===
These are the people Obama has running the war he said was absolutely the right one and not the war Bush started in Iraq:
THESE ARE THE GUYS RUNNING THE SHOW IN AFGHANISTAN ...?
===
Status Quo in Asia by Stratfor analysts. (See 1 below.)
===
I am reposting what David Horowitz wrote. Horowitz has what Patrician Republicans lack - a clear message, a strategy that calls the opposition's hand and b----.
Apathy is the greatest gift Republicans can give to Progressive Liberals. We have no one to blame but ourselves if we allow them to continue to destroy our nation with ideas that have proven wrong headed, absurdly costly and counterproductive.
Horowitz was a radical lefty during the Hippy Dippy Years and then he came to his senses and now is a superb spokesman for what is wrong with Democrats, their failed ideas and unworkable solutions and abject failures.
David Mamet is also another reformed Liberal and no longer drinks their Kool Aid and swallows their pap.
As for Obama, he is the most dangerous politician to be elected to national office since Senator Mc Carthy. (See 2 below.)
More evidence of his failed presidency. (See 2a below.)
===
Dr.BenCarson must be a wonderful man and no doubt that is why Obama is having him instigated by one of our gum shoe government agencies. How pathetic. (See 3 below)
===
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------On one level, Mr. Miller said, the president’s involvement is a promising sign, “because it shows he is more risk-ready.” On another, he said, it underscores the hurdles to even a “generalized framework,” which he said raised the question, “What is it going to take to get to a comprehensive deal if the president has to do heavy lifting?”
2. Acceding to US pressure, Israel has quietly frozen West Bank building outside the main settlement blocs, reports the Times of Israel.
3. As Iranian-Western relations thawed last year, the
One source said probably only Israel, which is believed to be the Middle East’s sole nuclear-armed state, would criticise the IAEA for not issuing a new report in the present circumstances. Iran and the world powers hope to reach a final settlement by July, when the interim accord expires, although they acknowledge this will be an uphill task.
A decision not to go ahead with the new document may raise questions about information that the United Nations agency has gathered in the last two years on what it calls the “possible military dimensions” (PMD) to Iran’s nuclear programme.
===
Some meaningful trivia about our country and its flag. (See 3 below.)
===
What a wonderful Dr. Ben Carson must be. I am sure that is why Obama is having him investigated by some gum shoe government agency. (See 4 below.)
===
===
What a wonderful Dr. Ben Carson must be. I am sure that is why Obama is having him investigated by some gum shoe government agency. (See 4 below.)
===
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)The Asian Status Quo
By Robert D. Kaplan and Matt Gertken
Arguably the greatest book on political realism in the 20th century was University of Chicago Professor Hans J. Morgenthau's Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, published in 1948. In that seminal work, Morgenthau defines the status quo as "the maintenance of the distribution of power that exists at a particular moment in history." In other words, things shall stay as they are. But it is not quite that clear. For as Morgenthau also explains, "the concept of the 'status quo' derives fromstatus quo ante bellum," which, in turn, implies a return to the distribution of power before a war. The war's aggressor shall give up his conquered territory, and everything will return to how it was.
The status quo also connotes the victors' peace: a peace that may be unfair, or even oppressive, but at the same time stands for stability. For a change in the distribution of power, while at times just in a moral sense, simply introduces a measure of instability into the geopolitical equation. And because stability has a moral value all its own, the status quo is sanctified in the international system.
Let us apply this to Asia.
Because Japan was the aggressor in World War II and was vanquished by the U.S. military, it lay prostrate after the war, so that the Pacific Basin became a virtual American naval lake. That was the status quo as it came to be seen. This situation was buttressed by the decades-long reclusiveness of the Pacific's largest and most populous nation: China. Japanese occupation and civil war left China devastated. The rise to power of Mao Zedong's communists in 1949 would keep the country preoccupied with itself for decades as it fell prey to destructive development and political schemes such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. China was not weak, as the United States would discover in the Korean and Vietnamese wars and later turn to its advantage against the Soviets. But its revolution remained unfinished. The economy did not truly start to develop until the late 1970s, after Mao died. And only in the mid-1990s did China begin its naval expansion in a demonstrable and undeniable way. Thus the United States, in its struggle with the Soviets, got used to a reclusive China and a subordinate Japan. With these two certainties underlying the Cold War's various animosities, the United States preserved calm in its lake.
But the 21st century has not been kind to this status quo, however convenient it may have been for American interests. China's naval, air, cyber and ballistic missile buildup over the past two decades has not yet challenged U.S. military supremacy in the region, but it has encroached significantly on the previously unipolar environment. Moreover, to measure China's progress against U.S. supremacy is to neglect the primary regional balance of power between China and Japan. Tokyo, over the same time period, has come to see China as reaching a sort of critical mass and has accelerated its own military preparations, both in a quantitative and a qualitative sense. Recently, Tokyo has taken to trumpeting its abandonment of quasi-pacifism in order to adjust the world's expectations to what it sees as a new reality. Japan was already a major naval power -- it ranks fourth in total naval tonnage, has more destroyers than any navy besides that of the United States, and its technology and traditions give it a special edge. But now it is moving faster to loosen restrictions on its rules of engagement and to upgrade the capabilities it needs to defend its most distant island holdings.
While Beijing sees Japan's actions as aggressive, it is primarily China that is altering the status quo. No doubt Japan was once the region's most ambitious and belligerent power, and no doubt China cannot assume good intentions, but Japan's current military normalization has little in common with its 1930s militarization, and Tokyo is for the moment mostly reacting to Beijing. China, for instance, has largely succeeded in shaping a global narrative of a legitimate dispute over islands in the East China Sea. But Japan has controlled the Senkaku islands (known as Diaoyu in Chinese) for more than 40 years, and China has only recently asserted its claims. Japan's other territorial disputes, by contrast, show a continuation of the status quo: Russia administers the southern Kuril islands but sees Japan offering dialogue while moving military forces away from that border; South Korea controls the Liancourt Rocks, but any feared Japanese appetite for overturning that status quo remains in check by the Americans. Nor were Japan's sea-lanes under any conceivable threat of interference from China until recently. Keep in mind that Japan's supply line anxieties are inherent to its geopolitical position.
Indeed, in the eyes of the Pentagon, Japan now has every reason to tailor its military capabilities in order to take precautions against China's rise. For years U.S. defense officials have argued that a stronger Japan would help ensure China's peaceful ascent. Only a few years ago, defense officials and think tank analysts in Washington were fretting that the Japanese might not muster the courage to stand up to China. The explanation for all this is clear: Almost seven decades of U.S. military presence in Japan has created, on an emotional level, a powerful Japan lobby within the American military and on the Pentagon's E-Ring. This was further buttressed during the Rumsfeld years, when the United States encouraged Japan to spend billions of dollars on defending itself against North Korean missiles and to host a U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier strike group, despite Japan's neuralgic attitude toward nuclear weapons at the time. (See "What Rumsfeld Got Right," by Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic, July 2008.) From a purely geopolitical point of view, a more assertive Japan could someday revive an old threat to the United States, since both are maritime powers. But for now, Washington sees immediate benefits in Japan's growing willingness to defend itself rather than rely so heavily on the United States.
The real danger Japan poses to the Americans is that attempting to establish a formidable defensive posture could provoke China into a dangerous escalation that, in turn, could ensnare the United States in a confrontation with the latter.
While Japan reacts to a changing of the status quo, China is aware of its own role as an agent of change. Beijing knows that it is an emerging power. It knows that emerging powers disrupt the international system. But it needs to buy time, since it isn't ready to confront directly and unapologetically the American-led status quo in the Pacific. China's lack of readiness is heightened by the precarious consolidation of political power and economic reforms that the Xi Jinping administration has undertaken out of necessity. China thus seeks a "new kind of major country relationship," a phrase Chinese and American diplomats have taken to repeating, whereby the two countries will find some way of accommodating each other to China's military emergence without causing the disruption and conflict that history books suggest is inevitable. The problem with this rhetoric is that, as the Napoleonic Wars and World War I showed, the awareness that a collapsing status quo often precedes a bellum is not the same thing as collective action on all sides to reform the old status quo. Knowing theoretically what causes wars -- though good in and of itself and a prerequisite for prudent statecraft -- is not the same as sacrificing some portion of one's own interests to try to prevent them.
The United States must try both to accommodate rising Chinese power and to fortify U.S. allies in response to it. But it acts from a position of military security that Japan -- not to mention China's smaller neighbors -- cannot assume. Regardless of whether Japan overcorrects, the status quo in the Pacific is changing. And the stability of the region can no longer be taken for granted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Can the marriage between the Tea Party and the GOP survive?
By David Horowitz
My answer is: It better. The White House is occupied by a lifelong anti-American radical who has done more to bankrupt this nation’s economy, take us down as a military power, and destroy individual liberty than anyone would have thought possible in January 2009 when he took office. And it’s worse than that. Obama is the head of a Democratic party that has moved so far to the left over the last 46 years that it has become anti–free market, anti-individualist, anti-constitutionalist, and unready to defend America’s sovereign interests at home and abroad. We cannot afford to let such a party run our government for another four or eight years. The world cannot afford it.
So how do we hold together the conservative coalition opposing this national suicide? How do we make this marriage survive? First of all, by recognizing that the basic difference between the Tea Party and the Republican party is a matter of tactics and temperament, not policy and ideology. To understand what I mean by this, one has to go back to the flashpoint that has made the possibility of a Republican schism a topic of the day: the famous alleged government shutdown by tea-party hero Ted Cruz. I probably should acknowledge here that I am a huge fan of what the Tea Party represents, though not always what it does. I believe the emergence of the Tea Party is the most important political development in conservatism in the last 25 years, and is possibly the last best hope for our country.
The government shutdown was the alleged result of Senator Cruz’s filibuster of a continuing resolution to fund the government. In fact, the House had passed a resolution to fund the government but not Obamacare. In the Senate, however, Majority Leader Harry Reid stripped the Obamacare-funding ban from the bill. Cruz conducted a one-man filibuster to express his opposition, both to Reid and to the Republicans who voted to fund Obamacare rather than join him. And so Republicans attacked each other instead of the real culprits.
You might ask yourself this question: What would have happened if the Republican party and the Tea Party and the big PACs run by Rove and Koch had funded a $30 million campaign to put the blame on Obama and Reid, where it belonged? There was no such campaign. All the parties on our side failed to take the fight to the enemy camp. The finger-pointing that followed is just another example of the circular firing squad that we on the right are so good at and that continually sets us back.
Here’s a second important point that applies to all the frictions between tea partiers and Republican regulars. The conflict among the Right about the Obama shutdown was not about policy. It was about tactics. Every Republican in Congress is opposed to Obamacare, with no exceptions. Not a single Republican legislator voted for it. Not a single Republican legislator would support it. The issue is how best to defeat the Democrats and repeal a monstrous law — how to defeat the socialist party that now controls our government and is hell-bent on bankrupting our country, crippling our military, and destroying the culture of individualism and opportunity that has made this nation what it is.
Understanding that what divides us is tactical, not fundamental, is crucial to keeping the marriage alive. A tactical difference is no grounds for divorce.
Another important point to understand is that there is a difference between politics and policy. Republicans (and I would include conservatives and tea partiers) are good at policy; they are not so good at politics, which is the way one gets to make policy. Do we repeal Obamacare by obstructing it at every turn? Or do we repeal it by lying low until we have a majority and abolishing it at a stroke? And if we lie low, do we demoralize our troops, who see us as compromisers and appeasers, and in effect give up the chance of ever winning a majority and accomplishing our goal? These are the questions that divide us. They are legitimate questions and — excuse me for blurting this out — no one knows the answers. Politics is always a gamble. No one can be sure of what will succeed, which is why we have to respect each other and keep our coalition strong, even though we disagree.
I said we were not so good at politics. Actually we’re terrible at politics. Whenever a Republican and a Democrat square off it’s like Godzilla versus Bambi. They call us racists, sexists, homophobes, and selfish pigs, and we call them . . . liberals. Who’s going to win that argument? They spend their political dollars calling us names and shredding our reputations; we spend ours explaining why the complicated solutions we propose will work and why theirs won’t. But when you are being called a racist, an enemy of women, and a greedy SOB, who do you think is listening to your ideas about the budget? Who is going to believe you when all your motives are ulterior and degenerate?
This is the problem that not only Republicans, but also tea partiers and conservatives, have failed to address. It is why the Democratic party, which supports policies that are morally repugnant and have also failed on an epic scale, still wins elections. Medicare is bankrupt and a mess; Social Security is bankrupt and a mess; the War on Poverty is a trillion-dollar catastrophe that has created worse poverty than it was designed to cure — and yet Democrats can still win elections, and can pass the biggest socialist entitlement and redistributionist scheme ever and get away with it. Until Republicans and tea partiers start to fight fire with fire, this scenario is not going to change. Twenty-five years after the most oppressive empire in human history collapsed because socialist economics don’t work, 49 percent of American youth, according to a recent Pew poll, think socialism is a good system. That’s a political failure on our part. We won the Cold War, but we didn’t drive the stake through the Communist heart. As a result, the vampire of “social justice” has risen again.
Another way of looking at the problem is that the Republican party — like conservatives generally — is guided by a business mentality, whereas the Left’s mentality is missionary. Let me explain what I mean. Democrats, progressives, so-called liberals see themselves as social redeemers. They don’t approach social problems pragmatically, looking for ways to improve this situation or that, except as a political expedient. They approach social problems with an eye to changing the world. Hillary Clinton once told the New York Times that “we have to define what it means to be human in the 21st century.” No Republican or conservative in his right mind talks like that. On the eve of his election, Barack Obama said, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” People in their right minds don’t think like that. Unless they are progressives who believe that they are “on the side of history” and the “moral arc of the universe is bent towards justice.” That particular phrase is woven into a carpet that Obama has installed in the Oval Office.
Leftists are secular missionaries whose paradise is called “social justice.” The pursuit of social justice is why the Democratic party set out to radically transform a sixth of the American economy and regulate the health care of 300 million Americans from a website without the support of a single Republican and in the face of majority opposition from the people at large.
The Democratic party has become a dangerous party. It is driven by the missionary Left, backed by the billions of George Soros and his Shadow Partyfriends, and it regards politics as war conducted by other means. That is why Democrats can say — and believe — that Republicans are conducting wars against women, minorities, and the poor, while Republicans refer to them as liberals and patiently explain to them why their policies won’t work. If explaining why their policies won’t work were politically effective, they’d be out of business. Socialism doesn’t work, central planning doesn’t work. These ideas ruined whole continents. Why haven’t Democrats learned from that? It is because they are missionaries, and their politics is a religion that provides them with a meaning for their lives. They are the prophets of a social redemption, a future in which the meaning of being human has been redefined and social justice prevails.
Because their politics is inspirational, every failure along the way is regarded as a glitch. The cause is noble, and they cannot allow it to be derailed by a failure of any of its parts. After a century of corpses and ruined continents, “socialist” should be just another name for delusional. So should “progressive.” And yet these are the fantasies that drive the Democratic party today.
By contrast, a business mentality is pragmatic and its expectations modest. It is not looking to change the world we live in but to service the actual beings who inhabit it. It sets out to meet their needs within the parameters that are set by human capabilities and desires. When a businessman is delusional, when his expectations exceed the capacities of the marketplace, the market punishes him — and punishes him without mercy.
A business approach is fundamentally positive. To succeed it must meet the expectations of others. Where possible it wants to avoid conflict and the alienation of others; it is looking to maximize customers and expand markets, and therefore to make deals. A businessman would rather buy you out or merge with you than crush you. When obstacles present themselves, it is cheaper, and in the long run more productive, to compromise and find a way around them.
This is the mentality of our Washington insiders. A way of looking at the schism between the Tea Party and the Republican party is that the Tea Party, which is an upstart, is driven more by the missionary mentality, while the Republican party is more of a business establishment with a business temperament and approach. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are dealmakers, not game-changers.
The catch is that this is probably not the best mentality to hold when the opposition is a missionary party that views politics as war and that is out for your blood. In these circumstances, an equal and opposite force — a missionary force — may be required to defeat it. The grassroots understands this, which is why and how the Tea Party was born, and why a maverick like Ted Cruz was able to defeat the strongest Republican establishment in Texas — the most important Republican state — and become its senator.
The Tea Party’s mission is not parallel to that of the political Left. It is not about creating a new race of human beings or a new social order. Its mission is closer to the realism of business. Its mission is to defend something familiar and real — a Constitution that has been shredded, a culture that has been traduced, and an economy that is heading for bankruptcy. This doesn’t mean that tea partiers should be unmindful of the dangers that missionary ideas bring with them. Good principles don’t guarantee good candidates or winning politics. Some tea-party losses in the last election hurt the conservative cause and could have been avoided if the distinctions were kept in mind.
The very fact that the Tea Party is missionary, that it is organized as a cause, makes its demands and actions seem impractical and even extreme to business-as-usual Republicans. This is inevitable. In order to change things you have to take positions that seem unrealistic and may even seem extreme. It’s the nature of change, and the Tea Party is about change. And in fact it is already changing something.
What it is changing is the Republican party. Without the Tea Party there would be no Ted Cruz, no Rand Paul, no Mike Lee. If the Tea Party were not challenging the Republican establishment and causing conflict, it would have no reason for being.
Not only do I believe that Cruz’s stand on the Senate floor did not injure the chances of a Republican victory in 2014, I believe it enhanced them. Because it lit a fire in the Republican base and showed the rank and file that there are Republicans ready to fight. This is what our voters most want to see. Both McCain and Romney lost because they failed to create the passion among Republican voters that gets them to the polls. Too many Republicans — too many conservatives — sat on their hands. And why not, since both McCain and Romney assured them that Obama was “a good man.” No he isn’t. He’s a compulsive, brazen liar and a human wrecking ball blasting the structures and foundations of a great nation.
A question you’re probably asking is how the Tea Party can succeed as a caucus within the Republican party. How great are the changes it can achieve? Can Republicans like Boehner and McConnell be changed? (That is, if they are not unseated in primaries or by votes in their caucuses.) Well, if my analysis is correct, both men have a business mentality and can appreciate the realities of power. So my answer is yes. If the grassroots mobilizes and the Tea Party gains critical mass, they can be changed. That’s what politics is about.
In fact, that is precisely the way the Democratic party was changed over the last five decades: by grassroots extremists who first attacked the party and then infiltrated it. The radicals infiltrated the party during the McGovern campaign and over the ensuing years transformed it from the party of John F. Kennedy, who had politics identical to those of Ronald Reagan, into the party of Barack Obama, whose political comrades were the anti-American racist Jeremiah Wright and the anti-American terrorist Bill Ayers.
So how do we fight fire with fire? How do we go from a party that is eager to explain to Democrats why their policies won’t work but reluctant to call them out for who they are, to a party that will go toe-to-toe and hammer-and-tongs with them and defeat their politics of personal and political destruction? Another way to put this is: How do we develop a political weapon that matches and neutralizes theirs, in particular the claim that we are waging a war against women, minorities, and the poor?
Actually, it’s not that difficult if you are willing to be aggressive, if you are willing to match their rhetoric and be called extremist for doing so. Every inner city in America of size is run by Democrats and has been for 50 to 100 years. Detroit is a good example. It is 85 percent black. Fifty years ago it was per capita the richest city in America, the industrial jewel of an industrial superpower. Fifty years ago Democrats came to power in Detroit and began implementing their plans for social justice.
Fifty years of progressive policies and Democratic rule has bankrupted Detroit, and ruined it. A third of its population is on welfare. Half its population is unemployed. Its per-capita income has plummeted so far that it is now the poorest large city in America. It has been depopulated. More than half the people who lived there are gone. Everyone has fled who can. It is a giant slum of human misery and despair. And Democrats did it. Democrats are Detroit’s slumlords and the authors of the racist policies that have reduced a once great city to its present squalid state. Democrats are cynical liars and rank hypocrites when they claim to be interested in the well-being of minorities and the poor, whose necks bear the marks of their boot heels.
Fighting fire with fire means throwing the Democrats’ atrocities — their exploitation and devastation of black and brown Americans — in their faces every time they open their mouths. It means accusing them of destroying the lives of millions of poor black and Hispanic children who are trapped in the public schools that don’t educate them — schools the Democrats run as jobs programs for adults and slush funds for their political campaigns. It means taking up the cause of the victims and indicting progressives for their crimes. The one thing it does not mean is business as usual.
— David Horowitz is the author of The Black Book of the American Left, which will encompass ten volumes when it is completed. The first volume, My Life & Times, was published November 5.
2a) NYT/CBS Poll: Six Percent Say Obamacare is Working, Should Remain Intact
By Guy Benson
Katie wrote up one major element of the new New York Times/CBS News poll -- namely that nearly six in ten Americans are disappointed in Barack Obama's presidency -- but there are additionalpieces of data worth teasing out and underscoring as well:
2a) NYT/CBS Poll: Six Percent Say Obamacare is Working, Should Remain Intact
By Guy Benson
Katie wrote up one major element of the new New York Times/CBS News poll -- namely that nearly six in ten Americans are disappointed in Barack Obama's presidency -- but there are additionalpieces of data worth teasing out and underscoring as well:
(1) The president's approval rating has once again slumped to 41 percent overall, with a majority disapproving of his performance. Independents disapprove (37/53). The president is underwater by double digits on foreign policy (39/48) and on the economy (38/57).
(2) Fully 79 percent of respondents describe their attitude toward Washington, DC's politics as "dissatisfied" or "angry." Just 10 percent of the country is "very satisfied" with the Obama presidency. Hope and change is long dead.
(3) Republicans hold a three-point lead (42/39) over Democrats on the generic Congressional ballot, and that's among registered voters, as opposed to likely, voters. Likely voters tend to lean more conservative. For reference, the final NYT/CBS poll before the 2010 Republican landslide showed Democrats leading on this question by one point.
(4) The new poll poll is D+7, which is an accurate reflection of the electorate composition over the last two presidential cycles. The 2010 midterm partisan turnout breakdown, by contrast, was D+0. National Journal argues that while conservative critiques of polling samples (including from yours truly) turned out to be misplaced in 2012, our previous arguments apply more aptly in the 2014 cycle. A plurality, 38 percent, of respondents in this poll categorize themselves as independents. Among that group, they lean GOP by nine points.
(5) On Obamacare, it seems as though this pollster has stopped asking the binary support/oppose question, on which the law has consistently been upside down by 12 to 25 points in virtually all polling. They're now giving respondents three options, asking whether they support the law and want it kept intact, whether they want to see changes to the law, or whether they favor full repeal. On that question, just six (!) percent pick the first option. Half of respondents want changes, and 42 percent back full repeal. Some liberals may try to spin this into evidence of public support for the law, which couldn't be further from the truth. When offered the choice between maintaining the current law or scrapping it, repeal wins easily. A substantial majority would prefer to return to the pre-Obamacare system than continue under the new law as it exists. And super-majorities oppose theindividual mandate tax, which is the tent pole of the law. Make that popular "change," and Obamacare collapses. Among the few popular elements of Obamacare are protecting people with pre-existing conditions and allowing "children" to remain on their parents' plans through age 26 -- both of which will certainly be preserved in an eventual Republican alternative to the law.
(6) On immigration reform, 53 percent say most illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the US and apply for citizenship. 43 percent say they should either be allowed to stay without a path to citizenship, or should be removed from the country. On global warming, slightly more people say the phenomenon is naturally occurring or doesn't exist than believe it's caused by human activity. Fifty-six percent of respondents believe same-sex marriage should be legal (including 40 percent of Republicans), but two-thirds believe the decision should be left up to the states. A slim majority (51/46) favor marijuana legalization. A significant majority (38/61) support stricter limits or outright bans on abortion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)Meaning of Flag Draped Coffin
All Americans should be given this lesson. Those who think that America is an arrogant nation should really reconsider that thought. Our founding fathers used GOD's word and teachings to establish our Great Nation and I think it's high time Americans get re-educated about this Nation's history. Pass it along and be proud of the country we live in and even more proud of those who serve to protect our 'GOD GIVEN' rights and freedoms.
I hope you take the time to read this .. To understand what the flag draped coffin really means ... Here is how to understand the flag that laid upon it and is surrendered to so many widows and widowers.
Do you know that at military funerals, the 21-gun salute stands for the sum of the numbers in the year 1776? Have you ever noticed the honor guard pays meticulous attention to correctly folding theUnited States of America Flag 13 times? You probably thought it was to symbolize the original 13 colonies, but we learn something new every day! The 1st fold of the flag is a symbol of life.
The 2nd fold is a symbol of the belief in eternal life.
The 3rd fold is made in honor and remembrance of the veterans departing the ranks who gave a portion of their lives for the defense of the country to attain peace throughout the world.
The 5th fold is a tribute to the country, for in the words of Stephen Decatur, 'Our Country, in dealing with other countries, may she always be right; but it is still our country, right or wrong.' The 7th fold is a tribute to its Armed Forces, for it is through the Armed Forces that they protect their country and their flag against all her enemies, whether they be found within or without the boundaries of their republic. The 10th fold is a tribute to the father, for he, too, has given his sons and daughters for the defense of their country since they were first born. The 11th fold represents the lower portion of the seal of King David and King Solomon and glorifies in the Hebrews eyes, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The 12th fold represents an emblem of eternity and glorifies, in the Christians eyes, God the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit. The 13th fold, or when the flag is completely folded, the stars are uppermost reminding them of their nations motto,'In God We Trust.' After the flag is completely folded and tucked in, it takes on the appearance of a cocked hat, ever reminding us of the soldiers who served under General George Washington, and the Sailors and Marines who served under Captain John Paul Jones, who were followed by their comrades and shipmates in the Armed Forces of the United States, preserving for them the rights, privileges and freedoms they enjoy today. There are some traditions and ways of doing things that have deep meaning. In the future, you'll see flags folded and now you will know why.
-----------------------------------------------------------
4)By Ben Carson February 26, 2014 6:55 am 
Most of us can remember feeling that someone had done us a great injustice. On those occasions, we want nothing more than to exact revenge. I remember being unfairly treated as a lowly ROTC cadet by one of the sergeants who resented the fact that my brother had been promoted to captain and company commander over him.
I was ambitious and worked extremely hard, resulting in my promotion in record time to the rank of colonel and city executive officer. This individual was now firmly under my command, and I could have wreaked havoc in his life. Instead, I chose to give him extra responsibilities. Responding to the challenge, he proved himself to be quite capable, earning further promotions. Because I resisted the urge to retaliate, we both won. This same principle applies in politics.
Unfortunately, in the past, we have been a reactionary country, resulting in political shifts back and forth from left to right without a lot of forward progress. After attaining power, both sides act in ways that are less than honorable, but they justify their actions by citing similar transgressions performed by the other side. This immature behavior is vividly exhibited by President Obama in his shameless use of executive orders to try to force the eventual success of Obamacare.
Administration supporters defend his strategy by pointing out that previous presidents have issued even more executive orders than Obama. It's like saying that punching someone 40 times is more harmful than shooting him four times. However, it's not the quantity of executive orders that matters, but their impact.
There are always people who attempt to pick apart an analogy, but most readers will see the point. In the current controversy, a massive politically motivated government program was forced on half of the population with their opinions completely disregarded. No legislation of this magnitude ever had been passed in the history of the United States by one party with unanimous opposition by the other party. Each executive order to sustain Obamacare is like pouring salt in a wound. Furthermore, the concept of seeking common ground is further damaged.
When the political pendulum swings again, which I predict will begin this November, it is imperative for the sake of our progeny that those in power act like "the adults in the room" and govern in a lawful and constitutional manner. This means refraining from the use of excessive government interference in choosing winners and losers. It also means an evenhanded enforcement of all of our laws rather than repeating the Obama administration's practice of selective law enforcement. Adult governance is founded upon objectivity, not ideology.
The American people have suffered through decades of power-drunk politicians, many of whom practiced deceitful manipulation. This has caused tens of millions of Americans to abandon in disgust their duty to be informed and responsible voters, which only makes the situation worse.
I have encountered a large number of elderly people who have told me that they have given up on the United States and are simply waiting to die. This is the reason that more eligible voters opted not to vote in the last presidential election than actually voted for either candidate. Many of these people are members of "the greatest generation." They fought tangible and visible forces that threatened our freedom. The forces facing us now are less tangible, but are nevertheless at least as lethal to our way of life.
Despite all the naysayers on both sides, I am convinced by the people I encounter on the speaking circuit that common sense, honesty and fairness can return to the corridors of power in America. We can govern in a manner that not only re-engages millions, but also provides liberty and justice for all.
As it was in the days of the Founding Fathers before the American Revolution, now it is necessary for ordinary Americans to engage their neighbors, friends and colleagues in serious discussions about what kind of nation they want to pass on to their children and grandchildren. It is important that everyone knows who represents them both at the state level and at the national level. The party affiliation of those representatives is not nearly as important as their voting record. Every American, regardless of their political affiliation, must distinguish those who represent the free-enterprise system based on personal responsibility and equal treatment from those who are willing to give away our personal freedom in order to enhance the size and scope of the government.
The power to reverse the deterioration of our nation is within the hands of "we the people." We must realize that our countrymen are not our enemies, and we must understand that we cannot rely on those in the media and in politics to tell us the truth. We need to go beyond them and rely on ourselves to craft a truly free America that works for all of us. This means we must become informed voters and use our votes effectively to choose the kind of leadership that represents the will of the people.
---
Ben S. Carson is professor emeritus of neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University. To find out more about Ben Carson and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit http://www.creators.com/.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
No comments:
Post a Comment