American greatness- opinion from Southern Illinois

Echo opinion 

Forget Make America Great Again!

In fact, America has never stopped being great.

Echo opinion by Charles F. Burdick of Grand Tower, Illinois, a town with a census of 605 people on the Mississippi River. Published in the Southern Illinoisan newspaper.

So what is it that makes America so great?

The major thing that makes America great is the Constitution, with the Bill of Rights. We also have states' rights. Within the range of guaranteed rights is freedom of religion, voting rights, freedom of speech and opportunities of many.

God has truly blessed America. Just read the preamble of the U.S. Constitution:

“We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Recently, I have become irritated and saddened hearing and seeing the phrase “Make America Great Again.” You see this on posters and signs at political rallies. This is saying that America had stopped being great and we must overcome this and make it great again.

I’m here to tell you that it has never, in my 86 years, stopped being great and still is. We have seen some low periods in our country, but this has not stopped it from being great. Had it not been great, we would not have overcome some of our lowest events.

Our teachings have taught us to show respect for the president of our country. But I have always believed that to get respect, you must show respect and our president has not met this denominator. He makes disparaging remarks about people and tells the story in a manner he thinks makes him look superior over other people. He stretches the truth about many things when he should know that people know better.

How can I show respect for a man that is obsessed with making untrue statements?

This is the same man that has a friendly relation with two of our enemies, Russia’s Vladamir Putin and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. This, of course, is not all bad, but questionable

A veteran spoke to me and said, “I saw some rough times while serving in the U.S. Army in Korea. I always felt that my sacrifice was for the greatest country in the world, and still do. But now I hear that it stopped being great and we must make it great again. Was all our bloodshed in vain?”

I tried to explain that maybe this phrase was being used out of context, but he stopped me by saying, “the blood that ran from my fellow soldiers had nothing to do with, out of context."

Knowing he was right, I said no more. He asked me not to use his name. I have no idea as to how many more people feel the way this veteran just mentioned, but I suspect many agree.

As long as our country, the majestic United States of America, exists and its history is told, it will never be necessary to make it great again. History dictates and shows our everlasting devotion and this will be feared by our enemies. Its strength is in our rights and freedoms and this will always keep us safe.

The future of this great nation is contained in its Constitution and the will of its people. My hope remains that our leaders' minds will not be clouded when dealing with rogue nations. I can only suggest to them this: “Let not darkness of night cloud your mind, for morning will bring light.”

In closing, I say let's “Keep America Great.” Forget Make America Great Again, for it has never stopped being great.

Charles F. Burdick is a lifelong resident of Grand Tower. After graduating from high school, he joined the U.S. Navy and then went on to a 42-year Maritime career including 35 years as Master Pilot. He has been retired for 23 years and enjoys local history and writing poetry.

Trump diagnosis ~ "a cancer lives among us, and the good people of this country must be precise in its excision"

Echo opinion column by Kathleen Parker published in The Northern Virginia Daily

WASHINGTON — Surely, now, we can concede that letting Trump be Trump has exhausted itself — even among the smugly credulous.

For a year and a half, we’ve heard his supporters say: Watch what he does, not what he says. Sure, he’s rude and crude, they said, but he’s going to make America great again.

No, he’s not.

Nor was he ever, notwithstanding a column I wrote just before Election Day, saying that America would survive no matter who won. My optimism was based solely on faith in the U.S. Constitution and the inherent checks and balances prescribed therein. To be wrong would mean that the checks aren’t being applied when imbalances occur.

We are there.

President Trump, rather than holding a hard line with Russian President Vladimir Putin at their summit in Helsinki, essentially sided with the enemy by attacking U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies regarding their solidly conclusive finding that Russian hackers interfered with the 2016 presidential election. (Trump tried to backtrack Tuesday afternoon, saying that he does, in fact, accept the intelligence community’s findings on Russian meddling.)

The two leaders all but held hands during a news conference Monday as each dismissed the idea that Russia wants to undermine American democracy — and that the Robert Mueller investigation into possible collusion between Russian operatives and the Trump campaign has no legs to stand on. This despite Mueller having just last Friday issued 12 indictments against Russians believed to be involved in hacking the computer networks of Democratic organizations.

Are we to believe that these two known liars were telling the truth or hadn’t agreed to a script during their private, one-on-one meeting?

On Sunday, Trump, in his usual manner, blamed the Democrats for having a weak defense system against hacking. On Tuesday, he again waved the “fake news” flag, blaming the media for unfavorable summit coverage. The whole experience surely bonded him further with Putin, who favors a state-run media and rules a nation where journalists who become troublesome are often killed.

Between Trump’s antipathy toward the First Amendment, which he previously has expressed wishing to weaken — and his stated desire that “my people” sit up at attention when he speaks, as North Koreans did during his visit with Kim Jong Un — the president has made his dictatorial proclivities clear.

That said, such inclinations may more accurately reflect a severe narcissistic personality disorder than a conscious desire to subjugate the American people. Given Trump’s paltry understanding of world affairs or his role as president, he quite possibly aligns himself with thugs as a means to man-up, as they say, and correct some sense of impotence that persists despite his impressive success.

Consider Trump’s reply when challenged about his dubious posture toward American intelligence agencies: “I have great confidence in my intelligence people,”he said, “but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.”

Note “my” intelligence people, plus the obvious lie about confidence. And the words “strong,” “powerful” and “denial.” This is Trump in four words: self-absorbed, impressed by authority, and at home in denial. This makes him easily unlikable to a majority of Americans but not necessarily treasonous, as some have charged out of proper outrage. Treason, frankly, sounds a little high-minded for such a reckless, clueless vaude-villain.

Where does this leave us? What might one deduce from the Helsinki summit? Either Trump is too thoroughly inept to continue as president, or his predatory nature, as demonstrated in his business — not to mention his boasting about aggression toward women — has led to his collecting rogues to enhance his own power. Or both. In any case, he has stepped over all lines of acceptable presidential behavior and presents a clear and present danger to the United States.

When our chief executive, whose principal job is to defend both the Constitution and the nation against aggressors, stands alongside our chief geopolitical foe and betrays two of our most important institutions in the service of his own ego, he has dimmed the lights in the shining city on a hill and left the world a far darker place.

It’s often said that America is great because America is good. 

My faith in the institutions and the individuals who conferred upon us a singular role in the history of humankind is yet unshaken. But a cancer lives among us, and the good people of this country must be precise in its excision. If Republicans don’t do it now, Democrats likely will sweep the ballots in November and do it then.

History will note when, and by whose hand, America ceased to be great.  Email: kathleenparker@washpost.com.

Ted Cruz needs American citizenship training

It's the epitomy of ignorance, but Texas Senator Ted Cruz wants to amend the US Constitution to require the Supreme Court to be elected, rather than appointed.  The US Constitution created three branches of government, with the Supreme Court being equal to the President (Executive) and the Congress.

The US Constitution included the laws to establish a United States Supreme Court

Americans who fall for the Ted Cruz Supreme Court ruse should be exported, faster than any undocumented immigrants called for by his radical followers  Here are the facts.  Americans are seldom enamored by US Supreme Court rulings. Nevertheless, the court rules when the political system breaks down. In other words, like them or not, the Supreme Court justices make decisions and move public policy forward, while the Congress, and the President are stagnant and locked in gridlock. Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, meaning their decisions are supposed to be exempt from political persuasion. Obviously, Supreme Court justices are selected for approval by the political system of influence at the time they are appointed. In other words, Democrat presidents are inclined to select liberal justices while the Republican executive officers are likely to appoint conservatives. During their lifetime appointments, the balance of the 9 court justices, somehow, manage to rise above politics, at least most of the time.  

For Ted Cruz to ignorantly recommend a Constitutional amendment to require Supreme Court justices to be elected is ludicrous.  

Cruz is probably calling for another Constitutional Convention, or a follow up to the 18th century meetings of the founding fathers to rewrite the tenets of our nation. This would be a huge waste of tax payer money. Indeed, this stupidity is driven by his political ambitions, rather than for a reverence for the intention of the US Constitution as written by the creators of America.

Agree with them or not, the Supreme Court justices are not influenced, like elected officials.  Justices are not subject to election campaigns, television media purchases or political action committees. In other words, Supreme Court decisions are based on the US Constitution and they are not influenced by the whim of politicians who want to control the judiciary.  

It's really time for Ted Cruz to disclose his roots as a Canadian and stop trying to re-write the US Constitution.  

Moreover, Cruz should have an educational certificate of evidence that he's taken American citizenship training. He must prove he understand how our government works, before recommending any amendments to the US Constitution, a documents that he swears, as a US Senator, to uphold.

Will freedom of speech trump telling truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

When the US Supreme Court hears arguments about whether or not to allow political lies to be challenged, it seems to me, the justices should go back to law school 101, before deliberations on this case begins. History tells us the Ten Commandments were the foundation of our western legal justice system.  In the document Moses is credited with chronicling, Exodus 20:16- thou shall not bear false witness...., seems to me the high court would be trumping this tenet of the bailiff's swearing in oath and Moses, if the ruling in support of free speech, including the liberty to spread lies, is permitted to overrule what's taught in the Ten Commandments.

Of course, cynics will deny the validity of the Ten Commandments as being the foundation for our western justice system. If so, then what's the basis of the oath all witnesses take before testifying in a jury trial or before a judge?  "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth....". Although atheists are apparently permitted to omit the optional "so help me God" clause, the fact is, witnesses raise their right hand and swear to tell the truth. To do otherwise, or to lie while under oath, is called perjury, which is a crime.

It also seems to me, US Supreme Court rulings supporting Second Amendment rights to own guns, over the right of people to be protected from gun violence, likewise, trumps the Ten Commandment about "thou shall not kill".

Perhaps it's time for our US Supreme Court conservative justices, especially the Roman Catholic Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts, should consider their Judeo-Christian heritage while contemplating how freedom of speech fits with the Ten Commandments.

In other words, perhaps the Supreme Court justices should read a law 101 book. Nearly all professions require refresher courses. It would be reassuring to know how the justices refreshed their judicial roots, before ruling on case law that puts our US Constitutional freedoms of speech and to bear arms, above the traditional enforcement of the Ten Commandments.

Tragic Fort Hood deja vu more preventable gun violence on a secure military base

American news continues to be consumed by preventable gun violence incidents. These seemingly limitless incidents cause deaths and injuries, because of the unregulated access people have to own and use weapons that cause death.

Although we seem to be inoculated against street gun violence caused by gangs, the deadly incidents on military bases are particularly concerning. These bases are supposed to be the places where our nation is being defended against terrorism. Now, the bases are apparently the places where domestic terrorism incidents are clustering.

It's time for the Second Amendment rulings of our United States Supreme Court to be held responsible for individuals who abuse the liberty. I've always been reluctant to hold the high court responsible for an individuals behavior, but when the Second Amendment trumps the rights of people to be protected from those who abuse this constitutional liberty, then the court must be replaced. 

Has anyone thought about a class action suit by victims of gun violence against the US Supreme Court? Of course, such action would just be a gesture, but it would get attention and might even remind the high justices about their moral obligation to balance the law with the protection of innocent people.

Now, Americans are faced with a seemingly deja vu gun violent incident at Fort Hood. This is the same military base where Hasan, the Army terrorist who perpetrated the 2009 crime, has yet punished although, even though he admits to the crime.

Our US Supreme Court has clearly lost it's way as a moral compass for Americans. The Court's libertarian leanings have done nothing whatsoever to support average Americans living in the 21st Century. Deja vu violence is being supported because of concrete interpretations of the US Constitution written to protect citizens who lived in the late 18th century.  

I'm not qualified to be a law commentator, but it's clearly wrong for the Supreme Court to continue supporting unbridled Second Amendment Rights. 

It seems like Americans need to find protection from the US Supreme Court and dangerous rulings by right wing justices.

Unelected Power - Godfathers Norquist and Koch Brothers

Some Americans were once upset when President Bill Clinton asked his wife Hilary to lead a campaign in support of badly needed health care reform, because she didn't hold an elected office. 

Constitution constructionists even threw around the founding fathers' concept of the balance of power.  How could the office of First Lady of the US be covered in the process of Constitutional checks and balances?  

But, today, filthy rich people, who don't want to pay taxes, are exerting undue influence over politicians, and the electorate without incurring outrage about the unconstitutionality of what they're up to.

Where's the outrage about unelected Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers, who wield unknown amounts of political power with money? They're examples of unelected rich people who control our country, like political Godfathers over America's elected officials. 

Norquist gives philanthropy a bad name. His money influences right wing politics, especially, in what should be illegal campaigns, to have elected officials in Congress sign pledges against raising taxes.  But, it's the job of Congress to evaluate the nation's revenues versus our expenses.  Norquist is on a quest to control Congress. His unelected power is nothing more than bribes, used to control legislation in his own best interest. In other words, since he's rich, he wants to be sure his income isn't taxed, so he can stay that way, along with his friends.

Who suffers when Congress is blackmailed by Norquist?  It's the middle class who suffers, because, rather than raise taxes on the rich, the austerity falls on program cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid assistance to poor, and disabled people, and their children, food stamps and Veterans benefits.

Norquist doesn't care about any of these programs, because he doesn't need them.

How can one unelected person have so much power over how Congress votes?  

Koch brothers Charles and David are billionaires who own the second largest privately owned business in the US.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family

Under the smokescreen protection of their considerable contributions to philanthropy, they're like clandestine right wing puppeteers who throw their loose money away on Political Action Committee (PAC) campaigns to lie to American voters, just because they can.  They're unelected, of course.  Moreover, few people even know or understand how these two get away with what they're doing. They keep a nefarious low profile, while using their rights as American citizens to free speech to support their own political hobbies. They're empowered to use their money for undue political influence because the US Supreme Court handed them a Constitutional freedom to lie, in the Citizens United ruling.

How can these two unelected brothers have so much unchecked power to influence American voters?

Where is the check and balance for people with money, who exert undue influence over our democratic institutions?  Well, it's called the voter, or it's supposed to be us.  

Unfortunately, less people read objective media information while we're deluged with brainwashing TV ads paid for by unbridled political action committees, where the donors are anonymous. A prime example of their power is in the decadent amounts of money sent to Wisconsin Governor Walker in his campaign to keep his office, against opposition about how he divided the state over labor issues.  If Governor Walker was so right in how he managed Wisconsin, why did he need $30 (some say $60) million to get his message out?

Negative PAC ads paid for by rich people like the Koch Brothers are expensive relentless campaigns of lies. Voters, the checks for political corruption, are blindsided by advertising manipulation from making informed choices needed to contain undue influence by rich political hobbyists. 

Americans need to vote the disciples of rich political Godfathers out of office.

When Republicans hold up the US Constitution as being inspired by God, they should also push back on the corruptible power of money in politics. Politicians should demonstrate support for the system of checks and balances instituted by the founding fathers in their inspired governing document, because there's no Eliot Ness of politics around today, brave enough to take on political Godfathers.

But, as voters, we can elect our leaders instead of allowing the rich to buy undue political influence over who governs the middle class.