"When they allow a talk show host to play them like a two-dollar banjo, they demonstrate what kind of backbone they'll bring to the job later on, if we elect them. After they get elected will they continue to allow Jeff Crank to put a nickel in them and wind them up every Saturday morning?"
Barry Noreen, former columnist, Colorado Springs Gazette
Barry Noreen, former columnist, Colorado Springs Gazette
"There's a lot of talent there" - Shannon Fowler
"For a guy named Crank he's pretty affable" - Russ Latino
Monday, May 2, 2011
"A nation of laws...and tradition."
“A nation of laws…and tradition.”
by John Alexander Madison
May 2, 2011
How can Kathleen Parker, 2010 Pulitzer Prize winner for Political Commentary opinion, be so wrong? “In a saner time, Obama would not have answered the buffoons.” Parker’s May 1 article is, of course, in reference to Obama finally releasing what he claims to be a copy of his original birth certificate. She suggests the President resisted the release of his birth certificate for about three years because it was simply a “matter of pride.”
Answering the question “Can having too much pride be dangerous?” one response I found on the internet said: “Of course it can. It is one of the seven deadly sins. It's okay to be a little proud but a lot of the time it develops into arrogance, or gets to the point where you can't have a conversation with someone properly, because after everything you say you manage to slip in something about yourself. Or whenever you say "I think you should..." all your emphasis is on the word "I".
To repeat: “(pride) develops into arrogance…” That reminds me of the fellow who said “I” nine times last night in announcing the murder of Osama Bin Laden. Andrea Mitchell could not contain herself when she immediately opined that ‘this is a game changer for Obama.’ Others gushed ‘this will be the most significant accomplishment of the Obama administration.’ To that I say the President deserves little credit for this. The credit belongs, almost entirely, to the men and women of our Armed Forces and the U.S. intelligence community who laboured for nearly ten years to track down despicable terrorist.
But I digress. Back to Parker’s suggestion that those who sought to verify our President’s eligibility for office were politically motivated. I’ve got news for Parker. The United States Constitution, the law of our land, clearly defines eligibility to be our President. It is found in the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
So it seems Pulitzer Prize winning Parker has little respect for the U.S. Constitution. Kathleen, it is the law and the law should either be enforced or removed, and I am not suggesting the later. In my April 25, 2011 column I wrote: “Questioning the eligibility of candidates for U.S. President is a legitimate issue. After all, our Constitution requires our President to be a natural born citizen. There is a simple solution. Congress should create legislation to enable investigation of this very basic requirement. In the absence of such legislation, however, Barry Barrack Hussein Soetero Obama is solely responsible for proving his eligibility to be our President.”
It’s no different when all fifty states in the United States of America, by law, define eligibility to vote. In that regard, as I have often opined, we must support efforts in every state to seek proof of citizenship before allowing one to register to vote, and government issued photo I.D.s when voting…or remove eligibility requirements for voting which is a tenant of the liberal platform.
Back in November 2006 in an article entitled The New American Revolution - Where’s the Outrage? the author wrote: “Imagine going to a voter registration office in any country in the world and registering to vote. No identification documents proving who you are and no proof of citizenship documents for that country are required. You just sign up and you are registered to vote. If you say ‘that’s not going to happen!’ you are right. It’s not going to happen in any country in the world…except in the United States of America.” To that I add, now is not the time to disrespect and disobey the laws of our nation in spite of our government’s inclination to do so.
Within the last week in response to my urging, and perhaps with some help from “The Donald,” the President has released what he claims to be his birth certificate. If some want to question the validity of that document they are free invest in that effort. But I want to move on and focus on what is even more important and that is the election of ABO (anybody but Obama in November 2012.
I followed with some amusement and anger Bill O’Reilly’s complete disrespect for the wedding of Catherine Elizabeth Middleton and Queen Elizabeth’s eldest grandson, William Arthur Philip Louis Windsor, who is second in succession to the throne, after his father Prince Charles. He seemed bored by the whole affair and dismissed it as just another wedding.
O’Reilly opined “I couldn’t care less” (bad English, Bill) and he called the members of the Royal family “dopey people in carriages.” “The wedding is just a boondoggle and sport for England,” he continued. His complete disrespect for England and the Queen of England was, in my view, immature and showed his lack of respect for one of our greatest allies. For O’Reilly to say that was childish and immature leaves me with just one lingering thought…he is jealous and a buffoon.
In these days of doom and gloom, with civil unrest and wars raging around the world, with U.S. spending clearly out of control, with unprecedented national debt which we cannot pay back in two lifetimes, what is wrong with a few feel good moments O’Reilly? What is wrong with building nationalist feelings? The wedding was filled with dignity, reverence and tradition.
I like the traditions of England, as did my immigrant father who was, admittedly, an Anglophile although he was not born in Great Britain. He would not like to miss the serenity of a cup of tea around four in the afternoon with, of course, a crumpet or two and good conversation with family and friends.
And I also like the traditions of our relatively young nation. And for that reason I feel compelled to fight for those founding principles which have endured for the last 235 years, in spite of more recent efforts to depart from them. Those traditions, principles and values of our founding fathers have made this, inarguably the greatest nation on Earth.
Speaking of tradition, traditional marriage is a long standing one. And while divorce is becoming more commonplace it is, with some important exceptions, not acceptable. In a marriage ceremony one takes an oath and makes a commitment which, today, seems to be taken all too lightly. We know the worlds “…for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, ‘til death do us part.”
That too was part of last Friday’s tradition and hope…hope for Kate and William, hope for England and hope for everyone throughout the world. Do you want to dismiss that tradition, that commitment to one another? I don’t. The marriage of Williams and Kate was a beautiful event which one day, I can only hope, even Bill O’Reilly will more fully appreciate.
Historical footnote: Thomas Ken was an English cleric who was considered the most eminent of the English non-juring bishops, and one of the fathers of modern English hymnology. In 1679, Ken was appointed by Charles II chaplain to the Princess Mary, wife of William of Orange. While with the court at The Hague, he incurred the displeasure of William by insisting that a promise of marriage, made to an English lady of high birth by a relative of the prince, should be kept; and he therefore gladly returned to England in 1680, when he was immediately appointed one of the king's chaplains.
On his death bed in 1711 Ken said: “I die in the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith, professed by the whole Church before disunion of East and West. More particularly I die in the Communion of the Church of England as it stands distinguished from all Papal and Puritan Innovations, and as it adheres to the doctrine of the Cross.”“…as it adheres to the doctrine of the Cross.” That, my friends, is the type of tradition we must all fight to preserve.
Who says church doctrine, marriage or the Constitution of the United States for that matter must change? Not me.