOA has a pre-9/11 mindset. They are treating terrorist activity as individual criminal actions and not a part of a larger war against our nation and our way of life. The guy who killed the soldiers in Texas, a couple weeks ago, is being considered as a criminal who "just snapped" due to the pressure. Trouble is, he had not yet faced any of the pressure they are crediting him with and his "snapping" was planned ahead of time. He bought the guns last August, had clips capable of holding 40 (I believe) rounds, each. He had business cards that stated he was a soldier of Islam. He argued with true Americans about the war, etc. Before the dead and wounded were even removed from the scene of the attack, we were hearing "official announcements" from our government that were reassuring us that this was a random crime and not related to terrorism. They could not have possibly known that, at that time, and have been proved to be wrong since then.
War Journal - Nov. 18, 1944
These ships are just forming up getting ready to go out.18-Nov
Saturday
Found out yesterday that the mission we turned back on on the 10th did count as a mission as we were over Germany. That was my fourth - Made another mission today in support of the 1st French Army near the Belfort Gap. The target was a bridge over the Rhine River between Mulhouse & Mulheim Germany about ten miles north of Switzerland. It was our first mission in good weather. I didn't get airsick and there was plenty to see. Clear all the way - saw an artillery duel near the border - two small towns completely aflame - miles & miles of snow including the Alps in Switzerland. Encountered heavy flak over the target. It was so close I could see the flame from several burst. We were the last flight over the target so we got everything. Got only one flak hole in the ship.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
War Journal - Nov. 15, 1944
Co-Pilot Cowart, in front of his pup tent. When I ran across this photo, I emailed it to Gene Cowart and asked him what was on his mind? His response:"Thanks Mike, sure appreciate it-as to what I was thinking--(I think) might go like this-How do I get out of this fix, or-The recruiting officer never mentioned this, or-I only signed up cause I thought the wings and uniform would help me get girls, and now this. Actually it just shows the flyboy's version of the 1000 yard stare."
15-Nov
Wednesday
Life as usual the past few days. Weather kept us grounded almost continually. Two of the crews mentioned on Nov. 10 as missing were lost over Germany - to the weather. Some were seen to bail out but flak burst followed them to the ground so they were probably dead.
Monday, November 9, 2009
What Price - Liberty?
What is the price of liberty?
Does it have a different price and/or value when the liberty is for someone else, other than you?
What are people willing to pay in order to have liberty?
What would you pay to be free?
What has already been paid for our liberty?
Is liberty worth keeping?
Is liberty worth sacrifice?
Is liberty worth fighting for?
For us to answer any of those questions, we need to first ask these:
What is liberty?
Is Liberty a Right?
Where does the right of liberty come from?
"Liberty", according to Dictionary.com, is:
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
The "Declaration of Independence" has the following quote:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This quote not only defines "liberty" as being a right, but lists it as one of the basic rights granted to men by God.
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution is as follows:
"We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
It would appear that the founding fathers of our nation thought that the concept of liberty was pretty important. So much so, that they dealt with "liberty" in both the Declaration of Independence (DOI) and the introduction to the Constitution. They not only wrote about liberty, but were willing to fight for their liberty. They spelled out that as they went to war to secure their liberty, they were also fighting for the liberty of those who would follow after them - "our posterity".
The DOI goes on to add, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Did you get that? Governments are instituted among men for the purpose of securing and protecting our Rights!
So, what were these guys willing to do or pay for the Right of Liberty? The answer is given in the last sentence of the DOI, "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Was this just flowery words or did they really mean what they said? When these men, as leaders of the Colonies, gathered and wrote the DOI, it was no small matter. When they wrote and then signed their names to this document, they knew, without a doubt, that they would be called upon to possibly sacrifice all that they had, all that they were and their very lives. These same men then went on to be leaders in the Revolutionary War - or the War of Independence for the United States. Many of them suffered great hardship and some even death. They put "shoe leather" behind their signature.
Tremendous hardship was suffered by the Colonists in order to gain independence from England. Many men and women paid with their lives for Liberty for the rest of us in the establishment of America. There were birth pains!
Since the War of Independence, other generations have fought and died for the Liberty of the rest of us and for those who would follow their sacrifice. These souls paid with blood the price of freedom for others.
So, what is the price of Liberty? The price to be paid is whatever it takes, whatever is required. The result of the Revolutionary War was a new nation. The question, for each generation, is whether we value and guard our liberty and liberty for our posterity, enough to be willing to pay the price to keep it.
At the end of the Constitutional Convention on September 18, 1787, as Benjamin Franklin exited, a lady asked him, "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic, if you can keep it." responded Franklin.
Is Liberty worth keeping, worth sacrifice, worth fighting for?
"Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood" (The Revolutionary Writings of John Adams, Thompson, ed. [28]).
1775 - letter to Abigail Adams "But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever" (Adam's Family Correspondence, Butterfield, ed. vol. 1 [241]).
If John Adams was right, this decision must be made on a generational basis. If any generation decides that freedom is not worth the price required, it will be lost and lost forever. Each generation has a responsibility to protect and to pass on that liberty to the next generation. Each age presents challenges to men being free. We are presently facing one such challenge.
Our very Constitution, that has cost countless lives in it's defense, is systematically being dismantled. Our rights and liberties are being stripped from us, bit-by-bit.
The most recent example is the recent passage of the healthcare reform bill in the House of Representatives. This bill is not about improving health care, it is not about the "uninsured", it is not about "choice or competition", it is not about reducing cost. It is plain and simply about power. The people pushing this bill talk compassion, but desire control. If any of the current Democratic plans for reforming our health care industry pass and become law, we all will lose a major chunk of our liberty.
The final vote in the House had it passing with a slim margin of only two extra "Yay" votes. In order to have a majority, 218 votes in favor were required. It gained 220. As an indication of the importance of this bill and vote, even though it was held on a Saturday evening, all 435 U.S. Representatives were present and voted. (Good thing Obama was not a member, he would have voted "present"). To their credit, every one of them put a yes or no after their name. Now, they will all be held accountable for how they voted. One Republican joined with the Democrat majority to pass the bill. 39 Democrats voted against the bill.
What price - Liberty? Over the coming weeks we should be able to see the price for surrendering liberty. "Yes" votes were bought by the Democratic leadership. How high of a price did certain Representatives hold out for before they would vote to surrender some of our liberty, forever? We will see. We will learn that to some, all it took was the guarantee that some "pork barrel" project back home will get federal funding. To others, all it took was the dropping of the provision to fund abortions. Although that is no small price, I believe you will see that the federal funding of abortions is a "must have provision" for the Left and no doubt it will be added back into the bill before it becomes law. One by one, votes were bought, up to the point where passage was guaranteed. To many of our leaders, the price of our liberty is not worth fighting over and they are willing to lessen our freedom in order to strengthen their power.
Where are the patriots? Where can you find someone who is principled? Who will pledge their Lives, Fortunes and sacred Honor for Liberty? We have American soldiers fighting and shedding blood for the freedom of people around the world. What price are we willing to pay for our own Liberty?
Whether we like it our not, we are in A.R.II (American Revolution II).
Does it have a different price and/or value when the liberty is for someone else, other than you?
What are people willing to pay in order to have liberty?
What would you pay to be free?
What has already been paid for our liberty?
Is liberty worth keeping?
Is liberty worth sacrifice?
Is liberty worth fighting for?
For us to answer any of those questions, we need to first ask these:
What is liberty?
Is Liberty a Right?
Where does the right of liberty come from?
"Liberty", according to Dictionary.com, is:
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
The "Declaration of Independence" has the following quote:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This quote not only defines "liberty" as being a right, but lists it as one of the basic rights granted to men by God.
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution is as follows:
"We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
It would appear that the founding fathers of our nation thought that the concept of liberty was pretty important. So much so, that they dealt with "liberty" in both the Declaration of Independence (DOI) and the introduction to the Constitution. They not only wrote about liberty, but were willing to fight for their liberty. They spelled out that as they went to war to secure their liberty, they were also fighting for the liberty of those who would follow after them - "our posterity".
The DOI goes on to add, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Did you get that? Governments are instituted among men for the purpose of securing and protecting our Rights!
So, what were these guys willing to do or pay for the Right of Liberty? The answer is given in the last sentence of the DOI, "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Was this just flowery words or did they really mean what they said? When these men, as leaders of the Colonies, gathered and wrote the DOI, it was no small matter. When they wrote and then signed their names to this document, they knew, without a doubt, that they would be called upon to possibly sacrifice all that they had, all that they were and their very lives. These same men then went on to be leaders in the Revolutionary War - or the War of Independence for the United States. Many of them suffered great hardship and some even death. They put "shoe leather" behind their signature.
Tremendous hardship was suffered by the Colonists in order to gain independence from England. Many men and women paid with their lives for Liberty for the rest of us in the establishment of America. There were birth pains!
Since the War of Independence, other generations have fought and died for the Liberty of the rest of us and for those who would follow their sacrifice. These souls paid with blood the price of freedom for others.
So, what is the price of Liberty? The price to be paid is whatever it takes, whatever is required. The result of the Revolutionary War was a new nation. The question, for each generation, is whether we value and guard our liberty and liberty for our posterity, enough to be willing to pay the price to keep it.
At the end of the Constitutional Convention on September 18, 1787, as Benjamin Franklin exited, a lady asked him, "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic, if you can keep it." responded Franklin.
Is Liberty worth keeping, worth sacrifice, worth fighting for?
"Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood" (The Revolutionary Writings of John Adams, Thompson, ed. [28]).
1775 - letter to Abigail Adams "But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever" (Adam's Family Correspondence, Butterfield, ed. vol. 1 [241]).
If John Adams was right, this decision must be made on a generational basis. If any generation decides that freedom is not worth the price required, it will be lost and lost forever. Each generation has a responsibility to protect and to pass on that liberty to the next generation. Each age presents challenges to men being free. We are presently facing one such challenge.
Our very Constitution, that has cost countless lives in it's defense, is systematically being dismantled. Our rights and liberties are being stripped from us, bit-by-bit.
The most recent example is the recent passage of the healthcare reform bill in the House of Representatives. This bill is not about improving health care, it is not about the "uninsured", it is not about "choice or competition", it is not about reducing cost. It is plain and simply about power. The people pushing this bill talk compassion, but desire control. If any of the current Democratic plans for reforming our health care industry pass and become law, we all will lose a major chunk of our liberty.
The final vote in the House had it passing with a slim margin of only two extra "Yay" votes. In order to have a majority, 218 votes in favor were required. It gained 220. As an indication of the importance of this bill and vote, even though it was held on a Saturday evening, all 435 U.S. Representatives were present and voted. (Good thing Obama was not a member, he would have voted "present"). To their credit, every one of them put a yes or no after their name. Now, they will all be held accountable for how they voted. One Republican joined with the Democrat majority to pass the bill. 39 Democrats voted against the bill.
What price - Liberty? Over the coming weeks we should be able to see the price for surrendering liberty. "Yes" votes were bought by the Democratic leadership. How high of a price did certain Representatives hold out for before they would vote to surrender some of our liberty, forever? We will see. We will learn that to some, all it took was the guarantee that some "pork barrel" project back home will get federal funding. To others, all it took was the dropping of the provision to fund abortions. Although that is no small price, I believe you will see that the federal funding of abortions is a "must have provision" for the Left and no doubt it will be added back into the bill before it becomes law. One by one, votes were bought, up to the point where passage was guaranteed. To many of our leaders, the price of our liberty is not worth fighting over and they are willing to lessen our freedom in order to strengthen their power.
Where are the patriots? Where can you find someone who is principled? Who will pledge their Lives, Fortunes and sacred Honor for Liberty? We have American soldiers fighting and shedding blood for the freedom of people around the world. What price are we willing to pay for our own Liberty?
Whether we like it our not, we are in A.R.II (American Revolution II).
War Journal - Nov. 10, 1944
The pilot - Borst
10-Nov
Friday
This group went on a rough mission yesterday. Only three ships made it back to the field on time out of 54 that left. This morning seven were still missing. We went out again this morning on the same mission but weather made us turn around at the German border. It was to back up Patton's attacks around Metz yesterday. We lack seven minutes flying time so as to count this morning as a mission. It was awfully cold - 23 degrees below C. Today marked the beginning of a new era - I didn't get air sick!!
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Mom's Family Photos
Grandma Starr's parents: John Harold Runion and Maude Barger.
Mom's Dad and Mom - Grandpa Bagwell and Glada, baby is Aunt June, the girl is Aunt Mable, Grandma Starr's sister. War Journal - Nov. 8, 1944
Grave of the Unknown Soldier from WWI
German tank on display
Dad is on far right.8-Nov
Wednesday
Returned from Paris at noon today - That is a town all by itself - nothing in the States can come near it. The people are the friendliest ever - everyone is dressed nice - plenty food apparently - not at all as I expected. The RC put us in the nicest hotel in town - Hotel Du Paris - went dancing both nights - plenty girls - shopping and sight seeing tours in the day. Inflation is terrific though. We are paid at the rate of one franc worth two cents - In Paris one cent is worth 1 1/2 francs or three times its value so the $70 I took didn't go very far. Used a taxi once for about two miles - 800fra ($16.00 to me). Soldiers can do very little shopping on their pay - But, boy! it was fun. The people are by far way ahead of anyone in G.B. - almost up to American standards. Only combat & front line men are allowed in Paris now - supposedly for 48 hour rest but a person has to return to camp to recuperate after two days in that town. It rained all the time we were there.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Mom's Family
Glada Fay Runion - around 1908 - My Mom's Mom.
C. C. Reeder - Mom's StepdadI will add more, a couple at a time. I am leaving the resolution high so that you can copy them and keep detail.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
War Journal - Nov. 5, 1944
5-Nov
Sunday
This was almost our fourth mission but had trouble with one engine about half way to the target. We could not maintain formation so we had to turn back. Made the field OK but after we landed ran into a lumber truck and tore left wing tip off. It was a piece of tough luck for Borst. Early this morning we were briefed for a special mission of high importance - destroying a fort at Metz but it was cancelled before we took off for some unknown reason. The mission we started on was to Trier again. Maybe it is good we turned back because the boys were met with flak & fighters. Received 20 letters tonight - tomorrow we go to Paris for two days.
Sunday
This was almost our fourth mission but had trouble with one engine about half way to the target. We could not maintain formation so we had to turn back. Made the field OK but after we landed ran into a lumber truck and tore left wing tip off. It was a piece of tough luck for Borst. Early this morning we were briefed for a special mission of high importance - destroying a fort at Metz but it was cancelled before we took off for some unknown reason. The mission we started on was to Trier again. Maybe it is good we turned back because the boys were met with flak & fighters. Received 20 letters tonight - tomorrow we go to Paris for two days.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Iraqi Honor Hit-And-Run, Update
This is an update to the 10/21/2009 posting.
The father who ran over his daughter because he believed she was getting too westernized, was captured this past weekend. After running down his daughter in a parking lot in Peoria, AZ, on October 21st, he drove to Mexico, where he abandoned his car and caught a plane to London.
London authorities had been notified to be on watch for this guy and caught him at customs. They put him back on a plane to the U.S., where he was arrested as he arrived. He has been returned to Arizona where he is being held on $1,000,000 bail.
The charges against him were upgraded yesterday. His little girl died in the hospital as a result of the injuries. She had never regained consciousness since the attempted murder.
It turns out that he had made arrangements for his daughter to be married to an older man in Iraq. She did not want to go there or do that. For this disgrace to the family, he believed she deserved to die. After all, you have to maintain the family's "honor".
The man's son and the girl's brother, defended his dad, telling the media that we do not understand the customs of their culture.
Well, welcome to the U.S.A., where it is our custom to take the idiot to trial, find him guilty, and I hope, sentence him to death. Let's stick an "honor meter" in his mouth while he is being executed and see how proud he feels.
If you watch America's Most Wanted on FOX, you may have seen the story of another Iraqi (I believe) father who shot his two daughters to death because they were also getting too westernized. This guy has not been caught, YET!
The father who ran over his daughter because he believed she was getting too westernized, was captured this past weekend. After running down his daughter in a parking lot in Peoria, AZ, on October 21st, he drove to Mexico, where he abandoned his car and caught a plane to London.
London authorities had been notified to be on watch for this guy and caught him at customs. They put him back on a plane to the U.S., where he was arrested as he arrived. He has been returned to Arizona where he is being held on $1,000,000 bail.
The charges against him were upgraded yesterday. His little girl died in the hospital as a result of the injuries. She had never regained consciousness since the attempted murder.
It turns out that he had made arrangements for his daughter to be married to an older man in Iraq. She did not want to go there or do that. For this disgrace to the family, he believed she deserved to die. After all, you have to maintain the family's "honor".
The man's son and the girl's brother, defended his dad, telling the media that we do not understand the customs of their culture.
Well, welcome to the U.S.A., where it is our custom to take the idiot to trial, find him guilty, and I hope, sentence him to death. Let's stick an "honor meter" in his mouth while he is being executed and see how proud he feels.
If you watch America's Most Wanted on FOX, you may have seen the story of another Iraqi (I believe) father who shot his two daughters to death because they were also getting too westernized. This guy has not been caught, YET!
Sunday, November 1, 2009
War Journal - Nov. 2, 1944
2-Nov
Thursday
Pulled our third mission today. The mission was briefed & scrubbed three times each before we finally took off. The target was a railroad bridge over a river near the town of Trier, Germany - near the border of Luxenberg. My score is also perfect - I was air sick again but I fooled 'em this time - I carried a can along just for that purpose. The mission was two hours 34 minutes long and we got intense flak over the target. Approx 150 bursts hit our flight but no ships was seriously damaged. We were not even hit! I saw the end of the bridge go up in smoke - a beautiful sight - so it was all worth it.
Thursday
Pulled our third mission today. The mission was briefed & scrubbed three times each before we finally took off. The target was a railroad bridge over a river near the town of Trier, Germany - near the border of Luxenberg. My score is also perfect - I was air sick again but I fooled 'em this time - I carried a can along just for that purpose. The mission was two hours 34 minutes long and we got intense flak over the target. Approx 150 bursts hit our flight but no ships was seriously damaged. We were not even hit! I saw the end of the bridge go up in smoke - a beautiful sight - so it was all worth it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
