Respect for the Enemy

Grandpa grinned as one of his friends told him that he was peeved when people say that he was not a patriotic citizen for not supporting the war in Iraq. Grandpa just looked him in the eyes, his fists firmly planted on his hips and sarcastically retorted,

"I also get a bit peeved when I hear someone say they support the troops but not the war. If they truly understood this they would also say that they support the President but not the war. It is the same principle. The fact that he is the Supreme leader is irrelevant.

And to add to that if they do not support the President in regards to this war then they would also need to say that they do not support any of the members of Congress. The reason being is that it was Congress that authorized the President to conduct the war effort in Iraq in the first place.

If Congress wants to declare that they are against the war than they should never have given authorization in the first place. As for dissent, the time for it was at the time Congress voted, not now. And there was dissent at the time, just not enough. That is the democratic process at work. In a government that uses the democratic process the majority speaks for all, not just the members of the majority.

And the fact that the minority became the majority three years later does not change anything other than the probability that war would not be declared if the vote was taken today instead of the time it was taken. And that vote would be based on hindsight not foresight. And no decision is ever made with the intent of reversing past decisions.

And for those who claim it was a war of choice by the President they must remember it was also a war of choice by the Congress. It is always the Congress that has the choice of whether or not to authorize a war. In fact, every war authorized by Congress is a war of their choosing. The President can never force Congress to declare war. If he could we could not call him the President in accordance to the Constitution. He would be called a dictator.

Remember this, if Congress does not authorize the war, the President cannot lead the troops into war. If the President does not lead the troops into war, there is no war. If the troops refuse to go into battle, war does not exist. But, once war has been declared and troops sent to fight those battles we must have leaders with the backbone necessary to carry out the mission to its end.

Given these facts it then can be said that those who do not support the President in his effort to win this war also do not support our government. Every war is a war of choice by any government. No one can force any government to wage war. So, when Congress declares they do not support the war that they have authorized they are actually saying that they do not support their own decision. For Congress is just as responsible if not more so than the President when it come to the issue of war.

As for popularity of the war we must remember one thing. The war with Iraq was very popular with the people. The President enjoyed some of his highest ratings at that time. The polls indicate the popularity fell only after we were in Iraq and fighting the insurgency. And it has dropped to about 30% and has remained there. This has never bothered me and I say that for one reason. Wars in my opinion, should never be a popular part of the duties of government.

People like to use the mistakes made as the reason for the unpopularity of this war. And there is the problem. Mistakes were not made. The enemy took advantage of and exploited the weaknesses they found. And there is no such thing as a perfect plan that would not allow for weaknesses. To declare that mistakes were made is to declare that the enemy does not have the intelligence necessary to see those weaknesses. That is the nature of war itself. That is the foundational basis of any strategy.

And I prefer to see them as being intelligent persons even though I see them as the enemy. That is called respect. And anyone who goes to war without respect for the enemy is a fool. And anyone who looks at the results and judges without taking into consideration of the intelligence of the enemy is even a bigger fool.

And one more thing, my friend. The fact that I say I respect the enemy's intelligence says nothing about my contempt for the tactics that they have used to try to win this war."

I just walked away from the men so that grandpa’s friend could not hear me chuckle at grandpa’s retort.

An Occupation Force or Ally

I saw grandpa get up from the computer and in anger or frustration, as he calls it, turn the computer off then just sit back down, eyes filled with fire. I knew that this was one of those times to appear to be invisible and just wait until he was ready to talk. I knew that in time he would use me as a sounding board to relief his feelings so I just sat there beside him until he spoke. When ready, his eyes still ablaze, his tone harsh, this is what he had to say,

"I just get sick and tired of hearing the foolishness of people who keep calling the coalition armed forces in Iraq as an occupation force in order to promote their own ideology in regards to the war there. Their continued use of the phrase can only be attributed to their ignorance of the political or military definition of the phrase. If not, then it can only be attributed to the fact they would need to admit they would need to change their viewpoint of the war which they are loathed to do. Either way it is a dishonest and misleading argument.

The definition of the phrase would be an armed force of a country that declared war on another country and defeated that country. Upon victory that armed force would be considered as the de facto government of the people of the defeated country, thus in control of it. For this definition to meet all the criteria of an occupation force it would involve the overthrow of the sitting government. It is with the overthrow of that government that victory may be declared and the victors declared as occupying a country.

In other words it means more than just the fact that an armed force is within the boundaries of another nation. And it means more than the fact that an armed force of another country is within a country and is unpopular with the people of that country. The best way to describe it is to say that the country has lost its sovereignty and no longer can be declared as a self-ruled country.

This can no longer be declared of either Iraq or Afghanistan. Both governments were governments as chosen by the people of their respective countries and not by the government of the victors. If the governments of either country were governments as determined by the victors then yes that country would still be an occupied nation, by definition. And as the occupation force the United States had the right to do that. But, instead, President Bush decided to allow the people of each nation to choose their own leaders.

They are recognized by the world as the legitimate governments of the countries over which they rule. They both are recognized as countries that are sovereign and self-ruled. And as the recognized governments they have the power and authority to speak on behalf of the people as does the government of all nations that are considered as legitimate governments.

It is also recognized that the government, as installed by the people of Iraq, has asked that we remain in Iraq to help in their fight against the insurgency that is trying to overthrow the present government. With that request the coalition forces can no longer be declared as an occupation force by definition. It can only be properly recognized as an ally and partner in the fight against the insurgency. The government could have very easily have demanded that the coalition forces leave the country and we would have been obligated to comply with that demand. That is one of the conditions that we agreed to and recognized by the determination of the U.N. Security Council.

But what gets my goat even more is the fact that the opposing side of the issue permits them to call it an occupation force without challenge. By doing so they are legitimizing the argument presented. It is a term that needs correction immediately if one is to win the debate in regards to this issue."

I just smiled as he finished his tirade and just meekly said, "yes, grandpa." Some how I always seem to feel better after he does this. I don’t know why I do but I do.

See what I see

I have a vision and it be this I am to fulfill
Your vision be yours, what you see is not for me to see
So, my friend, why blame me if yours be unfulfilled and mine is yet to come
The costs of my vision be high and I must pay the price

‘Tis my vision that I lead you to know, tis the way of a leader
I cannot lead if you demand it your way. I cannot lead if I am to follow.
See my vision, let me stay my course. I cannot follow your course.
Don’t blame me just because I won’t follow your course

You call me your leader yet you won’t allow me to lead
Mistakes, yes I will make yet those mistakes be mine
They be the mistakes of a leader as any leader will
Answers you demand, yet my answers you will not hear
Answers you will give but my vision you cannot see.

See my vision seek what I see, my mistakes will wane
See my mistakes and my vision you will never know.
We can unite in the mistakes you find or in the visions I see
My mistakes are of the past they cannot bring change
My visions are in the future there is where I lead.

Do you follow me into the future
Do I follow you into the past
For one will lead us to my mistakes
The other will lead us to my vision.

The Government of the Founding Fathers

“Grandpa, why is voting so important for our government?”

Gramps just chuckled in a way that showed his approval of my question, ruffled my hair then said;

“Boy, learn this first of all. Government is not an establishment that is separate from the people who hold office as is most commonly thought. The government is the people who hold their respective office just as a dictator is or just as a king is. We are just a nation that has chosen to select our leaders rather than have our leaders imposed upon us by some means. We select those who we approve of to rule over us, the common people. Since we select those who rule over us, we abide by rules. Whoever possesses that power and authority is only allowed a limited time of rule before he needs to ask to be selected again or another is to be selected in his place. We must remember that government is not just something. It is people given the authority to rule over other people.

So, when we use the word government when speaking, we’re speaking of those persons that were selected to rule over us. That means that we speak of 545 people: 435 representatives, 100 senators, 9 judges and 1 president with varied and limited powers and authority of rule. Each of these persons plays a very important part in the rule of this nation. And that be only on the federal level of government. We then must include state and local governments who also have the power and authority to rule over the people. And that is what makes government so dangerous, the recognition that it is people that rule.

Governments can be good or bad regardless of what form of government a nation uses to rule over a people. Even a dictatorship can be a good form of government if the man understands and abides by the purpose of government. The primary difference between what we consider good government and bad government is how they rule.

What is considered as a good government is one that recognizes that those who govern exists for the benefit of the governed rather than govern for their own benefit. A good government will govern in a manner to uphold the principles that allow them to hold the position they have over the people. A good government knows that they only have the power and authority of men not the power and authority of God. As Clint Eastwood would say 'A good government must know their limitations'

Another element of good government can be seen in terms of its creation. Now what do I mean here? Well think of it this way. We see God as our creator therefore he has sovereignty over man and over all he created. And we recognize that relationship and abide it. And anyone who was to say or believe that he is above God would not be looked on with any respect. In fact we would actually accuse that person or persons as being contemptuous and be righteous in that accusation. For, as our creator, man is to be subordinate unto the will of God.

Well, the federal government was a creation also. And it was the states that were its creator. Now, by creation, that would mean that the states, as its creator, would enjoy a status that was above the status of the federal government. And in studying the history of our nation we can see that at one time they did enjoy that status. It could actually be declared that we were a nation where the central government was subordinate unto the will of the states. It could be called the first and foremost of states rights.

Would we be inclined to say that today or would it be said that today it is the states that are subordinate unto the will of our central government? If so, when did that status change? And can we say it was justified? Would this be a case study of the Constitution being interpreted as a living document or a case of interpreting it by what it says and its meaning?

Our nation was known as the great experiment. To be an experimental government would require that it be unique among governments. The only thing that I can see that made our government unique as no other government was is the fact that the central government was subordinate unto what would be considered as the lesser governments. Every other nation throughout history, as far as I know, was governed where the central government was the dominant government. That was the evolution of governments. Was the experiment of our founding fathers a failure? Men died so as to give us a government as formed by the states. Were their lives given for naught?”

I could only scratch my head as I said very slowly, “ Gosh, grandpa, I ask a question and you come back with an even harder question for me. That isn’t fair.”

Politics and Hindsight

One night grandpa turned on the radio to listen to a speech of a politician who was seeking office. Though speeches were boring to me grandpa made me listen. Once the speech was over grandpa had this to say;

“Boy, never look at how things are, then blame a person for not taking something into consideration so as to prevent what happened. Looking back into the past to blame someone doesn’t serve any purpose. It can’t change the situation as it is. It should only be used as a lesson for the next time you are in the same situation. When you blame someone like this you are implying that he has the foresight of God to see things as they turned out and he doesn’t.

Just as important is the fact when you place blame on another for any undesirable situation as it be, you are implying that it was deliberate. For if it not be deliberate then that person is as innocent as anyone is therefore should not be blamed. This does not mean that responsibility is avoided but responsibility and blame are not synonymous words though at times it may appear so.

Politics is famous for this. It helps get people elected. And it be a great way to present someone as being a fool. And they justify it by saying that in their place they would have done something different. Yet one thing no one realizes, that is, no one can say for certain that doing it differently would have been a better way of doing it. It may even have turned out worse. Doing something differently guarantees nothing except a different result. and that result may end up being better or worse.

Hindsight has one big problem. It leads one to think he knows what not to do but it gives no clue as to what he needs to do. In other words, boy, it results in an absolute negative bias towards an issue. An absolute negative bias always leads one to a negative conclusion, never a positive one. Solutions to a problem need a positive conclusion of action.

People call for change when all they hear is negative. For they have no faith in the negative. They seek leaders that will bring hope in the future of positive things to be. Their ears are listening to those who will promise change. But good leaders know they cannot bring change if freedom is the foundation of their beliefs. They can only inspire change in those that seek it.

It is the leader who seeks to legislate change that believes in himself, alone. That leader has no faith in the people he serves. And the legislation of change serves only to divide a nation. It can never unite a nation.

It is the leader who seeks to inspire change that believes in the people he leads. For that is the leader who knows that true and permanent change can only come from the people themselves. That is the leader who seeks to unite a divided nation.

So, boy, as you listen to those who seek to lead this great nation of ours keep your ears open and your eyes closed. Men will either seek to inspire or legislate. Men will only think he knows best for the people or believe that the individual knows what is best for himself. It is what is inside of men that counts and you cannot force change there if you believe in the freedom of men. That is what you need to listen for when you hear the words of a politician.”

I just nodded and then went over in my mind attempting to apply what grandpa said to the words that the politician used in his speech.

A Friend, a Brother, a Father

Today, a grave I visited of a man who lived
Was a war that took his life, he paid the price
By his honor my freedom he gave
He died for freedom tho it be not his own
Here to be remembered, with a tear this I do,

Today the grave of another I did visit
Yes, ‘twas a war tho not the same
His life was to be taken but his life he gave
Duty to his nation, for this he died.
Not to be forgotten, be with a tear I never will

Today the grave of a third found my humbled knee
War be not his choice, nor will it ever be sought
His face I never saw, his smile I never knew
I knew him not, yet I knew him so well
His story will be told, a tear for every word

For wars have been fought, many have died
But from the victory, a nation was born, men be free
But of victory the shackles a man knew, he knows no more
Because of victory a man of religion was persecuted no more
Tears were shed for each, tears deeply from the heart

From the depth of each grave this I heard
"Victory be mine, my friend, but freedom be yours
Honor be mine, my brother, for your freedom I fought
Duty be mine, my son, freedom be ever your choice"
My head be lowered, but never in shame

my tears of gratitude for the gift that was given

Whether he be the first, whether he be the last
Whether he be but one or one of many
A man was given life by the dying of another
The story be long, tis a story with never an end
This is the story I tell, told with each tear that falls

So I say to those who read, hear me well
Read not the words I write but listen to the words of my tears
For the words I write they be written in pride
But the words of my tears they be whispered in honor
I have no more to write I have no more to say
For the men who lie in silence, their story is to be told

The Right of Belief

Grandpa and I were out in the wood shop one day finishing a piece of furniture that grandpa was going to surprise grandma with when I asked him about the concept of equality that the declaration of Independence cited. Here was his surprising answer;

"Boy, what I am about to say will be very controversial. So, before you repeat any of this be sure you understand it well because you will be challenged on it and it will be up to you to defend your words.

From the viewpoint of society there is one thing that our society has always had in common from its inception, division. When we gained our independence we came from a society of division. Division is a part of any society. It is only a matter of how you define that division.

Whether or not you divide a society up by rank, race, nationality, creed, gender, or religion that division will still exist regardless of how hard you try to bring equality about. It is an inherent quality of society itself even in the most monogamous of societies.

Before we gained our independence we were a part of a society that recognized the class of royalty and the class of commoners. It was this classification that the founding fathers were addressing when they declared that God created all men equal. They were declaring that God did not create certain persons to rule and certain persons to be ruled over.

This can be affirmed by the fact of the qualifications declared for office in the Constitution, one a positive and another a negative qualification. The positive qualification be age. The negative qualification is that religion is not to be considered as a qualifier. And I say this in recognition that citizenship is a given.

Though we eliminated one divisive element of society it was replaced by another, the class of free men and the class of the enslaved. The funny thing is that those who advocated slavery were saying that God sanctioned this division while saying that God created all men equal, a basic contradiction of beliefs.

And therein lies the problem. The source by which they use to declare these beliefs is consistent, though in a way that most of us would not accept. That source be the Holy Bible. The Bible would teach that God does create certain persons to rule and to be ruled. And the Bible would teach us that God does sanction the enslavement of men. It would appear that we are now a nation who declares itself above God instead of under Him as we pledge to be.

Have we replaced a belief in God with the belief that government is the supreme power and authority over men? Maybe a better question be, have we violated the 1st amendment by enacting laws that imposes on the religious establishment beliefs that they are to accept, teach and practice? If not, how can we reconcile this problem?

And this is not the only situation that has bothered me in regards to the 1st amendment. Utah had to outlaw their religious belief of polygamy before they were allowed to join the Union.

Students of Bob Jones University were denied scholarships because they held to a religious belief of the separation of the races.

Politicians were derided for speaking there even though the people at the university are just as much a part of the political system and our nation as any one else.

It was a case of government and political opponents version of practicing the religious concept of shunning. Granted, the school changed their policy on race relations but did they do it out of enlightenment or out of subtle coercion of government and society? That will be something that we will never know.

It is one thing, boy, for a religion to change their beliefs out of their own convictions but it is a whole different thing to change their beliefs to avoid punishment for holding to those beliefs. I’m just a foolish old man but it seems to me that the 1st amendment couldn’t have been written any clearer in terms of the relationship between the religious establishment and government. There are no laws to be written so that no belief can be punished.

As for those who espouses the idea that we be a secular nation there be one thing I would direct to them also. Prejudice is prejudice regardless of what they be prejudiced against. That includes being prejudicial against those who hold to religious beliefs not of their liking. And it is up to the government to protect those who may hold to unpopular beliefs from prejudicial thought, not recognize that prejdicial viewpoint and enforce the ideas of what to believe and not to believe. That is the meaning behind the 1st amendment. That is where you find true separation of church and state. It is not equality but inequality that men will recognize the need of the 1st amendment.

But then again, boy, I be but a fool of an old man set in his ways."

If we be under God as a nation it would appear that the God we declare to be under is a God other than the one worshipped by Christian, Jews, or Muslims. If we be a nation under God it would appear to be a God as worshipped by a very small minority of the people. If not, then we have declared ourselves a nation of atheists for only the belief of atheism could support the laws enacted and enforced that I have foolishly pointed out."

As I listened I could only feel stunned by his words.

War and Morality Part 3

Now, boy, remember this. Your grandfather is pro-victory when it comes down to whether or not I support a war. Never doubt that regardless of what you hear me say. But it isn’t because I think war is just or moral. Wars can only be called a necessary evil. Your grandfather supports it because, in losing a war, there are consequences that we, as a nation, we as a people, cannot afford to pay.

One of those consequences is the loss of respect of any potential and future enemy may have for our military power and strength. And when we lose the respect of the enemy that makes us very vulnerable to attack. The reason being is that they will see that loss as a sign of weakness and think that if some one can claim victory over us then they can also.

This may have been one of the reasons we had a cold war instead of a hot war with the U.S.S.R., mutual respect of each other's military power. We are at war now because we lost the respect of our enemy. Osama bin Laden made this abundantly clear many times.

Another consequence is the loss of confidence that we must have from our allies. This is especially true when we are speaking of those allies who need to depend upon us for their own national security and safety from those who would impose their will upon them. And there will always be those who will prey upon the weak. And if we are to be looked upon as being the strong then we dare not let them down. We dare not turn our backs to them as they cry out for help. We dare not allow ourselves to be perceived as unwilling to confront those who would do so as Hussein must have thought as he invaded Kuwait.

But most of all we must honor those who have chosen to fight for that victory. For that be their only goal, victory. They did not go into battle to lose. They did not stand as their friends fell in battle so that they may come home as losers. They did not go into battle so that when they came home they will come home feeling as if they failed their country, failed their families, failed themselves. And only victory can prevent this.

Tis the support we give those gallant men in regards to their quest that is the food of their souls, the drink to lift their spirits. For it be our support for those men so brave that will make them proud men, men never given a reason to know shame, men never to know doubt of who or what they be. They may go into war as boys but each will come home as men.

And those who have died in this quest, they will not have died in vain. For they will be remembered by both, foe and friend. It will be those that died that the foe will remember when he thinks we are weak, then thinks again. It will be those who died that the friend will remember as he knows his own new found freedom. It will be those who died that will be remembered as the instruments of peace.

'Their bodies are buried in peace; but their name liveth for evermore.'
Apocrypha

Truth, my boy, can be a very strange phenomenon. It may even appear to be self-contradictory. And wars seem to point this fact out very vividly. For it uses acts of evil to bring about a conclusion of good. And we can only declare that it be necessary but the truth."

Upon hearing this I knew why grandpa was such a ferocious defender of the war. And, in my eyes, he had just grown a foot taller.

War and Morality Part 2

That night grandpa and I were laying out in the back yard just gazing up into the sky and admiring the beauty that could be seen as the stars sparkled and moon glowed in all its splendor. Grandpa had said that it seemed to reveal the universe in all of its purity and marvels that were forbidden to man therefore could not be seen as tainted. Then he spoke;

"Now, boy, everything I have said about war so far does not mean that it is not legal. Our Constitution recognizes that war is a very legitimate act of governments, as does history. But do not confuse legality with morality. Moral actions are those actions that we believe God permits us to do. Legal acts are those acts that we know that government allows us to do.

And I will grant as a given that the sources from which we derive morality, such as the Bible or Koran, will portray that God appears to sanctify certain wars fought. But we cannot forget that this is based on a belief not a fact.

We also need to remember that God gave us a free will. This means that while God seeks man to act morally He will not force morality upon him. We must also remember that the founding fathers founded this nation based on the belief that all powers and authority of governments are derived from men not from God as formerly believed. This in itself recognizes the concept of free will. It is the recognition of these facts that there is so much controversy about the idea of such a thing as a just war.

So, is there such a thing as a moral or a just war? Regardless how anyone answers this it must be admitted that the answer is based upon a belief and not a fact. But it can be declared as a fact that if we accept that people have certain inalienable rights that war violates them. And if we consider that a violation of these rights is immoral then war is immoral. This would be true even if we justified it by saying that we are only defending the rights we possess. For to accept this is to declare that the end does justify the means.

War is the ultimate act used when we cannot persuade others to accept our position on an issue or issues. That can be seen as a reason that when war has been declared victory is or should be the only outcome. For if victory is not achieved we must accept the position of the enemy. This is in itself is a recognition of immorality if we accept the concept of free will.

For then a position is imposed on another rather than allowing him to take on a position willingly and by his own free will as persuaded. So, while we may say that wars can abide by the laws of necessity we would have to question whether or not war abides by the laws of morality. This would be especially true if the unrighteous side was victorious which is always a possibility."

War and Morality

"Grandpa, what did the pastor mean when he said that war is the most immoral of all that man does. Why would he say that?"

"Boy, that is a very complicated issue in itself. It depends upon how you view it. If one was to look at the issue from the viewpoint of intent and purpose it could present itself one way. If, from the actual deed, it presents an entirely different picture. Then you have the conclusion and the picture can be said as ever changing. I say ever changing because the future is effected by it and the future is ever changing.

Morality is but a generalized term that is used by people to indicate that there be certain laws that man needs to adhere to in order to be called righteous. These laws are called principles. So, when you hear someone say that something is immoral they are saying that it is not the right thing to do because it is not following certain principles that we agreed to adhere to.

The problem here is that the principles he speaks of are ones he agreed to and presupposes that everyone else does also. And yes, that will includes you and me when we speak of an immoral act. Debates result from the revelation that the presupposition is incorrect.

Yet there is another concept that must be followed. They be the laws of necessity. The principle behind this is that when something is necessary or needed to be done then we do it regardless of whether or not we want to do it. And one reason that we may not want to do it is because it does not abide by the principles of morality that we adhere to. This is described as being a necessary evil. A good example of this is when a man feels he has no other option except to steal in order to put food on the table for his family.

This term will be most frequently applied to government. Its existence is considered as a necessary evil. The reason I give for it to be called a necessary evil is because it demands that men to do exactly the opposite of what we would declare as moral for a man to do. Some would even take the position that governments take on power that should only be God’s. And I have never found a good argument to counter this.

War be another act of man that could be called a necessary evil. For it is an action sanctioned by governments allowing men to do exactly the opposite of what we would consider as moral, the deliberate and premeditated taking of the life of another human being. The fact that war be a group decision doesn’t make it more moral than if it was an individual decision. And we do not ascribe to the idea of one individual having the right to take the life of another.

The declaration of Independence declares that every man have three basic rights and those rights were given us by God, those rights being, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And every war violates those basic rights. And since every right is dependent upon those rights as given to us, wars violate every right of man. I say this because once the right of life is taken from an individual how can he enjoy any other right that we might declare he possessed? Only the living can enjoy the benefits that come from the possession of rights.

Some would say that an individual has sacrificed his life so that others may enjoy their rights. And, in a sense, they would be correct. But if we speak of morality, a better way of seeing it is that any individual who is killed in war has sacrificed all of his rights including the right of life. One more thing we must remember, and this is important, that the life sacrificed was also a life taken by another.

And we must also remember that the life sacrificed was given involuntarily because he had no intention of giving up his life. He had no desire to die for a righteous cause. That individual went into battle with the intent of taking another man’s life for a righteous cause not to sacrifice his own life. Intent is a very important element of morality. And because of this intent the word sacrifice is being misused within this context.

In war there is another element that is common. That element being that we use derogatory terms to describe the enemy. Both sides of a war use this as a means to justify what they are doing, killing people. The use of derogatory terms allows us to perceive the enemy as being evil. In the minds of people evil must be eradicated so that goodness will prevail. The problem here is that the use of wars is, in essence, declaring that the end justifies the means.

Now, I have given you enough to think about for now, boy, and I know I have not answered the question you asked fully yet but it will be answered as best as possible the next time we speak."

I just nodded, feeling a little disappointed, but knowing that when grandpa says enough, he means enough. I would just have to wait until he was willing to speak again. In the mean time I began to go over all that he had said already.

Integrity challenged?

As I was reading of a story about a journalist who was fined 45,000 dollars because she would not reveal her sources in a court of law a question came into my mind. And who did I ask about it? Yup, grandpa.

“Grandpa, why do journalists believe they have a right to remain silent about their sources in a court of law?”

Without hesitation he began his explanation by saying;

“Because, boy, there are times that in order to get some people to talk about something that the journalist intends to write a story on he must promise not to reveal the source's name to anyone. And we live in a society where people are raised in the belief that we should keep our promises. It is a sign of integrity. But there is something else that must be understood about promises too. That is, never to make a promise you cannot keep. And this is where the controversy occurs. Is the journalist giving a promise that he should not have given in the first place?

Now, what the journalist is trying to do is to claim he has the same rights that the clergy of the country have been recognized as having. And this right of the clergy is founded in the concept of belief of confidentiality of the confessional. That is a very important belief of Catholicism. Without getting into the intricate details of the belief behind the concept and principle, it is a belief that a person enters into the confessional booth for the purpose of seeking forgiveness of God for his actions.

And there is no doubt of the fact that this is one of the beliefs of the Church. It is one of the seven sacraments that the Church instills into their followers. Its uniqueness comes from the fact that it can be said as one of the defining beliefs of Catholicism. Thus, to require a priest to testify in court would be enforcing a law on to an establishment of religion and that would be clearly against the Constitution.

Now, this illustrates one of the problems with the idea of considering this nation a secular nation as opposed to a nation under God. If we were recognized as being a nation under God there would be no doubt as to the difference in being a member of the clergy and a member of the journalism and why this right belongs to the clergy alone.

But as a secular nation God is not to be considered when speaking of political rights. So, this right is only seen from the perspective of one person making a promise to another. Journalists then try using the same reasoning used to give the clergy that right to try to claim the same rights. It is only by allowing God to be a factor in the reasoning that it can be seen as to why it is a right of the clergy but not of the journalist.

Another concept that is closely related is the concept of justice. Justice or the lack of it was the foundational reasons given in the Declaration of Independence. For within that document the founding fathers declared the injustices that were imposed upon us thus justifying our actions at the time.

And in our justice system every man has a right to confront his accuser. Without the recognition of that right would be an act of injustice itself. So, if any man makes an accusation of any kind against another man he should be willing to stand by that accusation. And that means he should accept the fact that his accusations will be confronted.

And this is where the journalist differs from the clergyman. The journalist will print that accusation for all to know then claim confidentiality of the accuser. The clergyman will reveal that accusation to no man. It is my belief that if a clergyman would get up in front of his congregation and reveal what was confessed to him in the confessional the law would not recognize his right to remain silent either. For the belief of the confessional would then have no meaning or purpose.

So, boy, there are big differences between any confession a journalist hears and any confession a clergyman hears. In the revelation of a confession a journalist will only hurt the innocent man and that is injustice itself. In keeping hidden the confession the clergyman will hurt no innocent man. In the revelation of that confession a journalist is placing justice into the hands of man and expects man to judge. In keeping hidden the confession the clergyman is placing justice into the hands of God expecting and believing that God will judge.

The journalist will, in time, end up losing his integrity while the clergyman can only maintain his. This is because, sooner or later, he will reveal something that will turn out to be false. We have seen numerous cases where this has already occurred. Dan Rather is but one good example of this.”

I could only chuckle at his explanation. No wonder that I feel guilty at times when keeping a secret told me. It is because I made a promise that I should never have made in the first place.

A more perfect Union

While grandpa and I were sitting out on the porch one eve, he in his rocking chair and me in mine next to him I asked him this question:

“Grandpa, what does it mean when we say we should uphold the Constitution?”

he opened his eyes, looked at me then sat there rocking a bit more before giving me this answer;

“Boy, that is a toughie to answer. Basically it means that we should look to the Constitution to determine what government is allowed to do or not do. But there are those who believe that it also is a determinant of what society is allowed to do also. This is the result of political ideology. And people will interpret the Constitution so as to see it as supporting their ideology. And this results in what I call an ideological Constitution.

What I mean by this is, is that they are using the Constitution to uphold their ideology rather than possessing an ideology that upholds the Constitution. From this they feel they have the authority to form a more perfect society, as they believe a perfect society should be. The problem with this is that it divides a society rather than uniting it. And in dividing a society it creates a less perfect society rather than a more perfect one.

After we won our independence from England the thirteen colonies were no longer just colonies but sovereign independent states with the power an authority as any other nation. It was the recognition of their own weakness and vulnerabilities that inspired them to unite as one thus making them stronger. But they wanted to do it in such a manner that would not deprive themselves of their newly gained freedom or sovereignty. So, they made a pact with each other to unite for the purpose of common interests. Self-defense was the main reason for this pact. Thus they united under a pact called the Articles of Confederation.

With this pact all thirteen states agreed that an attack on one state was an attack on every state. This pact also created a central government that was meant to address any issues of common interests. Each state sent representatives that would present the viewpoints of their own state on any matter brought up. While ideally it could have been said to be the perfect union of states, in practice the ideas were flawed. And the Constitution that we have today is nothing but The Articles of Confederation rewritten so as to address these flaws thus forming a more perfect union. And because of the uniqueness of how it was written it can be declared we have rewritten that Constitution 17 more times since then.

So, boy, when we talk of upholding the Constitution we are speaking not in terms of society but in terms of the pact that the states agreed to in the formation of this great nation. In other words our individual ideology should be dependent upon the Constitution and the intent of the Constitution. And the intent of the Constitution was to form a more perfect union of states not a more perfect society.”

With that said he went back to closing his eyes once more and started slowly rocking once more. And I quietly did the same.

University of Life

Grandma just caressed my wet cheek where tears were falling down because I had screwed up that day and it had hurt my best friend. It felt like the worst day of my life and I just knew that nothing could make it better. But then grandma spoke in her loving way that always seemed to make things better. This is what she said,

"My boy, whether you knew it or not you are enrolled in a full-time school called The University of Life. Each day, you will be presented with opportunities to learn what you need to know. The lessons presented are often completely different from those you think you need.

There are no mistakes---only lessons. Growth is a process of trial and error and experimentation. You can learn as much from failure as you can from success. And this just happens to be one of those days that you feel that you failed. Don’t let it get you down.

In life, school never lets out. Learning does not nor will ever end. There is no stage of life that does not contain some lessons. As long as you live, there will be something more to learn. There is no better than "today". When your "tomorrow" has become a "today" you will obtain another "tomorrow" that will again look better than your "today". Do not be fooled by believing that the unattainable is better than what you have. If you have learned your lessons well then yesterday is without meaning. If you have not then yesterday will continue to exist to remind you of it. You will feel that there will be no tomorrow.

As you see others you see but a reflection of the self. You cannot love or hate something about another person unless it reflects something you would love or hate about yourself. To call someone wrong is to reflect upon your perception of what would be wrong for you to do.

What you make of your life is up to you. You have all the tools and resources you need. Remember that through desire, goal-setting and unflagging effort you can have anything you want. Persistence is the key to success.

The answer is within you. The solutions to all of life's problems lie within your grasp. All you need to do is ask, look, listen and trust. There is no can’t. There is only can. We only need to learn what that can is. And that is what life is about, the learning of can. So, my boy, graduate from the University of Life with honors. That is what will make your grandfather and me the proudest of grandparents."

With this she just leaned over and gave me a kiss on the cheek and I knew that everything would be all right.

A man, A brother

A man be enslaved, another not.
A man will work so another need not.
One man will earn his keep, the other will not.
Forced be one to feed the other.
From the ability of the one for the needs of the other,
Each are dependent, the Master and slave.

The food that they eat they get from the other.
One from the kindness that the heart will provide,
The other from the hardness from the labor that provides.
Tis the life of the enslaved, the life of the Master.

The socialist seeks his freedom,
But soon finds that he be ever enslaved.
For on the table will be the fruit of his labor,
But the table be not his but the table of another.
Not a man he be nor will he be a brother.
A Master he did not seek, but a Master he will feed.

Freedom of man

One evening while we were on the back porch just enjoying the warmth of the evening and feeling a soft breeze as it floated gently past us I asked,

"Grandpa what would you do if you were elected the President of the United States?"

Grandpa looked at me and it seemed as if he was startled by the question. Then he smiled as he said,

"Boy, at times you ask the darndest questions" then he just laughed. But, as usual, he answered it by saying,

"First off, boy, I would never accept the job of President. The President is not as powerful as many think he is. It is the power that this nation possesses that makes him appear to be more powerful than he actually is. We must remember that our government is set up so that the President can only execute the laws as enacted by Congress.

His greatest power lies in the international area where he and he alone can interact with the representatives of other countries in an official manner. Even then his power is restricted because he must have the approval of the Senate in regards to any agreement that he may come to with the leaders of other nations.

Remember this, boy, when you hear discussions of government and you hear people talk of what it should do. They do so with the idea of exactly what they would do if given the power and authority to make the changes as they want. But in order to make the changes as they see necessary they must have the power and authority of a dictator. And the President cannot have that power and authority.

One more thing, boy, and it is something most persons never realize. It is the fact that the central government was set up to represent the states of this nation not the people of those states. It was the states that had to give up some of their rights to make the central government functional not the people of those states.

So, if I was given the power and authority of a dictator for one day the first thing I would do is return the power and authority that the states possessed and taken away from them back to them. Then I would revoke any and all laws that were or appear to be beneficial to one group of individual but harmful to others. It is time we finally put the words of one of the greatest men in American history to work. A man, that I might add, who truly understood the meaning of freedom.

'The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us... I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! ... And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! ... your interference is doing him positive injury.'

The man be Frederick Douglas and I would dictate that government apply those words not to just Negroes but to every man. Every man deserves the right to know of his own achievements as well as his own failures. For that is the essence of the meaning of freedom. That be the American dream."

I just grinned at his words and sat there with eyes closed as I envisioned grandpa being a dictator of this country.