End Terrorism in Israel/Palestine/Lebanon

We all believe that violence is wrong, even evil, and would like to put an end to it everywhere. Right now, most of us are concerned about the Israel/Palestine/Lebanon regional conflict.
Terrorism is not a political belief or movement. Terrorism is a method for creating fear, doubt, and instability; it is a means to an end, not an end unto itself. Terrorism is violence aimed at anyone and everyone, but especially innocent civilians. It is random, deadly, and is a crime against humanity.
Right now, each of the major forces in the I/P/L region, the State of Israel, Hamas, and Hezbullah (and sometimes al-Fatah), are using terrorism to get their way or, at least as they see it, for keeping their perceived enemies/opponents from achieving their goals.
Through NATO or the UN, we must demand and enforce the demand for the cessation of terrorism.

• No more killing of innocent civilians.
• No more rockets launched against non-military targets.
• No more suicide bombings.
• No more bombing of civilian infrastructure such as bridges, civil airports,
fuel tanks, roads, schools, hospitals, and communication facilities.
• No more collective punishment.

Any state that engages in or supports such activities will be excluded from the United Nations. Any group which engages in or supports such activities will be boycotted by UN members. No such group will be allowed to act as a conduit of aid package distribution or serve as a provider of any other form of governmental relief or function.

The Flag Burning Amendment and its Supporters

Here are a couple of notes about the "Flag Desecration Amendment" and those who support it. This is from a Californian who served during the Vietnam War Era (but not in Vietnam) and is a registered Republican.

Those who would protect the flag by desecrating the Bill of Rights should have a consistent record of such protective behavior.
Those who have shirked their duty earlier cannot now claim a patriotic role. Of the 20 Republican Congresspersons from California, 12 faced the draft during the Vietnam Era. Only three served. That means that nine did not go. Those nine (Herger, Lundgren, Doolittle, Gallegly, Dreier, Royce, Calvert, Rohrbacher and Cox) should have been called out and told not to vote. They did not serve the flag when it counted. They should not have played the superpatriot now.
The same thing goes in the Senate, starting with the Majority Leader.

In the Senate, there are 19 male Republicans born from 1943 through 1953 (prime draft material). Only one (Hagel – NE) served in the regular military (Army, served in Vietnam ’67-’68).
Three were in the National Guard – Isakson – GA, Craig – ID, and Enzi – WY. One, Sessions – AL, was in the Army Reserves. It would be interesting to know how they got into the Guard/Reserves.
All the rest somehow missed out on military service. The most interesting names on the List of the Missing are Bill Frist and Saxby Chambliss.

The Proposed Impeachment of George W. Bush

There is a movement among some political activists to try to impeach President George W. Bush. I am against such a move because I believe that an impeachment effort would actually help Bush and the Radical Republicans.
President Bush's policies and programs are generally unpopular, as shown by his polling numbers. There is also a growing realization that his competency is to be questioned. But these aspects do not overcome the political reality that George W. Bush remains personally popular with a majority of the people in this country.
Impeachment can only have a degree of success where the President is unpopular (e.g., Andrew Johnson or Nixon). Consideration of or actual impeachment has serious repercussions for those promoting it where a President is popular (Reagan or Clinton).
In my estimation, George W. Bush (read Karl Rove) would actually welcome an impeachment move. He would make a big thing about having people undercutting him
while he was fighting terrorism. Then he would announce, "A vote for a Democrat is a vote to impeachme."
Those middle-America voters who have been leaning towards voting Democratic candidates will be pushed back towards the Republicans. And the Republican Party would retain control of Congress.
For Reform Republicans, impeachment would end any hope of bringing the GOP into the 20th century. It would be the latest litmus test and push all reformers into a corner or out of the party. Rational debate on policies and principles would be overwhelmed by (party) loyalty tests.
I yield to no one in my dislike for George W. Bush and his ilk. But I will oppose any measure that would help rather than hinder him.

The "Under God" Dilemma

The “Under God” Dilemma

The constitutional issue of requiring people to say “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance can easily be resolved by looking to legal precedent.
In the ‘Gobitis’ (1940) and ‘Barnette’ (1943) cases, the U.S. Supreme Court held that you could not force schoolchildren to say the Pledge nor punish them for not saying it. These cases were brought on behalf of Jehovah’s Witnesses whose consciences would not allow them to pledge to anything outside of their religious beliefs.
Applying that same principle, a child could be instructed by his or her family not to say “under God” if it is contrary to their religious or political beliefs.