Monday, July 03, 2006

From the Missus

I have been sitting here for a day listening to both sides on this issue of whether or not what the New York Times did was right or wrong in printing the recent story on international bank transactions and whether the Supreme Court went too far in allowing the GITMO detainees and others the same rights as US citizens.

Here is how I feel about both of these issues. I am not asking you to agree or disagree with me….this is just how I feel.



Ok, now that I have that off my chest, let me tell you why I feel as I do. First and foremost we have men and women on the front lines fighting to help keep the world safe from the likes of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden and those of like mind. Why would the New York Times journalists want to endanger these soldiers further? A question I would like to ask the editor of the New York Times is, “How many people who are employed by the New York Times have a son, daughter, brother, sister, father, mother fighting in Afghanistan or Iraqi?” If any of them do, why are they working for a paper that is trying to help kill their relatives? If there are no employees that have relatives fighting there, how can the New York Times represent a balanced picture of why we are fighting? There are two sides to every story (except the New York Times).

On the issue of Security for the US, the journalists and editors of the New York Times have committed treason on a scale that makes all those before them who sold or gave away national secrets look like petty shoplifters at the five and dime. The New York Times keeps saying to us, “We (the legal citizens of the US) have a right to know what our government is doing”. My response to them is, “What makes them think I want to know, let alone need to know, this information?” I have enough faith in my government to believe when they tell me it is a security risk therefore we are not telling the public.

Let’s say this is the early 1940’s and WWII is raging on in Europe. Would the New York Times have printed the ship movements in the North Atlantic as fleets of ships sailed out of East Coast harbors, carring hundreds of thousands of men bound for England and getting ready for D-Day? Would the New York Times have called 1-800-Zig-Heil and let the Nazis and SS know we are coming, tell them where the ships would dock so they could meet these men at their port of call and welcome them to their new homeland? Would the New York Times have written an article and informed the Japanese people we have a secret program called the Manhattan Project? All I can say to the New York Times and the people that work there: ”Loose lips sink ships!!!!”

I think the Federal government should claim eminent domain on the New York Times building, saying they need the property for a top secret program. Oh, by the way, I am sure France and its people would welcome with open arms those employees of the New York Times. Bon Voyage.

Now for the Supreme Court (man do I have a headache): if I understand what happened the other day, the Supreme Court just gave away our constitutional rights to every citizen of the world. Did the Justices forget who is paying their salaries, benefits, retirement, office expenses, etc, etc, etc? Did they forget that their letterhead reads “U.S. Supreme Court?” For those of you on the bench at the Supreme Court office building the key letters here are “U.S.”, which stand for United States, NOT United World. That would be “U.W.” Always glad to help out those who don’t get it.

Let’s go back to WWII and reference what the Supreme Court just did. We (the United States military) just captured 100 German soldiers on the border between France and Germany. We process them and put them on a boat, with their final destination being a POW camp somewhere in the United States. Once they arrive at a US port and step onto US soil, all rights granted to all current US citizens are now given to these POW’s who probably just shot and killed your father, brother, uncle or son. We process them through our police system, set bail, let a Bondsman post their bail, have them sign the necessary paperwork and let them walk out the door of the jail. Waiting outside for them is our government’s Human and Social Services agent waiting to hand them a voucher for their hotel, a credit card to buy food, clothes, personal items, drinks at Hooters and a down-payment on a new car (hey….how do you expect them to get around to do sight seeing while they are waiting for their trial?). By the time a trial date is set and the attorneys have done all their due-diligence, low and behold the war is over and now we are going to either ship them home, book passage to South America, or let them stay here and be an illegal citizen until the courts can figure out what to do, which probably is not anytime soon.

For those of you that sit on the Supreme Court answer me one question: where in our Constitution or laws does it say that we the people of the United States must give away our rights to every Tom, Dick or Harry or for that matter every Saddam, Osama or GITMO detainee?

Those rights rightfully belong to us, those who have obtained legal status in this country by birth or through immigration and application. Has the Supreme Court now declared Eminent domain on our constitutional rights? To those of you that sit on the bench of the highest court in this nation, I would appreciate you remembering where you are and who you represent.

Now back to the New York Times, please note that in writing this editorial I only exercised my Constitutional right of Free Speech. I did NOT divulge any government secrets.


No comments: