Lest We Forget

it's a fragile bag

George Santayana, originally Jorge Ruiz de Santayana y Borrais, Spanish-American philosophical novelist; was born December 16, 1863 in Madrid, Spain, came to America in 1872, was Harvard educated including Ph.D., returned to Europe in 1912 and died in Rome, Italy September 26, 1952. Among other things he is known for the quote, "Those who can not remember the past are destined to repeat it".
The following story which I have titled "A Fragile Bag" was taken from the book "Pictoral History of World War II - The war in Europe", copyrighted in 1951 and is part of a speech written by General of the Army George C. Marshall. Are we destined to repeat it?

"In August, 1940, Japan's army approximated 120 divisions. It was busily entrenching itself on the Asiatic mainland, and openly fortifing its outlying Pacific Islands, most of which we later took at a heavy price.
On the other side of the world a jubilant Nazi army of about 300 divisions was enjoying a brief rest before its planned attack on Briton across the English Channel. In one short year this army had crushed Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, and Belgium, and had disposed of France in six weeks. Italy, with about 70 divisions, had just declared war, and was readying to strike the British in Egypt. To many, the axis military machine appeared invincible. In Western Europe, England alone remained free, and many doubted that she could stave off defeat.
At that time the ground forces of the United States consisted of 28 poorly-equipped divisions (10 Regular and 18 National Guard) scattered in small units throughout the country and on isolated overseas bases. Our Air Force consisted of some partially equipped squadrons serving continental United States, Panama, Hawaii, and the Philippines: their planes were largely obsolescent and probably could not have survived a day of modern aerial combat. In short, though the world was rife with aggression and force, we were less than a third-rate military power.
And yet, three years later our forces grew to carry the fight to the enemy all around the world, and forced him to the unconditional surrender to which this nation and its Allies had dedicated themselves. During the last two years of the war the victorious advance of the United States sea, air and land forces, together with those of our Allies was virtually unchecked. They controlled the skies and the sea and no army could successfully oppost them. Behind these forces was the output of American farms and factories, exceeding any similar effort of man, so that the people everywhere with whom we were joined in the fight for decency and justice were able to reinforce their efforts through the aid of American ships, food, munitions and supplies.
Whether, because of these successes, this generation of Americans will keep in mind the black days of 1942 when the Japanese conquered all of Malaysia, occupied Burma and threatened India, while the German armies approached the Volga and Suez, is open to question. Yet in those hours Germany and Japan came so close to complete domination of the world that we do not yet realize how thin the thread of Allied survival was stretched.
Though our effort was stupendous after Pearl Harbor -- indeed,though it finally swung the scales to victory for the Allies -- we can in good conscience take little credit for our part in staving off disaster in those early, critical days. It is certain that the refusal of our Allies to accept what appeared to be inevitable defeat was the great factor in the salvage of our civilization. The security of the United States was saved by vast oceans, by Allies, and by the errors of the enemy. For probably the last time in the history of the world those ocean distances were a vital factor in our defense. If we elect again to depend on whims and error of potential enemies, we will be carrying the treasure and freedom of this great nation in a fragile bag".

That bag is even more fragile today than it was when General Marshall made that speech. How much longer can it hold our freedom? I may write more on General Marshall later but for now, stay tuned - William

Boston Brahmin

and the Kennedy legacy

Again, I left my last posting with a remark about not being a member of the uppercrust ruling elite and that, along with some other events, is responsible for what I'm afraid will be a somewhat rambling posting today.
Being in the midst of the "Dog Days" of summer may have something to do with my apethetic feeling but I am beginning to believe that part of it is due to my getting older. I know my memory is not as sharp as it once was and I remember things from the past more often than I once did. I think I remember someone telling me that would happen but I'm not sure. Oh well, time keeps marching on - and on.
A few days ago a short jingle came to mind that I had heard either during the 1952 Massachusetts Senate race between Henry Cabot Lodge, the incumbent, and the upstart John F. Kennedy or the 1960 presidental race when the same Henry Cabot Lodge was running as Richard M. Nixon's vice presidential candidate against the same John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. By the way, Kennedy won both races. That jingle was written by John Collins Bossidy as a toast given at the Holy Cross College alumni dinner in 1910 and was: "Here's to good old Boston / the land of Beans and Cod / where Lowells talk only to Cabots / and Cabots talk only to God. For these races the wording was changed from Lowells to Lodges.
The Lodge family along with the Adams family (not the one on TV, the one with two presidents), the Lowells, the Cabots and many other prominent families of that time were the uppercrust ruling elite of the northeastern United States which led to the coining of the name "Boston Brahmins" by Oliver Wendell Holmes, sr. in a January 1860article titled "The Professor's Story" The word Brahmin comes from San Scrit, the writing of the Hindu Religion of India and loosely translated means the Upper Caste which was/is the ruling class of India, thus uppercrust ruling elite in America.
The Irish "Potato Famine" was from 1845 til 1852 and during this period millions died while other millions immigrated to other countries, including America. In 1849, in the midst of those terrible days, Patrick Kennedy and Bridget Murphy sailed on the same ship (may have been the "Washington Irving") from "New Ross, County Wexford" in southeastern Ireland for Massachusetts where they married later that year and settled in East Boston. They had one son "Patrick Joseph (P.J.)" who was the father of "Joseph Patrick" who was the father of John F. Kennedy.
From that lowly beginning the Kennedy Dynnasty was built but since they were relative newcomers, they were never accepted into that rather exclusive Boston Brahmin Society. What irony, that John F Kennedy would win, not one but two, elections when running against one of the more prominent members of that society. I am not a particularly enthusiastic supporter of the latest members of the Kennedy Clan, beginning with Teddy, and not having a crystal ball I can't see any big political successes in their future. No more uppercrust ruling elite but if you are like me you probably wonder what would have happened but for Lee Harvey Oswald or whoever. Would we have had that long unwinnable (?) war in Viet Nam? What about Watergate? We'll never know because time keeps marching on. Thanks, stay tuned - William

Constitutionally Incorrect

and morally wrong



I ended up my last posting with the statement that I disliked other unconstitutional laws which I would write about later but today I have decided to write about what I will call an unconstitutional use of our Constitution.

There is a man who appears quite often on television posing as a constitutional expert, always waving a small booklet around which he claims to be a copy of the United States Constitution but from his stand on many subjects it doesn't appear that he spends enough time in the reading there of. I can't really fault him for that because it has become extremely difficult to find anyone who knows a great deal about that document, upon which all our laws are supposed to be anchored.

I would venture a guess that the majority of our citizens have, at least, heard of the First Amendment to the Constitution which guarentees us, among other things, the freedom of speech and the Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms but after that it's no man's land.

Today I want to take a few minutes to discuss the meaning and implications of the Sixth Amendment to that same Constitution which is usually thought of in criminal court cases but also has been applied to political campaigns. In short, this amendment gives everyone the right "to be confronted with the witness (accuser) against him". Admittedly this is in reference to criminal cases but as to political campaigns, it has been the law that no unsigned political attack ads could be published either in newspapers or hand bills. Even if the law has been repealed it would be morally wrong to publish, in any manner, unsigned attack ads in-as-much as it would deny the one being attacked the right to face their accusers in the court of public opinion.

The event which brought this Constitutional Amendment to the forefront was the publishing of just such an ad in one of our local newspapers. It is an attack on one of our local candidates in an election where early voting has already started and the next paper out is tomorrow.This ad was simply signed "Paid for by concerned citizens of McNairy County" which in itself does nothing to identify the attacters. Lest I be accused of dereliction of duty, I immediately fired off an e-mail to the editor of the offending paper protesting the publication of such an ad but as most of you already know, me not being a member of the uppercrust ruling elite of McNairy County, I have not received any response from it. With that I will close this posting but will update it later in another posting if I ever hear anything from it. Thanks, Stay tuned, - William

Estate Taxes 2010

or lack thereof

Yesterday I sat here at my computer and tried to think of something brilliant to write but nothing came readily to mind. I wrote what was intended to be a posting but one of the persons involved didn't feel comfortable with the story being released at this time so it ended up as a draft. If it is ever posted I will refer back to it.

Sunday was one of those typical summer days here at my house, nothing worth watching on TV, no good fishing holes nearby, too hot to golf and I fall asleep trying to read but late in the day I did stay awake long enough to read an article on the woes of the estate tax laws and how George Steinbrenner, or rather his estate, will probably get the last laugh at the expense of our, mostly, antiquated tax system. Under the law as of 2009 his estate would have paid approximately five hundred million dollars in taxes on his net worth of about one point one billion dollars but our esteemed, in their own eyes, congress was so engrossed with passing a health care bill which was opposed by the majority of the people (who pays for all of this?) that they apparently forgot to extend the estate tax law through 2010. In 2011 the law will return to near the same rate as it was in 2009. Why it was ever passed in such a haphazard manner can probably only be answered by a senator or representative.
At this time Senator Bernie Sanders and others are proposing a new estate tax law which would be even more stringent that the old law and also retroactive to January 1, 2010. Again, I want to point out that is ex post facto and is unconstitutional. I'm sure everyone has heard the expression many time that someone has twenty / twenty hindsight. That appears to be the only way our congress can get anything passed and fortunately that is called ex post facto and is unconstitutional but unfortunately it will stand as law until it is challenged in court and ultimately decided by the Supreme Court. I can't imagine the Steinbrenner Estate not challenging such a law if it is passed (ex post facto, after the fact, retroactive).

By now you probably know that I don't like ex post facto laws but there are others I dislike just as much. Just make them according to our Constitution. Stay tuned, - William

A Statement, an Explanation

And A Caveat Emptor

First, a statement; I do not now nor have I ever seriously considered myself to be a writer. Second, an explanation; There is absolutely nothing in my past on which to base a claim to such an accomplishment. The most imortant writing that I have ever had published would be a few letters to the editors of small to mid-size weekly and daily newspapers. Third, a caveat emptor; which is defined as "Let the Buyer Beware".

In my very first blog posting dated January 28, 2010 which, when I look at it now, I am tempted to hit the delete button but it does serve the purpose of being the standard a person can use to measure whether or not I have made any progress in my postings which, from the beginning, has been my goal. As for the part about being considered by some to be a poet-- their thoughts, not mine.
In that first posting, almost six months ago, I included the lyrics to a song titled "River of Love" and the fact that it was recorded by a friend (George H.) in Jackson, Tn.. At this point let's go back to the beginning, 1979 that is, when George approached me about writing the lyrics for a song, to be the B side on a record he was recording, and assisting in the recording and pressing of the record. I agreed to a limited involvement. To make a long story short, River of Love was recorded, published, copyrighted, pressed and licensed by BMI Music (Number ML 45016 B) in 1979. It had limited airplay and soon was all but forgotten until 2008 when George Strait recorded a song with the same title and general theme. I wrote several letters, one of them Certified, to BMI Music seeking information concerning infringement but got no reply.
I won't bore you with the reprint of the entire song lyrics (see Jan. 28, 2010 posting) but only the most glaring similarities.

River of Love written by Camp, Burnette and Morgan, Copyrighted 2006 and recorded by George Strait in 2008;

River of love, river of love, river of love / rolling on the river of love / let's go rolling, rolling on the river of love / let's go rolling on the river of love / let's go rolling on the river of love / rolling on the river of love.

River of Love written in 1979, published, recorded and released for airplay with vocals by George H..

River of love, river of love / flowing into the night / River of love, river of love / where living and loving is right / You set me adrift on a river of love / every evening when the sun goes down / and I'll still be there when the morning comes / if in your sweet love I don't drown / drown in that river of love ----

Copyright infringement -- The courts have held that not only the reproduction of the exact words or phrases in original work, but the reproduction in substance of its plot, scheme or arrangement constitutes an infringement.
OK, this is where the caveat comes in - not being a computer person, I can't find anything to prove that BMI ever licensed the song (I only have their number on the records) and as already stated they won't answer my letters requesting information but even if the publishing and recording companies were not affiliated with BMI, as claimed, it should not affect my copyright. Anybody out there want a part of this song. E-mail me or leave a comment. Meanwhile stay tuned, - William

E-Mailaholic

or E-Mail Anonymous

Yesterday being a slow day work-wise and also probably a slower day news-wise, I wasted several hours watching one of the satellite news networks which shall remain nameless at this time so as to avoid all appearances of dealing in promotionalism. During the short time that I actually listened to their prating I heard them say at least 10 times that they wanted me to e-mail my thoughts to them and gave their addresses. I thought back to last year, just before Thanksgiving, during the health care debate and how on that occasion I had done just that without getting any indication that they even knew what I was talking about. In the seven months that have followed that first writing I have sent at least sixty-five more with the same results but lately it has become almost impossible to get through to them. Maybe they put me on a black list. Excerpts from a few of those e-mails are copied below.

11-23-09, Glenn, Why have neither you nor anyone else, that I have heard, mentioned that any money saved by cutting Medicare (waste and fraud or cutting payments to doctors and hospitals) still belongs to Medicare and is not to be used for some other government scheme like public option insurance?

11-25-09, Friends, Why is it that no one even mentions that any money saved by cutting waste and fraud or payments to doctors and hospitals still belongs to Medicare ---?

11-25-09, Cavuto, We need someone to tell our elected officials, be it President, Representatives or Senators, that any money saved from cutting either waste and fraud ----.

11-25-09, O'Reilly, Tell us how the President or Congress can take money from Medicare, be it savings from cutting waste and fraud or cutting payments to doctors and hospitals, then give it to some other ----.

11-25-09, Hannity, I am puzzled as to how the president or congress can take money out of Medicare, be it waste and fraud or cuts to doctors and hospitals, then give it to ----.

12-9-09, Cavuto, Once again, would you please tell us under-educated country hicks how Lord Harry (Reid) can write a bill, call it law, then force the opposition to come up with 60 votes to amend it -- the law of the land, as passed by congress, keeps any taxpayer money from going for abortions except in special circumstances but Lord Harry and his cohorts demand a 60 vote majority to keep that law in effect. How can they do that?

3-4-10, O'Reilly, I had always thought that you were reasonably intelligent until tonight when you let two democrats convince you that they could balance the budget by cutting Medicare. Did you check your brain at the door?

At least ten more e-mails were basically the same so I'll move on to later writings.

4-19-10, Bill, How do you find illegal Hispanics without profiling Hispanics?

5-1-10, Friends, Today, one of my fondest dreams is to become as intelligent as some of the current anchors on "Fox and Friends" so that I can understand, all on my own without being told, how it is that some illegal immigrants can come to this great country, then demand that our laws be changed to accommodate them. I will admit that at least one of my ancestors may have been associated with a group who inadvertently entered this country illegally but if not for them the Colony at Jamestown may have been lost. Can we ever forgive them for such an indiscretion? But on the other hand my Cherokee heratige no longer cries out for the sight of white man's blood spilled on the field of battle and it has been years since I've had the urge to take a scalp.

5-6-10, Bill, The Arizona Immigration Law is much ado about nothing. Arizona has the right to defend itself, RIGHT? (see Article 4, Section 4, of Constitution)

6-7-10, Allison, What makes you think the First and Second ammendments are safe when you won't say anything about the lack of enforcement of "Article 4, Section 4 of our Constitution? (Check posting of June 16, 2010, Constitutional or Ex Post Facto)

6-7-10, Megyn, I don't know how it is where you live but here in Tennessee the Highway Patrol can set up roadblocks and check everyone's drivers license. I have no problem with it or the Arizona law.

7-1-10, Friends, Check out the new Tennessee illegals law just signed by the Governor.

7-5-10, Gerri, On the program today you had a three person panel discussing, among other things, the House Bill which would raise the limits of liability in an oil spill. I heard mentioned the 1850 and 1920 laws but nothing about the 1990 law that was passed following the Exxon Valdez spill off the coast of Alaska which raised the Economic Liability from an oil spill to seventy-five million dollars. The rest would be picked up by the taxpayers. Any law, which would apply to BP, would be Ex Post Facto and unconstitutional.

After that e-mail was sent, Judge Andrew Napolitano was on Fox News discussing the proposed change in "The Oil Pollution Act" which was passed in 1990. The Judge stated that if the law was changed so as to take advantage of BP in the current oil spill that it would be Ex Post Facto and therefore unconstitutional. At least the Judge agrees with me. As for the title and sub-title, do you think I'm an e-mailaholic and should I be looking for a chapter of E-mail anonymous?Thanks, stay tuned for the next chapter. William

Flexible & Adaptable

Grow where planted

On Monday, May 10, 2010 Tom's ( a fellow blogger) posting was titled "The Dream Team" and contained this paragraph, as quoted. "Be flexible and adaptable. We know from experience that volunteers can arrive and discover that their well laid plans have all vaporized and that they cannot do the work that they so carefully and completely planned and prepared for. So whadaya do? Get on a plane and go back home? B2R volunteers quickly reassess and discover that great work needs to be done, they roll up their sleeves, and they get on it, and discover that it was always God's "Plan A" for them".

Tom Allen is Bridge2Rwanda's Country Director. If you want to learn more about Tom or any of the other members of the present B2R team you can get on world wide web, type in Bridge2Rwanda. org , click on borrowed talent/bridge2rwanda then on Tom Allen. That should get you the complete team's profiles.

I'm assured that the following poem , while being like some Hollywood shows, based on facts, is not to be taken literally but figuratively (having a basis in facts). While it could have been partially true it may or may not have happened that way. The title was originally "Lift Up Thine Eyes Unto Heaven" but lately it has been referred to simply as "Brother Jerome".

Brother Jerome was a big and bearded man with a voice that started deep down in his chest and rolled out of his mouth like a fast moving mountain stream. He preached the Gospel and quoted scriptue and everywhere he went he carried his Bible tucked under his arm so that when he found a few people gathered together he was ready to go. He would take that worn Bible in his hand, stretch out his arms, raise them and his face to the sky and say, "Lift up thine eyes unto Heaven from whence cometh thou salvation, Amen".

Lift up thine eyes unto Heaven, lift up thine eyes amen / lift up thine eyes unto Heaven, see Jesus coming again/ He's coming again in all His glory, salvation is ours and it's free / so lift up thine eyes unto Heaven, for Jesus is coming for you and me.

Brother Jerome was holding an open air meeting near a small town in western Tennessee and I was on my way to Nashville to become a legend in my own time. That's where our paths crossed and my life hasn't been the same since for now everywhere I go I carry this Bible tucked under my arm and whenever I can gather a few people together I, too, am ready to go and like Brother Jerome I take this Bible in my hand, stretch out my arms and raise them and my face to the sky and say, "Lift up thine eyes unto Heaven from whence cometh thou Salvation, Amen".

Lift up thine eyes unto Heaven, lift up thine eyes amen / lift up thine eyes unto Heaven, see Jesus coming again / He's coming again in all His glory, salvation is ours and it's free / so lift up thine eyes unto Heaven, for Jesus is coming for you and me. c. B. Browder

The situation is so much different in Rwanda that I'm sure we who have never been there can never understand completely what it is like. It may be easier for the Bridge2Rwanda volunteers to see the needs there than it is for us to see what we need to do in our own country. Never the less they do exist. Lift up thine eyes unto Heaven from whence cometh thy salvation, Amen. Thanks, stay tuned - William

Pledge of Allegiance

To Have or to Have Not

Oh my goodness, what have I let myself in for this time? In my last posting it appears that I, more or less, promised to write about the Pledge of Allegiance this week. It had occasionally been talked about in the news for several months but lately this subject has been heating up somewhat. I really don't mind wading out into clear water when I can see where I am going but this may turn out to be a headlong dive into muddy water. Instead of immediately diving in, I think it would be better to wade around the edges for a while. Just bear with me, we'll get there.

In August of 1892 Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931) a Baptist Minister who had been forced to resign from his church in Boston because of his Socialist sermons, wrote the "Pledge of Allegiance" which was published in "The Youth's Companion". It was first used on the 400th anniversary of the year Columbus discovered America, as a salute to the flag on "Columbus Day". The words, at that time, were: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Replublic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".

In 1954, after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus and at the behest of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, our United States Congress added the words "under God" to that Pledge. According to Dr. John W. Baer "The pledge had now become a patriotic oath and a public prayer (see St. Matthew, chapters 5 and 6 for oaths and prayers).

In 1940 our Supreme Court, on a suit filed by the Jehovah's Witnesses who considered the flag salute to be idolatry, ruled that public school students could be compelled, even Jehovah's Witnesses, to swear the Pledge. In 1943 our Supreme Court reversed its decision, ruling that, "compulsory unification of opinion" violated the First Amendment of our Constitution. In my research I have found nothing that would change that decision but it is not for the lack of trying.

HR 2389, a bill that was called "The Pledge Protection Act of 2005, which if passed would have stripped our Supreme Court, and most other Federal Courts, of the power to consider legal challanges to the "Governments requiring or promoting the Pledge of Allegiance". This bill passed in the House but died in the Senate. There are arguements made from both sides of this issue as to whether or not congress has the authority to limit our Supreme Court or even lesser courts. (see Article 3, section 2 of Constitution) If congress has this power then why do we even need the courts?

On the web site, Restore the Pledge.org we found this quote; "True patriotism is not shown by how often you wave the flag or say the pledge, but by the respect you accord the primary pillar of our democracy, the Constitution of the United States". I couldn't have said it better myself.

In my long ago youth I volunteered and served 3 years in our military but was never stationed in any war zone but if I had, I would have fought to keep my country and, by extension, my family free. I really have no preference as to whether it has the words "under God" or not because my problem is with the pledge itself. I am not a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses but I agree that as written the pledge could be construed as idolatry

Being born several years after the fact, I can't determine by what authority this one sentence pledge, written by a Minister who was forced to resign from his church because of his socialist sermons, was adopted into our governmental affairs. If I might be so bold as to suggest that the pledge be rewritten in this form: "I pledge allegiance to my God, to my family and to my country, The United States of America, as represented by our Constitution, one nation indivisible with liberty, justice and equality for all ".

The First Amendment is just one part of the Constitution which makes this country the greatest nation in the world but if some members of our government can have their way it may not always be as it is today. My country right or wrong I must love it / for only God and family goes above it. Stay tuned, thanks. William