I can’t say for certain if the most important statement ever made in American history begins with the phrase “When in the course of human events...” or “We the People...” or even possibly “Four score and seven years ago...”

What I CAN say for certain is that it DOES NOT begin “I, Barack Hussein Obama.”

 

I Pledge allegiance to the State

That rules us from Washington

And to the special interests

Which it serves

Bailout Nation

Under Barack

Thoroughly divisible

 

“…that this Nation, Under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

-          Excerpt from the Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln, 19 November 1863

 

As I sit in front of my computer this evening – 144 years to the day since President Lincoln delivered a speech that he thought would be quickly forgotten but has arguably become the most quoted speech in history – the television is broadcasting images of hordes of gay marriage supporters nationwide protesting the passage of Proposition 8 in California. As you know, on November 4^th, California voters exercised their right to self governance by voting on a measure to add 14 words to the California Constitution: “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” This ballot measure – legally put to the people by the people via the petition process, was a direct response to a California Supreme Court ruling on May 16^th (In Re Marriage Cases, S147999) overturning a state law banning same sex marriages. A state law, by the way, that was also approved by the people through the petition process.

I write this not to discuss the protests, although for the record I find many of the acts committed by protestors demanding “tolerance” (such as tearing a cross from an elderly woman’s hand and stomping on it in Palm Springs or hitting a Christian missionary over the head with her own Bible in San Francisco, or lighting a Book of Mormon on fire and throwing it into a Mormon temple in Utah) to be outright repugnant, not to mention blatantly INtolerant and altogether hypocritical. I write this not to deride those who nonviolently support gay marriage, for although I have both religious and secular reasons for opposing it, I have sympathy for what many must be feeling in their hearts – regardless of what the protestors would have you believe, I and millions of others like me are not “gay haters”; I have friends that are gay and I love them just as I love my straight friends though we may have a difference of opinion on the marriage issue. Rather, I write this as an American who is deathly afraid that Lincoln’s “new birth of freedom” may indeed perish at the hands of the California Supreme Court in 2009, taking with it government of the people, by the people and for the people.

This pattern has been emerging for years now – someone on the secular progressive left gets a harebrained idea, finds some PAC to take it to Congress or a state legislature where it gets shot down by the peoples’ elected representatives and then immediately files a complaint in the appropriate court of competent jurisdiction to have the decision revoked. Actually, that’s not entirely true – on the federal level, the organizer of the initiative generally tries to stage an incident surrounding whatever the cause du jour happens to be somewhere on the west coast so the lawsuit can be run through the court system out there and eventually make its way into the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals which is sympathetic to all causes except common sense, but I digress. The bottom line is, the legal question we face in California today is bigger than the issue of gay marriage. That’s right, gay marriage is just the catalyst, the vessel, the hot-button issue that has finally staged the showdown that’s been building since certain judges stopped interpreting law and started legislating from the bench by issuing idiotic opinions based solely in, well, opinion. The house lights are flashing and the ushers are closing the doors – better grab that last glass of wine and take your seats. It’s time for the third and final act of tonight’s performance of The Black-Robed Warriors vs. the American People and folks, I’m sorry to say but even the actors have no idea how this one ends.

The issue here is that the pro-gay marriage people have once again petitioned the California Supreme Court, this time to overturn Proposition 8 – in other words, they are asking the justices to once again thwart the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box. I don’t blame them for petitioning, heck if I was in their position, I’d probably petition too just to prove that I fought to the bitter end and tried every avenue to accomplish my goal – that’s what true believers in any cause do.  The problem is not in the petition itself, the problem lies in the fact that the Supreme Court agreed to hear it, and by doing so called into question our entire system of government as we know it.  Not to sound like a trite sports announcer here, but this time it’s different.  This time the stakes are higher. Why? Because they are essentially debating the constitutionality of a CONSTITUTIONAL MODIFICATION! Go ahead and reread that statement; I know it sounds absurd, but it’s completely accurate. Yes, it’s true that the court set the precedent for going against the explicit will of the people in the Marriage Cases decision, but as much as that turned my stomach, they were arguably within the bounds of the powers granted them in doing so because they were overturning a simple law. After that decision, the people, being of the opinion that the court overstepped its bounds and invented a new “civil right” out of whole cloth, took the only legal recourse available to them and petitioned to modify their own constitution. That petition took the form of Proposition 8, and it passed at the ballot box, thereby overturning the court’s ruling. In simple terms, the people held the judges accountable for what they perceived to be a bad decision and told them to go take a hike. The people exercised the fundamental right given them under U.S. and California law – the fundamental right that supersedes ALL other rights - the power to govern themselves.

Unfortunately, the typical “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” get-what-you-want-by-any-means-possible mantra just repeats itself over and over in liberal-land like some tired old bass drum. Just take a gander at the blogs or read some of the editorials in the news rags and you’ll get a long self-righteous lecture on how the Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1, 1967) decision clearly states that marriage is one of the “fundamental rights of man” and, therefore gives same-sex couples the undisputable right to marry. Now, I do not dispute that the quote is accurate, nor do I begrudge free and open debate on the topic, but to draw the conclusion that a case dealing with heterosexual, interracial marriages (the Loving decision overturned the 1883 decision in Pace v. Alabama (106 U.S. 583) upholding laws against interracial marriage) applies directly to homosexual marriage regardless of race is a stretch to say the least and completely ignores other quotes from the same decision such as “under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State”, clearly showing the decision dealt strictly with race. Also, as this is obviously a State issue, you’d think that the proponents would take some time to find a State precedent, but the majority of the editorials and blogs I’ve read do not mention any such cases even though one exists – Perez v. Sharp (32 Cal. 2d 711, California, 1948) – a case abolishing the interracial marriage ban in California that was ironically called upon as precedent by SCOTUS in the Loving decision. Apparently the left’s long romance with the Federal government has left it almost blind to State issues, but that’s of no concern here.

What IS of major concern however, is that no one – and I mean not one proponent of gay marriage that I’ve spoken to or read will acknowledge the difference between the Proposition 8 situation and the laundry list of other “court precedents” that they love to speak of, and that is the fact that the people of California chose to override the court with a constitutional change. That baby gets thrown out with the proverbial bathwater when they create kitschy slogans like “no on H8” or my favorite “you can’t legislate love!” Sorry Charlie, in this situation you may not be able to legislate it, but you can certainly amend it. Citing court precedent is all well and good – heck, cite it until you’re blue in the face, but the bottom line is that court decisions don’t mean anything if the American people choose to exercise their right to self-govern by overriding a decision with a Constitutional amendment.

For those that are wondering, the sounding of eight bells often signifies the end of a shift or watch.

EIGHT BELLS FOR EIGHT BELLES

OK, I'm getting REALLY annoyed with the segment of the population that has been trying to crucify the entire racing industry after Saturday's Kentucky Derby.  A little reason would be refreshing amidst all of the rampant emotion out there among a group of people who watch one to three races per year and then get on the soapbox and condemn a whole industry.  If you think for one minute that the majority of people in this sport are in it for the money, you should talk to jockeys at some of the “lesser” tracks - Louisiana Downs, Turfway, Indiana Downs, etc. Ask them to show you their W-2s, then come back and post your drivel on the discussion boards at MSN and Yahoo from an informed perspective. Better yet, talk to the grooms and the muckers - many of whom work some tracks just to get to spend time with these wonderful and majestic animals and perhaps get to ride a bit on the guide ponies. They love their animals, plain and simple. Horses and dogs have two things in common - heart and soul. Spend enough time with either and you will see layers deeper than you ever thought possible in a non-human.

I will grant you that the majority of the owners are wealthy, and a good portion of them don’t spend a lot of time with their horses - some of them own too many and race at a multitude of tracks to be able to. Regardless, that doesn’t make them cruel heartless people! They care about their animals and, more importantly, the people they employ to care for the animals truly love them - more than the majority of you who wax so sentimental about the one horse you watched tragically break down in the one race you watch each year.

To say that the jockey knew there was a problem and continued to “whip the horse mercilessly” (an absurd statement as anyone who has ever held a crop will tell you) to win a race is absolutely absurd. All financial incentive aside, it’s suicide! You’re in the final stretch of the Kentucky Derby - a field of 20 horses - and you’re comfortably going to place. Yes, there’s one horse ahead of you but - more important - there are 18 HORSES BEHIND YOU! If you think the horse has a leg problem you pull the horse up and get out of the way! Why? Simple - when 1000 pounds of horse goes down on the track you go down with it! In a field as large as this, if the place horse breaks down in the stretch, your odds of surviving the fall and the trampling that’s certain to come after it are - to put it mildly - not good.

For those out there that bemoan the fact that horses run on “skinny legs”, I hate to tell you that that’s the way God made them. Go to any jockey room or clubhouse at any track in America and look at the pictures of long-ago champions in long-forgotten races and you will see - SURPRISE - thick torsos on skinny legs. Obviously those champions of old aren’t around to measure, but I’d put money on the fact that the diameter of the average horse’s leg hasn’t changed appreciably in the last 134 years.

The bottom line is that this was an accident. Tragic? Certainly. Should we feel sad and mourn her loss? Naturally. However, we should be grateful that the track veterinary staff made the difficult decision to euthanize Eight Belles immediately - to do anything else would have been inhumane. When a horse breaks both legs, the outcome is a foregone conclusion - you cannot save them and any attempt to do so would only have prolonged her agony to make some people feel better about themselves.

Suspend the jockey? Ban the crop? Both absurd - why not just ban the reins too? After all, crop, reins and jockey each exist to control the horse! The bottom line is that PETA needs to find another torch to carry, we need to mourn the loss of a great horse with a great heart and people need to come to terms with the fact that accidents happen and sometimes the outcomes are tragic.

 

Once again, the Democratic Party has shown that it can be trusted with sensitive foreign policy issues like Paris Hilton with the keys to the liquor cabinet. In a response that can only be described as predictable, Turkey today recalled its ambassador to the United States in response to the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs’ 27-21 vote to pass out of committee a measure labeling the World War I era “killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks” as genocide.  Aside from being ill-conceived and ill timed, this could possibly be the most disingenuous piece of legislation to come out of Congress since “Our Fearless Speaker” Nancy Pelosi and her cronies took over as the majority party on the Hill earlier this year.  And that’s saying something.

 

Oh sure, on the face of it, it doesn’t seem like a bad resolution.  For Americans weak on history and geography, but long on multiculturalism and social injustice training, it likely shines like a beacon in the darkness. America stands up against persecution, film at 11!  You see, Tom Lantos (Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee) and the other sponsors of the bill not only know that it looks like feel-good legislation – they’re counting on it.  They’re counting on John Q. Public to just sit back, accept it and not ask pesky questions like, “Why now?” or “What’s the agenda?” or “What are the possible consequences?” or even “What’s an Ottoman Turk?”  As with much of the legislation that’s come out of Washington lately, the devil is in the details and the only way to expose this travesty, this farce for what it is - another thinly-veiled attempt to force the U.S. out of Iraq – is to ask the tough questions.  Unfortunately, if passed by the full House of Representatives, the resolution may not only serve to end the war in Iraq, but start World War III.  Absurd?  You decide.  Let’s take a look at the facts…

 

Along with its status as the most secular nation in the Middle East and a loyal member of NATO, Turkey is the United States’ closest ally in the region and a key component of the successful prosecution of the War in Iraq.  You see, over 70 percent of the cargo sent to U.S. forces in Iraq and 30 percent of the fuel used by U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq is sent through Turkey.  How convenient! I’m sure that Lantos & Co. had no idea of that little tidbit of information when this resolution was drawn up.  I’m sure that the decision to move forward with condemning our closest Middle Eastern ally in 2007 for acts that occurred a century ago was just an unfortunate coincidence!  Never mind that Defense Secretary Robert Gates was quoted as saying, “U.S. commanders believe clearly that access to airfields and roads and so on, in Turkey, would very much be put at risk if this resolution passes and the Turks react as strongly as we believe they will.”  Who cares about the needs of the modern day U.S. Military when there’s a hundred-year-old injustice that needs to be addressed!  Damn the consequences – full speed ahead!  It’s so disgusting it’s almost comical.

 

Perhaps the most revolting aspect of this dangerous sideshow is the language used in the resolution. Believe me, the sponsors of this bill were counting on your ignorance of the Middle East when it was drawn up. You can see it in the carefully chosen antiseptic language used.  It’s easy for Americans to condemn the “Ottoman Turks” for violence against the “Armenians”, because many have no idea what that truly means.  Remember when I said that Turkey is the most secular nation in the Middle East?  While that is no doubt true, being the most secular nation in the Middle East is like being the least contagious guy in the leper colony.  Turkey is still a very Muslim country and while modern-day Turks are surely more tolerant than their counterparts in other Islamic countries in the region, the same was not true for the citizens of the Ottoman Empire at the turn of the last century.  Centered in what is now Turkey, the Ottoman Empire was a very Islamic country in every sense of the word and – as with most Islamic countries throughout history – Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims were persecuted to various extents throughout its history – perhaps none more so than the Armenians from the late 1800s through 1923.  Yes, the Armenians were Christian, yet this “critical piece of legislation” makes no mention of that.  If the goal of the resolution is truly to call attention to one of the world’s great injustices as the Dems would have us believe, why not make a statement that has some impact? Instead of censuring the “Ottoman Turks for genocide against the Armenians”, why doesn’t the language “condemn the butchering of Christians by radical Muslims at the end of the 19^th Century?”  Frankly, honest language like that wouldn’t play well in Peoria.  Americans just might once again take notice of this recurring theme in the Middle East and take more of an interest in the War on Islamic Fundamentalism that we’re engaged in – and that wouldn’t serve the agenda of MoveOn.org, the Daily Kos or any other contributor to the modern Democratic party.

 

I am in no way saying that the Ottoman Empire did not slaughter thousands of Armenians during World War I. That is well documented and anyone who denies it is on the same level as those that deny the Holocaust.  However, what positive outcome will come out of ramming this ill-begotten legislation through the House of Representatives in October of 2007?  The answer is nothing positive can come of it, but something negative WILL come of it.  If this passes the full House, the best we can hope for is a decade of strained relations between the U.S. and our (former) ally in the Middle East.  That’s right, the best scenario threatens our relations with a fellow NATO country and endangers the supply lines to our military (the same military that the Democrats claim to support and whose supplies were a plank in their mid-term election campaigns).  They get worse from there.  Imagine awakening radical Islamic fundamentalism in a (formerly) secular country.  Imagine creating thousands of new terrorist foot-soldiers.  That is the future if we do not stop this folly in its tracks.  That is the future if we allow people like Tom Lantos to control U.S. foreign policy.  Hey, Paris – pass the Jack Daniel’s.

 

COPYRIGHT 2007, Peter Citera, All Rights Reserved.

In the latest sign that the world as we know it is falling apart, the Girl Guides (Britain's version of the Girl Scouts) have announced that members will now be able to earn merit badges in subjects such as safe sex, alcoholism and reducing their carbon footprint.  The program, called "Get Wise", started with the topic of safe sex earlier this year, and has since broadened its horizons.  It covers Guides (aged 10-14) as well as the organization's Senior Section (aged 14-25).

Those of you who tend to agree with my views on the world are probably hoping that this is some sort of sick joke, but, alas, it was important enough to be reported in The Times of London earlier this year, and was in the news again yesterday when the merit badge program was announced.

Is anyone else's head spinning?  Is one of the oldest and most respected youth organizations in the world really spoon-feeding a leftist agenda to 10 year olds?  Unabashedly and unapologetically so.  Listen to how Denise King, CEO of Girlguiding UK describes the program:

“There is no point pretending that all of these things don’t happen to Girl Guides and that they all wear white knee socks. We are part of society, not apart from it. Girl Guides aren’t the goody-goodies any more. They are just the regular young women of the day. They have told us that these are the issues that are relevant to their lives.”

Excuse me?!  The "regular young women of the day"?  When did a sexually active 10 year old become a "regular young woman?"  I don't know what I have a bigger problem with, the atrocity of the program itself, or the fact that the people running it refuse to make value judgments.  You see, Ms. King goes on to say, "the education sessions are not about telling the girls not to have under-age sex or not to drink.  We are trying to support the girls and young women to find things out for themselves.  We want to give them the confidence to make decisions for themselves."  My question to her would be, why AREN'T you telling them not to do these things?  By not DIScouraging this behavior, you are ENcouraging the behavior!  There is no neutral position on any of these issues, nor can there be. 

Children need direction, NOT free discussion.  I'd wager that many of the people in support of the Guide "program" also support the British Government regulating what is served in British school cafeterias, and rightly so.  Why?  It's common sense!  Given the choice, children are NOT going to choose what is best for themselves.  Think like a 10 year old...  "Hmmm... do I want the rice pilaf or 5 Mars Bars for lunch?"  Which choice do you think wins out in the mind of a 10 year old?  Why?Children don't understand long-term consequences, nor should they!  Wisdom is born of experience, and at 10 years old, the majority of your experience has been producing drool and learning to poop in the right place.

Regardless of what Ms. King and her associates claim their intentions to be, these are still children.  Children, especially those under the age of 16, are not equipped to make decisions for themselves.  That's why we have an age of majority, and laws that protect those who have not yet reached it.  If you merely have valueless discussions with children in an attempt to teach confidence, you'll end up with nothng but confident kids making bad decisions.

The only thing that's true in Ms. King's belief system is that kids WILL be faced with these critical issues, and at an earlier age than ever before.  What they need is parents to teach them how to react when the critical issues arise, not older children justifying their own bad decisions in a valueless forum.  Absent responsible parents, kids will look to the Girl Guides (and other groups like it) to provide them with leadership and role models.  It's time for the Guides to own up to this reality and accept their responsibilities, rather than pretend there are no correct decisions to life's tempting choices.

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's time for some rice pilaf.


Copyright 2007, Peter Citera

Earlier this Morning, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) threatened an all-night session of the United States Senate "complete with roll-away beds"* to debate an amendment to a defense appropriations bill.  Said amendment, sponsored by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI), mandates troop withdrawals later this year and would have most troops out of Iraq in Spring of 2008, thereby ensuring American defeat and effectively leaving a huge FOR RENT sign hanging in the metaphorical window.  Not that it would hang long, of course.  I'm sure there would be no shortage of potential tenants to fill the void left by our capricious exit - none of whom would have to pass a background or credit check, if you know what I mean.

Thankfully, Reid's pajama party isn't likely to have much of an effect on actual policy - it would take 60 votes to invoke cloture on a Republican filibuster, and that looks to be about as likely as Muqtada al-Sadr winning the Humanitarian of the Year award, but don't underestimate the real impact that this political stunt could have on U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Reid vows to "... work on this amendment until we get an up-or-down vote on it."  (As to the location of the roll-away beds when Republicans were demanding the same on Bush judicial appointees, I have no idea, but I digress.)  As we all know, Senate debate can be lively at the best of times, and you can bet that this polarizing issue is sure to have its share of headline-grabbing sound bites, especially out of the mouths of certain Presidential-candidates looking to curry favor with their base. ("Polarizing Profundities Pander to 'Progressives', Propel Politicians Percentage Points in Primary Polls, film at 11.")

Now, being the hard working people that they are, most Americans will likely be sound asleep during this "all-nighter", choosing instead to get the warmed-over highlights and quotes-du-jour on the AM news and talk shows.  Heck, if Harry Reid will be speaking, even the most hard-core insomniacs are likely to find themselves some somnolence, provided their televisions are turned to C-SPAN, however it's not the American audience (or lack thereof) about whom we need to worry.  What remains to be seen is if Reid, Reed and Co. understand exactly who will be watching with bated breath, taking notes and plotting their next moves as a direct result of tonight's "festivities".  You see, thanks to the concept of time-zones, what NBC, ABC and CBS will be taping in the middle of the night for future use, Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya and a host of other Middle-Eastern outlets will be showing live mid-day, and you can bet the farm that a good percentage of their viewers will be our enemies looking for further signs of weakness in the U.S. political ranks.  Why?  To exploit that weakness of course, and as any soldier who has served in Iraq will tell you, they won't be using PSAs, publicity stunts and blogs to do so, preferring such tools as IEDs, mortars and mines.

You see, in addition to being determined to destroy the United States and everything it stands for, our enemies are also smart.  They know that the traditional media prefers to sensationalize rather than report, and the best lead-in to a sensationalistic 'story' is a death toll.  They know that U.S. public opinion is largely based on what is said in the mass-media.  They know that, as a direct result of American mainstream media, every attack on an American soldier will likely serve not to unify and rally our nation (as it did in previous wars), but to divide and conquer it.  These are the people that the organizers of tonight's stunt should be concerned about inspiring, because their comments in the marbled-halls of Congress could have a direct and dire impact on the bloody streets of Baghdad.

I'm not in any way saying that we should cease debate on this issue or any other.  I'm not suggesting that our political leaders become scared of voicing opinions, because that would also be a victory for our enemies.  What I ask - indeed what every American should ask, regardless of his or her views on Iraq, is that those opinions are voiced with prudence, temperance and tact; keeping in mind that it is not just the eyes of American voters, but also Al Qaeda terrorists that will be cast on Washington tonight.  Will they 'get it'?  That remains to be seen, but  I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

Copyright 2007, Peter Citera
All Rights Reserved