RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINES
Congressman launches bill, suggests searches
would cease if Obama, top officials had them
By Joe Kovacs
With a week to go until the Thanksgiving travel peak and Americans' anger continuing to rise over heightened airport-security measures, a U.S. congressman launched legislation today to end what he calls Soviet-style searches by the American government.
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, introduced the Air Traveler Dignity Act to protect Americans from physical and emotional abuse by federal Transportation Security Administration employees conducting screenings at the nation's airports.
"Something has to be done," Paul said. "Everybody's fed up. The people are fed up. The pilots are fed up. I'm fed up.""We have seen the videos of terrified children being grabbed and probed by airport screeners. We have read the stories of Americans being subjected to humiliating body imaging machines and/or forced to have the most intimate parts of their bodies poked and fondled," he added.
"This TSA version of our rights looks more like the 'rights' granted in the old Soviet Constitutions, where freedoms were granted to Soviet citizens – right up to the moment the state decided to remove those freedoms." Join more than 17,000 others in a petition demanding action against the intrusive airport screening procedures implemented by Janet Napolitano and send a letter to Congress, President Obama and others telling them exactly what you think about the issue.
Paul's legislation, H.R. 6416, is just two sentences long, stating:
No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), X-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual's body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual's parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.
"My legislation is simple," Paul said. "It establishes that airport-security screeners are not immune from any U.S. law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation-emitting machinery on another person. It means they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us."
Paul suggested the controversial screening techniques would vanish if top-ranking government officials were themselves subject to them.
"Imagine if the political elites in our country were forced to endure the same conditions at the airport as business travelers, families, senior citizens, and the rest of us. Perhaps this problem could be quickly resolved if every cabinet secretary, every member of Congress, and every department head in the Obama administration were forced to submit to the same degrading screening process as the people who pay their salaries."
The congressman says he warned at the time of the TSA's creation that an unaccountable government entity in control of airport security would provide neither security nor defend Americans' basic freedom to travel.
"Yet the vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats then in Congress willingly voted to create another unaccountable, bullying agency – in a simple-minded and unprincipled attempt to appease public passion in the wake of 9/11," he said. "Sadly, as we see with the steady TSA encroachment on our freedom and dignity, my fears in 2001 were justified."
Paul, a former Air Force flight surgeon and obstetrics specialist who has delivered more than 4,000 babies, also expressed concern about "the potentially harmful effects of the radiation emitted by the new millimeter wave machines," and said the solution for security at airports is not a government bureaucracy.
"The solution is to allow the private sector, preferably the airlines themselves, to provide for the security of their property," he said.
Paul isn't the only member of Congress outraged by the TSA's current search methods.
Rep. John Duncan, R-Tenn., took to the House floor to say, "A nationwide revolt is developing over the body scanners at the airports, and it should."
Duncan said there's already plenty of security at the airport, and there was no need to spend up to $300 million to install 1,000 scanners.
"This is much more about money than it is about security," said Duncan, the former chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee and the current top Republican on the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
"The former secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, represents Rapiscan, the company which is selling these scanners to his former department. Far too many federal contracts are sweetheart, insider deals.
"Companies hire former high-ranking federal officials, and then magically, those companies get hugely profitable federal contracts. The American people should not have to choose between having full-body radiation or a very embarrassing, intrusive pat-down every time they fly, as if they were criminals."
But not everyone in Congress has such a harsh outlook on the enhanced measures.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., today called the hands-on probing of flyers' private parts "love pats."
"I'm wildly excited that I can walk through a machine instead of getting my dose of love pats," she said.
McCaskill was among a group of senators hearing testimony from TSA chief John Pistole.
"We know the terrorists' intent is still there," Pistole said, as he strongly defended the new procedures. "We are using technology and protocols to stay ahead of the threat and keep you safe. (Several near-misses by terrorists on airplane bombings) got through security because we were not being thorough enough in our pat-downs."
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINES
Big Sis Napolitano sued for 'degrading' searches
'Given the profane, intrusive, indecent nature, they are patently unreasonable'
By Bob Unruh
A lawsuit was filed today against Janet Napolitano and the Transportation Security Administration alleging that the invasive airport "security" procedures instituted at President Obama's instructions are "profane, degrading, intrusive and indecent" and are both "unreasonable and violative of the Fourth Amendment."
The case was filed in federal court for the District of Columbia by John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute and others on behalf of two veteran pilots, Michael S. Roberts and Ann Poe.
The issue of the invasion of privacy demanded by the TSA at airport security checkpoints – passengers are given the option of an X-ray that reveals a virtually nude image for government agents to see or a hands-on-all-body-parts pat-down – has exploded in recent days. Join more than 15,000 others in a petition demanding action against the intrusive airport screening procedures implemented by Janet Napolitano and send a letter to Congress, President Obama and others telling them exactly what you think about the issue.
There are groups suggesting that people simply stop flying or, in a coordinated effort, demand the more time-consuming pat-downs on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, the busiest day of the year in many airports. Napolitano has been busy defending the procedures, and a source in the U.S. Senate has told WND that the issue is likely to come up during a Transportation Committee hearing tomorrow regarding oversight of the TSA.
The review was scheduled in September as a routine hearing but was delayed. Now it is scheduled for tomorrow in Washington with the expectation that the thousands of constituent complaints that already have been delivered to members of Congress will get attention.
In the case on behalf of Roberts and Poe, the Rutherford Institute is asking the court to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security and TSA from continuing to use the invasive technology unlawfully. Both Roberts and Poe opted out of the revealing scans then declined to undergo what critics have described as a molestation. They ended up missing their flights because of the procedures, the lawsuit explains.
'Grotesque violation'
"Forcing Americans to undergo a virtual strip search as a matter of course in reporting to work or boarding an airplane when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing is a grotesque violation of our civil liberties, undermining our right to privacy and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents," said Whitehead.
"Indeed, TSA is forcing travelers to consent to a virtual strip search or allow an unknown officer to literally place his or her hands in your pants," he said.
An unscientific poll this week by Reuters revealed that 96 percent of the tens of thousands of people who participated simply would refuse to fly rather than go through the inspection procedures.
Whitehead explained that Roberts, a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines Inc., and Poe, who pilots a Boeing 777 for Continental, objected to the "virtual strip-search," as have many others passing through airport security.
"The only alternative to a WBI scan, which has been likened to a 'virtual strip-search,' is an enhanced pat-down in which TSA screeners press their 'open hands and fingers over most parts of an individual's body including the breasts, and uses the back of the hands when touching the buttocks. Additionally, officers slide their hands all the way from the inner thigh up to the groin until the hand cannot venture any higher because it is literally stopped by the person's groin,'" Whitehead's report said.
At the website Mediaite, even one of the nation's heroes, Capt. Sully Sullenberger of Hudson-splashing Flight 1549 fame, said, "I can tell you from my perspective as an airline pilot for three decades, this just isn't an effective use of our resources."
According to the Washington Examiner, Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., one of the original TSA bill authors, said airports should opt out of the federal government screening.
"When the TSA was established, it was never envisioned that it would become a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy which was soon to grow to 67,000 employees," he said in the report. "As TSA has grown larger, more impersonal, and administratively top-heavy, I believe it is important that airports across the country consider utilizing the opt-out provision provided by law."
'Big Kabuki dance'
The report said Mica believes TSA now is creating "security theater," which was explained as "a show of what appear to be stringent security measures designed to make passengers feel more secure without providing real security."
"It's a big Kabuki dance," Mica said.
And he said the TSA's goal appears to be "passenger humiliation" more than proven security.
At Forbes, columnist Art Carden said the TAS should be put on the budgetary chopping block.
"Bipartisan support should be immediate. For fiscal conservatives, it's hard to come up with a more wasteful agency than the TSA. For privacy advocates, eliminating an organization that requires you to choose between a nude body scan or genital groping in order to board a plane should be a no-brainer," he suggested.
Would that compromise safety? "I doubt it," he wrote. "The airlines have enormous sums of money riding on passenger safety, and the notion that a government bureaucracy has better incentives to provide safe travels than airlines with billions of dollars worth of capital and goodwill on the line strains credibility."
Whitehead, while preparing his legal case, told WND earlier that the Transportation Security Administration's enhanced screening procedures were instituted through the work of Obama.
"Legislation has been proposed to mandate full-body scanners and make them the primary screening method in all U.S. airports by 2013, but Congress has yet to act on it," Whitehead said in a commentary.
'Thank President Obama'
"So we can thank President Obama for this frontal assault on our Fourth Amendment rights. Mind you, this is the same man who insisted that 'we will not succumb to a siege mentality that sacrifices the open society and liberties and values that we cherish as Americans,'" Whitehead said.
He said the Fourth Amendment's provisions make clear the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
"It's a huge civil liberties issue," he told WND. "In the United States, we've never before strip-searched – full-body strip searches – unless there's reasonable suspicion of some kind of criminal activity."
The case explains since the constitutional violations are preventing Roberts and Poe from earning a living, they need to be compensated and given "all other measures of damages legally allowed."
At Examiner.com, there was a report that the Electronic Privacy Information Center has pursued in court efforts to obtain information about the TSA's use of scanners.
As WND previously has reported, a website called OptOutDay.com is suggesting all passengers send a message to Washington on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving by demanding the individual searches rather than the X-ray scans.
WND reported just a day earlier about resolutions introduced in New Jersey demanding Washington review the TSA procedures and make the needed changes.
Just as state Sen. Michael Doherty and others in Trenton were announcing resolutions calling on Congress to review the TSA procedures and complaints from travelers, a former top TSA official admitted on a Fox News Channel appearance what many passengers already knew: The procedures are legally questionable.
'Nobody likes having their 4th Amendment violated'
Mo McGowan was asked if the government could find a reasonable compromise that could detect terrorists without molesting adults and children. "That's a great question," said the former director of TSA security operations. "I don't think that there is. We're not dictating these events that are occurring. Events are happening across the world … driving us as a society to have to go to these measures.
"I mean, nobody likes having their 4th Amendment violated going through a security line," he said. "But the truth of the matter is we're going to have to do it."
But Doherty told WND, "They appear to violate the constitutional right to privacy (4th Amendment). Taking naked pictures of men, woman and children? We think there are a lot of constitutional violations. Americans should not be treated like criminals." His state, he explained, has specific laws against unauthorized touching of people's private parts, "particularly when it comes to children."
"This needs to stop. The government is way over the top on this," he said. "It's time for elected officials to stand up and say, 'This is wrong. This needs to stop.'"
The resolutions, pending in the state senate and assembly, call on Congress to tell the TSA that the people must not be forced to give up their constitutional rights when they want to travel.
"What's next," Doherty asked. "Train checkpoints? Bus checkpoints. Checkpoints when you buy gas?
Listen to an interview with Doherty.
"Unless we stop this right now, we won't be able to walk across the street without going through checkpoints," he said.
In addition to a highly publicized petition in which thousands of people are joining to demand action against the intrusive airport screening as well as a campaign allowing Americans to efficiently send a letter to Congress, President Obama and others complaining of the privacy concerns, there was a poll by Reuters.
96% would change travel plans
Asked, "Are you less likely to fly because of stepped-up security procedures such as full-body scans and patdowns?" a stunning 96 percent (65,990 about of 68,809 respondents) said, "Yes, I will make alternate travel plans to avoid intrusive security scans and pat-downs."
Three percent said no, and 1 percent remained uncertain.
The evidence suggesting actual sexual assault also is on the rise. On a website run by a blogger, a woman identified as Erin explained what she experienced in Dayton, Ohio:
She (the TSA screener) felt along my waistline, moved behind me, then proceeded to feel both of my buttocks. She reached from behind in the middle of my buttocks towards my vagina area.
She did not tell me that she was going to touch my buttocks, or reach forward to my vagina area.
She then moved in front of my and touched the top and underneath portions of both of my breasts.
She did not tell me that she was going to touch my breasts.
She then felt around my waist. She then moved to the bottoms of my legs.
She then felt my inner thighs and my vagina area...
She did not tell me that she was going to touch my vagina area…
"I asked to speak to a supervisor immediately. I had a very unpleasant conversation with him that lasted 20 minutes. I moved to the back of the security area, made a few phone calls, including to my lawyer. He did some quick research, and learned that I had indeed been sexually assaulted because she did not follow the SOP (standard operating procedure) for the new search," she reported. "I also spoke with the Dayton police, the Dayton airport police, and left a message for the TSA manager for the Dayton airport. I intend to request the TSA to arrange for counseling services to be provided to me, so I can deal with the aftermath of the sexual assault that took place, caused by the specific touching actions and failure to inform me of the policies by the TSA agent."
She continued, "I am speaking out against the TSA and share my sexual assault case to ensure that this does not happen to anyone else, anywhere. I will not be a silent victim of sexual assault by a TSA agent. Total Sexual Assault."
The admission by McGowan and justification from Napolitano followed by just a day a case that appeared on YouTube.
In that case, 31-year-old John Tyner refused a "groin check" by the TSA. In a comment that already probably is on bumper stickers, he said, "If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested."
Over recent days WND reported as dozens of other airline passengers shared their real-life horror stories of close encounters of the TSA kind, including a 70-year-old whose fudge "contraband" was discovered, a Los Angeles passenger who was "groped" four times and a man who was the target of a TSA screaming fit when he chose to opt-out of the "porno scan."
WND also reported on the growing movement by activists and citizens to push back against Napolitano's plans for "enhanced" screening at airport checkpoints.
A petition has been launched to tell President Obama, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and members of Congress all about the problem.
The petition targets the decision-makers in Washington who could bring the invasive procedures to a screeching halt.
"We, the undersigned, call for the immediate suspension of the enhanced security screening procedures and an apology to the American public by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for directing the implementation of this ill-advised program," says the petition.
Concerns over the invasion of privacy by TSA scanners, described as voyeurism by critics, along with the "molestation" of the associated "enhanced" pat-downs and the health concerns from the blasts of radiation have now reached a critical mass.
The procedures have been the focus of warnings even by the networks:
George Donnelly, who with James Babb has launched the "We Won't Fly" website delivering a message directly to airlines, told WND the customer revolt is taking off faster than he could imagine.
His website says, "We do not consent to strip searches, virtual or otherwise. We do not wish to be guinea pigs for new, and possibly dangerous, technology. We are not criminals. We are your customers. We will not beg the government anymore. We will simply stop flying until the porno-scanners are history."
'Given the profane, intrusive, indecent nature, they are patently unreasonable'
By Bob Unruh
A lawsuit was filed today against Janet Napolitano and the Transportation Security Administration alleging that the invasive airport "security" procedures instituted at President Obama's instructions are "profane, degrading, intrusive and indecent" and are both "unreasonable and violative of the Fourth Amendment."
The case was filed in federal court for the District of Columbia by John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute and others on behalf of two veteran pilots, Michael S. Roberts and Ann Poe.
The issue of the invasion of privacy demanded by the TSA at airport security checkpoints – passengers are given the option of an X-ray that reveals a virtually nude image for government agents to see or a hands-on-all-body-parts pat-down – has exploded in recent days. Join more than 15,000 others in a petition demanding action against the intrusive airport screening procedures implemented by Janet Napolitano and send a letter to Congress, President Obama and others telling them exactly what you think about the issue.
There are groups suggesting that people simply stop flying or, in a coordinated effort, demand the more time-consuming pat-downs on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, the busiest day of the year in many airports. Napolitano has been busy defending the procedures, and a source in the U.S. Senate has told WND that the issue is likely to come up during a Transportation Committee hearing tomorrow regarding oversight of the TSA.
The review was scheduled in September as a routine hearing but was delayed. Now it is scheduled for tomorrow in Washington with the expectation that the thousands of constituent complaints that already have been delivered to members of Congress will get attention.
In the case on behalf of Roberts and Poe, the Rutherford Institute is asking the court to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security and TSA from continuing to use the invasive technology unlawfully. Both Roberts and Poe opted out of the revealing scans then declined to undergo what critics have described as a molestation. They ended up missing their flights because of the procedures, the lawsuit explains.
'Grotesque violation'
"Forcing Americans to undergo a virtual strip search as a matter of course in reporting to work or boarding an airplane when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing is a grotesque violation of our civil liberties, undermining our right to privacy and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents," said Whitehead.
"Indeed, TSA is forcing travelers to consent to a virtual strip search or allow an unknown officer to literally place his or her hands in your pants," he said.
An unscientific poll this week by Reuters revealed that 96 percent of the tens of thousands of people who participated simply would refuse to fly rather than go through the inspection procedures.
Whitehead explained that Roberts, a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines Inc., and Poe, who pilots a Boeing 777 for Continental, objected to the "virtual strip-search," as have many others passing through airport security.
"The only alternative to a WBI scan, which has been likened to a 'virtual strip-search,' is an enhanced pat-down in which TSA screeners press their 'open hands and fingers over most parts of an individual's body including the breasts, and uses the back of the hands when touching the buttocks. Additionally, officers slide their hands all the way from the inner thigh up to the groin until the hand cannot venture any higher because it is literally stopped by the person's groin,'" Whitehead's report said.
At the website Mediaite, even one of the nation's heroes, Capt. Sully Sullenberger of Hudson-splashing Flight 1549 fame, said, "I can tell you from my perspective as an airline pilot for three decades, this just isn't an effective use of our resources."
According to the Washington Examiner, Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., one of the original TSA bill authors, said airports should opt out of the federal government screening.
"When the TSA was established, it was never envisioned that it would become a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy which was soon to grow to 67,000 employees," he said in the report. "As TSA has grown larger, more impersonal, and administratively top-heavy, I believe it is important that airports across the country consider utilizing the opt-out provision provided by law."
'Big Kabuki dance'
The report said Mica believes TSA now is creating "security theater," which was explained as "a show of what appear to be stringent security measures designed to make passengers feel more secure without providing real security."
"It's a big Kabuki dance," Mica said.
And he said the TSA's goal appears to be "passenger humiliation" more than proven security.
At Forbes, columnist Art Carden said the TAS should be put on the budgetary chopping block.
"Bipartisan support should be immediate. For fiscal conservatives, it's hard to come up with a more wasteful agency than the TSA. For privacy advocates, eliminating an organization that requires you to choose between a nude body scan or genital groping in order to board a plane should be a no-brainer," he suggested.
Would that compromise safety? "I doubt it," he wrote. "The airlines have enormous sums of money riding on passenger safety, and the notion that a government bureaucracy has better incentives to provide safe travels than airlines with billions of dollars worth of capital and goodwill on the line strains credibility."
Whitehead, while preparing his legal case, told WND earlier that the Transportation Security Administration's enhanced screening procedures were instituted through the work of Obama.
"Legislation has been proposed to mandate full-body scanners and make them the primary screening method in all U.S. airports by 2013, but Congress has yet to act on it," Whitehead said in a commentary.
'Thank President Obama'
"So we can thank President Obama for this frontal assault on our Fourth Amendment rights. Mind you, this is the same man who insisted that 'we will not succumb to a siege mentality that sacrifices the open society and liberties and values that we cherish as Americans,'" Whitehead said.
He said the Fourth Amendment's provisions make clear the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
"It's a huge civil liberties issue," he told WND. "In the United States, we've never before strip-searched – full-body strip searches – unless there's reasonable suspicion of some kind of criminal activity."
The case explains since the constitutional violations are preventing Roberts and Poe from earning a living, they need to be compensated and given "all other measures of damages legally allowed."
At Examiner.com, there was a report that the Electronic Privacy Information Center has pursued in court efforts to obtain information about the TSA's use of scanners.
As WND previously has reported, a website called OptOutDay.com is suggesting all passengers send a message to Washington on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving by demanding the individual searches rather than the X-ray scans.
WND reported just a day earlier about resolutions introduced in New Jersey demanding Washington review the TSA procedures and make the needed changes.
Just as state Sen. Michael Doherty and others in Trenton were announcing resolutions calling on Congress to review the TSA procedures and complaints from travelers, a former top TSA official admitted on a Fox News Channel appearance what many passengers already knew: The procedures are legally questionable.
'Nobody likes having their 4th Amendment violated'
Mo McGowan was asked if the government could find a reasonable compromise that could detect terrorists without molesting adults and children. "That's a great question," said the former director of TSA security operations. "I don't think that there is. We're not dictating these events that are occurring. Events are happening across the world … driving us as a society to have to go to these measures.
"I mean, nobody likes having their 4th Amendment violated going through a security line," he said. "But the truth of the matter is we're going to have to do it."
But Doherty told WND, "They appear to violate the constitutional right to privacy (4th Amendment). Taking naked pictures of men, woman and children? We think there are a lot of constitutional violations. Americans should not be treated like criminals." His state, he explained, has specific laws against unauthorized touching of people's private parts, "particularly when it comes to children."
"This needs to stop. The government is way over the top on this," he said. "It's time for elected officials to stand up and say, 'This is wrong. This needs to stop.'"
The resolutions, pending in the state senate and assembly, call on Congress to tell the TSA that the people must not be forced to give up their constitutional rights when they want to travel.
"What's next," Doherty asked. "Train checkpoints? Bus checkpoints. Checkpoints when you buy gas?
Listen to an interview with Doherty.
"Unless we stop this right now, we won't be able to walk across the street without going through checkpoints," he said.
In addition to a highly publicized petition in which thousands of people are joining to demand action against the intrusive airport screening as well as a campaign allowing Americans to efficiently send a letter to Congress, President Obama and others complaining of the privacy concerns, there was a poll by Reuters.
96% would change travel plans
Asked, "Are you less likely to fly because of stepped-up security procedures such as full-body scans and patdowns?" a stunning 96 percent (65,990 about of 68,809 respondents) said, "Yes, I will make alternate travel plans to avoid intrusive security scans and pat-downs."
Three percent said no, and 1 percent remained uncertain.
The evidence suggesting actual sexual assault also is on the rise. On a website run by a blogger, a woman identified as Erin explained what she experienced in Dayton, Ohio:
She (the TSA screener) felt along my waistline, moved behind me, then proceeded to feel both of my buttocks. She reached from behind in the middle of my buttocks towards my vagina area.
She did not tell me that she was going to touch my buttocks, or reach forward to my vagina area.
She then moved in front of my and touched the top and underneath portions of both of my breasts.
She did not tell me that she was going to touch my breasts.
She then felt around my waist. She then moved to the bottoms of my legs.
She then felt my inner thighs and my vagina area...
She did not tell me that she was going to touch my vagina area…
"I asked to speak to a supervisor immediately. I had a very unpleasant conversation with him that lasted 20 minutes. I moved to the back of the security area, made a few phone calls, including to my lawyer. He did some quick research, and learned that I had indeed been sexually assaulted because she did not follow the SOP (standard operating procedure) for the new search," she reported. "I also spoke with the Dayton police, the Dayton airport police, and left a message for the TSA manager for the Dayton airport. I intend to request the TSA to arrange for counseling services to be provided to me, so I can deal with the aftermath of the sexual assault that took place, caused by the specific touching actions and failure to inform me of the policies by the TSA agent."
She continued, "I am speaking out against the TSA and share my sexual assault case to ensure that this does not happen to anyone else, anywhere. I will not be a silent victim of sexual assault by a TSA agent. Total Sexual Assault."
The admission by McGowan and justification from Napolitano followed by just a day a case that appeared on YouTube.
In that case, 31-year-old John Tyner refused a "groin check" by the TSA. In a comment that already probably is on bumper stickers, he said, "If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested."
Over recent days WND reported as dozens of other airline passengers shared their real-life horror stories of close encounters of the TSA kind, including a 70-year-old whose fudge "contraband" was discovered, a Los Angeles passenger who was "groped" four times and a man who was the target of a TSA screaming fit when he chose to opt-out of the "porno scan."
WND also reported on the growing movement by activists and citizens to push back against Napolitano's plans for "enhanced" screening at airport checkpoints.
A petition has been launched to tell President Obama, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and members of Congress all about the problem.
The petition targets the decision-makers in Washington who could bring the invasive procedures to a screeching halt.
"We, the undersigned, call for the immediate suspension of the enhanced security screening procedures and an apology to the American public by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for directing the implementation of this ill-advised program," says the petition.
Concerns over the invasion of privacy by TSA scanners, described as voyeurism by critics, along with the "molestation" of the associated "enhanced" pat-downs and the health concerns from the blasts of radiation have now reached a critical mass.
The procedures have been the focus of warnings even by the networks:
George Donnelly, who with James Babb has launched the "We Won't Fly" website delivering a message directly to airlines, told WND the customer revolt is taking off faster than he could imagine.
His website says, "We do not consent to strip searches, virtual or otherwise. We do not wish to be guinea pigs for new, and possibly dangerous, technology. We are not criminals. We are your customers. We will not beg the government anymore. We will simply stop flying until the porno-scanners are history."
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Tea Party's Winning Hand
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Other than being the highest-profile Republican victims of Tea Party candidates, what do Lisa Murkowski, Mike Castle, Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter have in common?
Other than being tea party insurgents who routed establishment Republicans in high-profile primaries, what do Joe Miller, Marco Rubio, Christine O'Donnell, Pat Toomey, Sharron Angle in Nevada, Ken Buck in Colorado and Mike Lee in Utah have in common?
The answer, writes Tim Carney of The Washington Examiner, is that all the former are pro-choice on abortion, all the latter pro-life.
Tea Party types and pro-life conservatives seem to be twins separated at birth. Carney continues: "Almost without fail the strongest advocates of limited government in Congress are pro-life and vice versa. Think of (Jim) DeMint and (Tom) Coburn in the Senate and Ron Paul and Jeff Flake in the House. They top the scorecards of the National Taxpayers' Union and also have perfect scores from National Right to Life."
Carney's point: While all Tea Party insurgents and Tea Party-backed candidates seemed to agree on the economic issues -- deficits, debt, taxes, Obamacare -- they also seem united on other issues. Looking at the down-ballot battles in 2010, being pro-life is just one of them.
Three Iowa Supreme Court judges who ruled that the state constitution requires recognition of same-sex marriages were denied retention, and Gov. Terry Branstad campaigned for giving Iowans a referendum to decide if they wish to outlaw it.
Tea Party types and Iowa conservatives were not only opposed to the idea of men marrying men, they detest the idea of judicial dictatorship.
In Arizona, Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action initiative, which prohibits race, gender and ethnic preferences, won with 60 percent of the vote. Michigan, California and Washington have already adopted the Connerly amendment.
Tea Partiers also united to back the Arizona law that requires cops to determine the immigration status of any whom, in a routine police encounter, they suspect of being an illegal alien.
Passage of the law last April brought crazed comparisons with Nazi Germany. Opponents tended to go mute, however, when they learned that 70 percent of America stood with Arizona. GOP candidates for governor subsequently ran on pledges to adopt similar statutes.
In Oklahoma, a proposition to prohibit use of Shariah law in state courts passed with 70 percent. Shariah law is the basis of law in many Muslim countries, as the Bible was once the basis of much law in America.
What do these overlooked stories of Election Day 2010 teach?
Far more than the Beltway Right, the Tea Party is in tune with the heart of America -- not only on taxes, spending and Obamacare, but on social, cultural and moral issues. National Republicans may stay out of these bloody battles, but they hold great potential for bringing out voters and driving wedges through Obama's national base.
Consider. Establishment Republicans recoil from the issue of gay marriage. But, in 2008, while McCain was winning 5 percent of the African-American vote in California, blacks in California, urged on by pastors and preachers, voted 70 percent to outlaw same-sex marriage.
The pro-life position is also a far more popular cause among black and Hispanic Americans than is the Republican Party.
Oklahoma's prohibition against any use of Shariah law should be seen as a cry from the heart of America that we are and wish to remain a Western nation, a predominantly Christian country, and we wish to be ruled by our Constitution and laws enacted pursuant to it.
The national outpouring of support for Arizona after that state came under attack for its law requiring suspected illegal aliens to show ID demonstrates how explosive the immigration-amnesty issue is. Republicans should not run away from it, for our elites are further out of touch with the people on this issue than any other.
As for the Connerly amendment abolishing affirmative action, if the GOP wishes to win in 2012, the party will put this measure on every possible state ballot, especially crucial states like Pennsylvania and Ohio.
What this panoply of issues testifies to is the true identity of the Tea Party. These folks are not single-issue voters, and they are not motivated by pocketbook issues alone.
They have seen the America they grew up in virtually vanish.
Look at how far we have traveled.
We seem no longer able to balance our budgets, win our wars or secure our borders. Compared to what our culture was, it is a running sewer today. Working-class wages and middle-class incomes seem to have been stagnant for decades. Factories and jobs continue to hemorrhage to Asia. Company towns become ghost towns. Made in China has replaced Made in America. And as one drives through cities and suburbs, one encounters vast concentrations of people who speak some language other than our own.
The Tea Party people are rising up to take their country back, and that's why they're not going away.
_____
Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."
Other than being the highest-profile Republican victims of Tea Party candidates, what do Lisa Murkowski, Mike Castle, Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter have in common?
Other than being tea party insurgents who routed establishment Republicans in high-profile primaries, what do Joe Miller, Marco Rubio, Christine O'Donnell, Pat Toomey, Sharron Angle in Nevada, Ken Buck in Colorado and Mike Lee in Utah have in common?
The answer, writes Tim Carney of The Washington Examiner, is that all the former are pro-choice on abortion, all the latter pro-life.
Tea Party types and pro-life conservatives seem to be twins separated at birth. Carney continues: "Almost without fail the strongest advocates of limited government in Congress are pro-life and vice versa. Think of (Jim) DeMint and (Tom) Coburn in the Senate and Ron Paul and Jeff Flake in the House. They top the scorecards of the National Taxpayers' Union and also have perfect scores from National Right to Life."
Carney's point: While all Tea Party insurgents and Tea Party-backed candidates seemed to agree on the economic issues -- deficits, debt, taxes, Obamacare -- they also seem united on other issues. Looking at the down-ballot battles in 2010, being pro-life is just one of them.
Three Iowa Supreme Court judges who ruled that the state constitution requires recognition of same-sex marriages were denied retention, and Gov. Terry Branstad campaigned for giving Iowans a referendum to decide if they wish to outlaw it.
Tea Party types and Iowa conservatives were not only opposed to the idea of men marrying men, they detest the idea of judicial dictatorship.
In Arizona, Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action initiative, which prohibits race, gender and ethnic preferences, won with 60 percent of the vote. Michigan, California and Washington have already adopted the Connerly amendment.
Tea Partiers also united to back the Arizona law that requires cops to determine the immigration status of any whom, in a routine police encounter, they suspect of being an illegal alien.
Passage of the law last April brought crazed comparisons with Nazi Germany. Opponents tended to go mute, however, when they learned that 70 percent of America stood with Arizona. GOP candidates for governor subsequently ran on pledges to adopt similar statutes.
In Oklahoma, a proposition to prohibit use of Shariah law in state courts passed with 70 percent. Shariah law is the basis of law in many Muslim countries, as the Bible was once the basis of much law in America.
What do these overlooked stories of Election Day 2010 teach?
Far more than the Beltway Right, the Tea Party is in tune with the heart of America -- not only on taxes, spending and Obamacare, but on social, cultural and moral issues. National Republicans may stay out of these bloody battles, but they hold great potential for bringing out voters and driving wedges through Obama's national base.
Consider. Establishment Republicans recoil from the issue of gay marriage. But, in 2008, while McCain was winning 5 percent of the African-American vote in California, blacks in California, urged on by pastors and preachers, voted 70 percent to outlaw same-sex marriage.
The pro-life position is also a far more popular cause among black and Hispanic Americans than is the Republican Party.
Oklahoma's prohibition against any use of Shariah law should be seen as a cry from the heart of America that we are and wish to remain a Western nation, a predominantly Christian country, and we wish to be ruled by our Constitution and laws enacted pursuant to it.
The national outpouring of support for Arizona after that state came under attack for its law requiring suspected illegal aliens to show ID demonstrates how explosive the immigration-amnesty issue is. Republicans should not run away from it, for our elites are further out of touch with the people on this issue than any other.
As for the Connerly amendment abolishing affirmative action, if the GOP wishes to win in 2012, the party will put this measure on every possible state ballot, especially crucial states like Pennsylvania and Ohio.
What this panoply of issues testifies to is the true identity of the Tea Party. These folks are not single-issue voters, and they are not motivated by pocketbook issues alone.
They have seen the America they grew up in virtually vanish.
Look at how far we have traveled.
We seem no longer able to balance our budgets, win our wars or secure our borders. Compared to what our culture was, it is a running sewer today. Working-class wages and middle-class incomes seem to have been stagnant for decades. Factories and jobs continue to hemorrhage to Asia. Company towns become ghost towns. Made in China has replaced Made in America. And as one drives through cities and suburbs, one encounters vast concentrations of people who speak some language other than our own.
The Tea Party people are rising up to take their country back, and that's why they're not going away.
_____
Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."
Monday, November 15, 2010
Sharia-Compliant in America
by Gary Bauer
Liberal judges are increasingly looking to the laws of foreign countries to help them determine the outcomes of the legal cases before them in U.S. state and federal courts. It may not be long before they begin to write their opinions with an eye on the laws of foreign cultures, too.
Lost in the “shellacking” that Democrats took on Election Day was news of a first-of-its-kind state constitutional amendment passed in Oklahoma. Voters there passed an amendment that prohibits courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases.
At first glance, the part of the amendment that prohibits Islamic law might seem unnecessary. There was no great movement among Oklahoma’s 30,000 Muslims to institute Sharia law. But there have been cases in America in which Islamic law has been considered.
In New Jersey recently, a family court judge refused to issue a restraining order against a Moroccan Muslim who had raped his wife. The judge concluded that no sexual assault had taken place because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex.
“This court believes,” the judge wrote in his opinion, “that [the husband] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”
Thankfully, an appellate court overturned this absurd decision.
The Oklahoma constitutional amendment, passed with 70 percent of the vote, was preemptive in nature. Preemptive of what? Perhaps that’s a question the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) could answer.
Its Oklahoma affiliate filed a lawsuit, and U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles LaGrange issued a temporary restraining order to block the new amendment. The order will remain in effect until a Nov. 22 hearing on a requested preliminary injunction.
Muneer Awad, executive director of CAIR’s Oklahoma chapter, suggested that the amendment discriminated against “religious minorities” and that it would “infringe on the constitutional rights of ordinary Oklahomans—including the right to wear religious head scarves in driver’s license photographs, choose Islamic marriage contracts, implement Islamic wills, or to be buried according to one’s religious beliefs.”
But Sharia means much more than the right to wear a headscarf. Most constitutions of the 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Conference Member States cite Sharia as a source of legislation. Not coincidentally, those countries’ governments are disproportionately represented among the world’s worst violators of human rights and religious freedoms.
Sharia was written into the new Iraqi constitution in 2005. It states that “Islam is the official religion of the state and is a foundation source of legislation. . . . No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.”
Iraq’s Chaldean and Assyrian Christians are on the verge of extinction because, as one Christian leader in Iraq put it last year, “It seems that Iraq is one step closer to becoming an Islamic state intolerant of non-Muslims.”
So-called moderate Muslims insist that Sharia means different things in different places. There’s truth to that. In Afghanistan, Sharia means stoning alleged adulterers. In Sudan, Sharia prescribes amputations for petty crimes. In Nigeria, Sharia means that blasphemers are burned alive in a ring of gasoline-soaked tires.
Some Muslims insist that Sharia would apply to Muslims only. In Great Britain, for example, numerous Sharia courts have been established to settle certain disputes among the country’s growing Muslim population.
But in Muslim-majority countries, Sharia is often applied not only to Muslims but to non-Muslims too. A Christian woman in Pakistan was recently sentenced to death for blasphemy after being convicted of defaming the Prophet Mohammed.
A woman in Iran faces stoning for alleged adultery. After an uproar ensued, Iran deputy foreign minister, Hassan Ghashghavi, said, “We live in an Islamic country and we act according to the Koran’s sentences. Even if 100,000 must be executed, we will carry out the Koran’s sentences.”
And what would happen to Muslims like the New Jersey rape victim who wish to be tried under civil rather than Islamic law?
It’s telling that at a time in America when Christian doctors are being ordered to set aside their religious beliefs in order to perform abortions, Muslims may be close to gaining more rights to elevate their religious precepts over civil law.
And at a time when American courts agonize over whether lethal injection may be too painful for coldblooded killers to endure, the religion of peace prescribes punishments aimed at inflicting as much pain as possible, often against the innocent.
Liberal judges have used foreign law in their decisions on everything from upholding race-based admissions at public universities to legalizing sodomy.
They are wrong to do so. We are a society based on Judeo-Christian principles of civilization. Neither modern Europe’s secularist bias nor the world’s Sharia-based Islamic regimes have anything better to offer than our own founding ideals.
____
Former presidential candidate Mr. Gary Bauer is president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for W orking Families.
Liberal judges are increasingly looking to the laws of foreign countries to help them determine the outcomes of the legal cases before them in U.S. state and federal courts. It may not be long before they begin to write their opinions with an eye on the laws of foreign cultures, too.
Lost in the “shellacking” that Democrats took on Election Day was news of a first-of-its-kind state constitutional amendment passed in Oklahoma. Voters there passed an amendment that prohibits courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases.
At first glance, the part of the amendment that prohibits Islamic law might seem unnecessary. There was no great movement among Oklahoma’s 30,000 Muslims to institute Sharia law. But there have been cases in America in which Islamic law has been considered.
In New Jersey recently, a family court judge refused to issue a restraining order against a Moroccan Muslim who had raped his wife. The judge concluded that no sexual assault had taken place because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex.
“This court believes,” the judge wrote in his opinion, “that [the husband] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”
Thankfully, an appellate court overturned this absurd decision.
The Oklahoma constitutional amendment, passed with 70 percent of the vote, was preemptive in nature. Preemptive of what? Perhaps that’s a question the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) could answer.
Its Oklahoma affiliate filed a lawsuit, and U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles LaGrange issued a temporary restraining order to block the new amendment. The order will remain in effect until a Nov. 22 hearing on a requested preliminary injunction.
Muneer Awad, executive director of CAIR’s Oklahoma chapter, suggested that the amendment discriminated against “religious minorities” and that it would “infringe on the constitutional rights of ordinary Oklahomans—including the right to wear religious head scarves in driver’s license photographs, choose Islamic marriage contracts, implement Islamic wills, or to be buried according to one’s religious beliefs.”
But Sharia means much more than the right to wear a headscarf. Most constitutions of the 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Conference Member States cite Sharia as a source of legislation. Not coincidentally, those countries’ governments are disproportionately represented among the world’s worst violators of human rights and religious freedoms.
Sharia was written into the new Iraqi constitution in 2005. It states that “Islam is the official religion of the state and is a foundation source of legislation. . . . No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.”
Iraq’s Chaldean and Assyrian Christians are on the verge of extinction because, as one Christian leader in Iraq put it last year, “It seems that Iraq is one step closer to becoming an Islamic state intolerant of non-Muslims.”
So-called moderate Muslims insist that Sharia means different things in different places. There’s truth to that. In Afghanistan, Sharia means stoning alleged adulterers. In Sudan, Sharia prescribes amputations for petty crimes. In Nigeria, Sharia means that blasphemers are burned alive in a ring of gasoline-soaked tires.
Some Muslims insist that Sharia would apply to Muslims only. In Great Britain, for example, numerous Sharia courts have been established to settle certain disputes among the country’s growing Muslim population.
But in Muslim-majority countries, Sharia is often applied not only to Muslims but to non-Muslims too. A Christian woman in Pakistan was recently sentenced to death for blasphemy after being convicted of defaming the Prophet Mohammed.
A woman in Iran faces stoning for alleged adultery. After an uproar ensued, Iran deputy foreign minister, Hassan Ghashghavi, said, “We live in an Islamic country and we act according to the Koran’s sentences. Even if 100,000 must be executed, we will carry out the Koran’s sentences.”
And what would happen to Muslims like the New Jersey rape victim who wish to be tried under civil rather than Islamic law?
It’s telling that at a time in America when Christian doctors are being ordered to set aside their religious beliefs in order to perform abortions, Muslims may be close to gaining more rights to elevate their religious precepts over civil law.
And at a time when American courts agonize over whether lethal injection may be too painful for coldblooded killers to endure, the religion of peace prescribes punishments aimed at inflicting as much pain as possible, often against the innocent.
Liberal judges have used foreign law in their decisions on everything from upholding race-based admissions at public universities to legalizing sodomy.
They are wrong to do so. We are a society based on Judeo-Christian principles of civilization. Neither modern Europe’s secularist bias nor the world’s Sharia-based Islamic regimes have anything better to offer than our own founding ideals.
____
Former presidential candidate Mr. Gary Bauer is president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for W orking Families.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Yesha Council Cartoon Tells Obama: Don't Play G-d
by Gil Ronen
A new cartoon history of the Jewish people packs 3,500 years into 3.5 minutes -- and ends with a message to US President Barack Obama. The cartoon was produced by the Yesha Council, a semi-official federation of the heads of local authorities in Judea and Samaria.
The Yesha Council under its present leadership -- Chairman Danny Dayan and Director Naftali Bennet -- earned a reputation for effective and creative advertising with a campaign a year ago that improved Judea and Samaria's public image. The campaign featured child actors dressed up as biblical figures and the slogan -- "Judea and Samaria, every Jew's story."
It now remains to be seen if the new cartoon will be similarly successful.
A new cartoon history of the Jewish people packs 3,500 years into 3.5 minutes -- and ends with a message to US President Barack Obama. The cartoon was produced by the Yesha Council, a semi-official federation of the heads of local authorities in Judea and Samaria.
The Yesha Council under its present leadership -- Chairman Danny Dayan and Director Naftali Bennet -- earned a reputation for effective and creative advertising with a campaign a year ago that improved Judea and Samaria's public image. The campaign featured child actors dressed up as biblical figures and the slogan -- "Judea and Samaria, every Jew's story."
It now remains to be seen if the new cartoon will be similarly successful.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Veterans Day Thank You
by Jackie Gingrich Cushman
This week we celebrate Veterans Day, a day of appreciation and gratitude for all who have served in the United States Armed Forces.
My grandfather served as a career Army officer. My father grew up moving from base to base as his father was ordered to different locations by the Army. They lived in Kansas, Germany, France and Columbus, Ga., where my father graduated high school.
When I was young, we traveled as a family to the Panama Canal Zone, where my grandfather was stationed. I don't remember the canal, but I do remember playing cowboys and Indians with my Aunt Candy, who is six months older than I am.
We would run from tree to tree, taking cover and exchanging fire. Whoever was wounded or killed would pop back up a minute later, ready to get back in the battle.
This version of war was a child's game, full of innocence. We didn't understand that, in real life, war has terrible consequences. We just knew that, in the game we were playing, the bad guys lost and the good guys won.
The reality of war is different -- it's ugly, it's deadly, and unfortunately, sometimes it's unavoidable. When it is unavoidable, we are lucky to have men and women who are willing to serve our country and make the ultimate sacrifice, if necessary.
We are a nation born out of war. We declared ourselves independent from the British in 1776. It took us eight years to earn our independence from the British through the American Revolutionary War.
It is fitting that a book about George Washington's heroic service as commander in chief of the Continental Army comes out the week of Veterans Day -- "Valley Forge," by Newt Gingrich, my father, and Bill Forstchen. Washington was appointed the commander in chief in the spring
of 1775. Not only was he the commander in chief, but at the time, he was the only member of the Army.
"Washington is at the heart of American exceptionalism because it's at the heart of the American experience," said Dad this week. "Bill Forstchen and I wrote 'Valley Forge' because we think there's a tremendous lesson to learn from how Washington took the rejection of the British, which was the Declaration of Independence, and created the replacement of British military power with the modern American Army, which was an extraordinary achievement. ... Washington emerged as father of our country because he had the sheer courage to go through a winter at Valley Forge with 14,000 troops, no food, two axes initially to build housing, and his courage and his honor and dignity are the base in which this whole country resides. ... You can't imagine America without George Washington."
Our nation was born through the trials of war. The union was saved the same way.
Abraham Lincoln, elected Nov. 6, 1860, was determined to save the union. "The campaign had been impassioned and contentious. More than 80 percent of eligible voters turned out. Lincoln received 59 percent of the electoral votes, but less than 40 percent of the popular vote," I write in my upcoming book, "The Essential American: 25 Documents and Speeches that Every American Should Own" (Regnery). "In the 17 weeks between Lincoln's election and his Inaugural Address, seven states, South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas, seceded from the Union."
While he hoped for peace without war, he was determined to keep the nation united.
Lincoln's Inaugural Address placed the onus for potential war on the Southern states, "In your hands, my dissatisfied countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war."
War came.
Four years later, Lincoln was re-elected. He delivered his Second Inaugural Address on March 4, 1865.
"The dome that had been half-complete at the time of the first inaugural, with a crane sticking out of the top, had been completed. The Union Army had been victorious in recent battles, and the war's final outcome was all but determined. Slaves had been freed, and the Capitol was surrounded by the biggest crowd to date, with half of them reported as 'persons of color.'"
The clouds broke and the sun came out, as Lincoln began to speak. Through the guidance of divine providence, the leadership of Lincoln and the service of our soldiers, the union was saved.
As we remember and honor those who have served our country, we should remember that our country would not survive without the service of all our brave women and men.
Thank you for your service to our country.
____
To find out more about Jackie Gingrich Cushman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.
This week we celebrate Veterans Day, a day of appreciation and gratitude for all who have served in the United States Armed Forces.
My grandfather served as a career Army officer. My father grew up moving from base to base as his father was ordered to different locations by the Army. They lived in Kansas, Germany, France and Columbus, Ga., where my father graduated high school.
When I was young, we traveled as a family to the Panama Canal Zone, where my grandfather was stationed. I don't remember the canal, but I do remember playing cowboys and Indians with my Aunt Candy, who is six months older than I am.
We would run from tree to tree, taking cover and exchanging fire. Whoever was wounded or killed would pop back up a minute later, ready to get back in the battle.
This version of war was a child's game, full of innocence. We didn't understand that, in real life, war has terrible consequences. We just knew that, in the game we were playing, the bad guys lost and the good guys won.
The reality of war is different -- it's ugly, it's deadly, and unfortunately, sometimes it's unavoidable. When it is unavoidable, we are lucky to have men and women who are willing to serve our country and make the ultimate sacrifice, if necessary.
We are a nation born out of war. We declared ourselves independent from the British in 1776. It took us eight years to earn our independence from the British through the American Revolutionary War.
It is fitting that a book about George Washington's heroic service as commander in chief of the Continental Army comes out the week of Veterans Day -- "Valley Forge," by Newt Gingrich, my father, and Bill Forstchen. Washington was appointed the commander in chief in the spring
of 1775. Not only was he the commander in chief, but at the time, he was the only member of the Army.
"Washington is at the heart of American exceptionalism because it's at the heart of the American experience," said Dad this week. "Bill Forstchen and I wrote 'Valley Forge' because we think there's a tremendous lesson to learn from how Washington took the rejection of the British, which was the Declaration of Independence, and created the replacement of British military power with the modern American Army, which was an extraordinary achievement. ... Washington emerged as father of our country because he had the sheer courage to go through a winter at Valley Forge with 14,000 troops, no food, two axes initially to build housing, and his courage and his honor and dignity are the base in which this whole country resides. ... You can't imagine America without George Washington."
Our nation was born through the trials of war. The union was saved the same way.
Abraham Lincoln, elected Nov. 6, 1860, was determined to save the union. "The campaign had been impassioned and contentious. More than 80 percent of eligible voters turned out. Lincoln received 59 percent of the electoral votes, but less than 40 percent of the popular vote," I write in my upcoming book, "The Essential American: 25 Documents and Speeches that Every American Should Own" (Regnery). "In the 17 weeks between Lincoln's election and his Inaugural Address, seven states, South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas, seceded from the Union."
While he hoped for peace without war, he was determined to keep the nation united.
Lincoln's Inaugural Address placed the onus for potential war on the Southern states, "In your hands, my dissatisfied countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war."
War came.
Four years later, Lincoln was re-elected. He delivered his Second Inaugural Address on March 4, 1865.
"The dome that had been half-complete at the time of the first inaugural, with a crane sticking out of the top, had been completed. The Union Army had been victorious in recent battles, and the war's final outcome was all but determined. Slaves had been freed, and the Capitol was surrounded by the biggest crowd to date, with half of them reported as 'persons of color.'"
The clouds broke and the sun came out, as Lincoln began to speak. Through the guidance of divine providence, the leadership of Lincoln and the service of our soldiers, the union was saved.
As we remember and honor those who have served our country, we should remember that our country would not survive without the service of all our brave women and men.
Thank you for your service to our country.
____
To find out more about Jackie Gingrich Cushman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)