So, what were these millions of young Americans, both the drug users and the sober, to think when no official responsibility was ever assigned for the disaster of Vietnam? Shouldn’t someone have been held responsible for the cover-up or the conscious denial of the obvious danger to the troops as well as the campaign, especially for the initial surge of drug use in the early years of the buildup?
The lesson learned was that nobody was held to have had any personal responsibility for the loss of countless lives when, clearly, Army units were dysfunctional because soldiers were high – not the individuals who did drugs in the field, not their squad or platoon or company officers who may have shared a toke with them, not the battalion or regimental officers who had to construct action reports and determine what went right and what went wrong and certainly not the generals in Saigon and Washington – nor their civilian superiors.
The fact is they all knew, (and if they claimed they didn’t, they were admitting to dereliction in the face of the enemy) no one did anything about it and the slaughter went on. Afterwards, the Army, as an institution, slunk away to conduct two decades of self-analysis. The government eliminated the draft. The servicemen and women returned to civilian life scarred by their experience; tormented by the fiasco created by those responsible for their safety; disillusioned with the moral and ethical train wreck they had witnessed and scorned by their peers for their collective failures.
If no one would be held responsible for that, then certainly there was no such attribute as personal responsibility. Even the draft-dodgers who fled to Canada were welcomed home with open arms by Democrat President Jimmy Carter during his first week in office with no assignment of accountability for abandoning their country in time of need.
This new acceptable flaw in the American character has festered since the end of our Vietnam involvement, has animated our unfortunates, their families and descendants ever since and has manifested itself in what we see today in a declining, but still high, America where no public official in the Democrat administration – especially those of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama has ever been held accountable for any transgression – of which there were many – as we have seen.
The thing about it is that there were those responsible for all of it – but they got away with it because they were not held accountable.
· The esteemed academic institutions – to whom we entrusted our impressionable children but who exposed them to drugs (often by example) and the extra/contra-Constitutional New Dealers and other neer-do-wells with their radical acolytes in academia.
· The generals – to whom we entrusted our precious children but who allowed them to be exposed to a culture of drugs and the torpor they create that would kill too many of them.
· The modern-day progressive/liberals – to whom we entrusted our personal sovereignty in a Democrat Congress almost exclusively for more than forty years and who have systematically dismantled the protections of life, liberty and private property in our Constitution, all the while blaming failure on others (mainly the Republicans) – the very antithesis of personal responsibility.
· The press/media – to whom we entrust the truth, if for no other reason than the incomprehensible reporting of the Tet offensive in South Vietnam in 1968. The Wall Street Journal’s Arthur Herman wrote in 2008 [my emphases]:
“On January 30, 1968, more than a quarter million North Vietnamese soldiers and 100,000 Viet Cong irregulars launched a massive attack on South Vietnam. But the public didn’t hear about who had won this most decisive battle of the Vietnam War, the so-called Tet offensive, until much too late.
Media misreporting of Tet passed into our collective memory. That picture gave antiwar activism an unwarranted credibility that persists today in Congress, and in the media reaction to the war in Iraq. The Tet experience provides a narrative model for those who wish to see all U.S. military successes – such as the Petraeus surge [which led to ultimate military victory in Iraq, only to be undone by an inept State Department during the Obama administration] – minimized and glossed over.
In truth, the war in Vietnam was lost on the propaganda front, in great measure due to the press’s pervasive misreporting of the clear U.S. victory at Tet as a defeat. Forty years is long past time to set the historical record straight.
The Tet [the Vietnamese Lunar New Year celebration] offensive came at the end of a long string of communist setbacks. By 1967 their insurgent army in the South, the Viet Cong, had proved increasingly ineffective, both as a military and political force. Once American combat troops began arriving in the summer of 1965 [and despite debilitating drug-use among American soldiers], the communists were mauled in one battle after another, despite massive Hanoi support for the southern insurgency with soldiers and arms.
By 1967 the VC had lost control over areas like the Mekong Delta – ironically, the very place where reporters David Halberstam and Neil Sheehan had first diagnosed a Vietnam “quagmire” that never existed.
The Tet offensive was Hanoi’s desperate throw of the dice to  seize South Vietnam’s northern provinces using conventional armies, while  simultaneously triggering a popular uprising in support of the Viet Cong. Both failed. Americans and South Vietnamese soon put down the attacks, which began under cover of a cease-fire to celebrate the Tet lunar new year.
CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite’s public verdict that the 1968 Tet offensive was a “defeat” for the U.S. is widely seen as a turning point in American support for the war. Cronkite falsely claimed that the Vietcong had held the American embassy for six hours and that the offensive “went on for two months.”
The facts [available to Cronkite at the time] show that Tet was actually a major defeat for the communist enemy. In actuality, the Viet Cong loss was devastating and by March 2, when U.S. Marines crushed the last North Vietnamese pockets of resistance in the northern city of Hue, the VC had lost 80,000-100,000 killed or wounded without capturing a single province. The Tet offensive was a last gasp for the Communists and the U.S. had won every single battle.
Tet was a particularly crushing defeat for the VC. It had not only failed to trigger any uprising but also cost them “our best people,” as former Viet Cong doctor Duong Quyunh Hoa later admitted to reporter Stanley Karnow. Yet the very fact of the U.S. military victory – “The North Vietnamese,” noted National Security official William Bundy at the time, “fought to the last Viet Cong” – was spun otherwise by most of the U.S. press.
As the Washington Post‘s Saigon bureau chief Peter Braestrup documented in his 1977 book, The Big Story, the desperate fury of the communist attacks including on Saigon, where most reporters lived and worked, caught the press by surprise. (Not the military: It had been expecting an attack and had been on full alert [and reinforcing outlying areas] since Jan. 24.)
[More critically,] it also put many reporters in physical danger for the first time. Braestrup, a former Marine, calculated that only 40 of 354 print and TV journalists covering the war at the time had seen any real fighting. Their own panic deeply colored their reportage, suggesting that the communist assault had flung Vietnam into chaos.
Their editors at home, like CBS’s Walter Cronkite, seized on the distorted reporting to discredit the military’s version of events. The Viet Cong insurgency was in its death throes, just as U.S. military officials assured the American people at the time. Yet the press version painted a different picture.
To quote Braestrup, “the media tended to leave the shock and confusion of early February, as then perceived, fixed as the final impression of Tet” and of Vietnam generally. “Drama was perpetuated at the expense of information,” and “the negative trend” of media reporting “added to the distortion of the real situation on the ground in Vietnam.”
[It should also be remembered that this was Lyndon Johnson’s war – to the press, the unworthy and crude southerner who had succeeded the beloved, assassinated Northeastern Democrat icon, John Kennedy – whom the press had never accepted and upon whom they had projected their anguish for their untimely loss. His failures were their victories.]
The North Vietnamese were delighted. On the heels of their devastating defeat, Hanoi increasingly shifted its propaganda efforts toward the media and the antiwar movement.
Causing American (not South Vietnamese) casualties, even at heavy cost, became a battlefield objective in order to reinforce the American media’s narrative of a failing policy in Vietnam.
Yet thanks to the success of Tet, the numbers of Americans dying in Vietnam steadily declined — from almost 15,000 in 1968 to 9,414 in 1969 and 4,221 in 1970 – by which time the Viet Cong had ceased to exist as a viable fighting force. One Vietnamese province after another witnessed new peace and stability. By the end of 1969 over 70% of South Vietnam’s population was under government control, compared to 42% at the beginning of 1968. In 1970 and 1971, American ambassador Ellsworth Bunker estimated that 90% of Vietnamese lived in zones under government control.
However, all this went unnoticed [by dis-informed Americans] because misreporting about Tet had left the image of Vietnam as a botched counterinsurgency – an image nearly half a decade out of date. The failure of the North’s next massive invasion over Easter 1972, which cost the North Vietnamese army another 100,000 men and half their tanks and artillery, finally forced it [North Vietnam] to sign the peace accords in Paris and formally to recognize the Republic of South Vietnam.
[By historical standards, this should have been called a victory and a worthy outcome for those who had sacrificed their all for the cause because, by] August 1972 there were no U.S. combat forces left in Vietnam, precisely because, contrary to the overwhelming mass of press reports, American policy there had been a success.
To [the Democrat] Congress [the progressive/liberal press] and the [dis-informed] public, however, the war had been nothing but a debacle. And by withdrawing American troops, Republican President Nixon gave up any U.S. political or military leverage on Vietnam’s future.
With U.S. military might out of the equation, the North quickly cheated on the Paris accords. When its re-equipped army launched a massive attack in 1975, Congress refused to redeem Nixon’s pledges of military support for the South – as we have seen. Instead, accidental President Gerald Ford bowed to what the media had convinced the American public was inevitable: the fall of Vietnam.
Accuracy in Media founder and longtime AIM Report Editor Reed Irvine noted that Cronkite “contributed a great deal to our defeat in Vietnam.” According to one former North Vietnamese leader, Bui Tin, collapse of our political will was “essential to our strategy.” The war could not be won militarily but it could be won at home with the help of anti-war activists and a hostile media.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, he said that visits from such anti-war advocates as Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark “gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.” Ah, that’s ‘Hanoi Jane’ who made a fortune from exercise videos from women who still don’t know or care about her treason.”
Was anyone in the press held responsible for the deceitful reporting about Vietnam and its resulting contribution to wasted American deaths? Of course not. Cronkite went on to become an icon and “the most trusted man in America.”
The Founders are, in fact, the icons of the American story because they embodied personal responsibility to the point of sacrificing all that they had – including their lives – for the cause of liberty. The blueprint they gave us was first and foremost a treatise on personal responsibility for the trust we place in our elected and appointed officials and for the accountability we must demand of them.
If our leaders abrogate their responsibilities the entire system collapses. But today we have moral and ethical cowards for leaders – afraid of the power of the truth, the burden of personal responsibility and the greatness of American exceptionalism.
The demise of these character traits in our democracy, enhanced by the unintended consequences of the New Deal, the Great Society and the Vietnam War, is leading us down the road to the loss of self-esteem, ambition, industriousness, hope and, finally, the American Dream. How could this happen? The answer can be found in a story which began less than 100 years ago.
What began with such promise at the eleventh hour on the eleventh day of the eleventh month in 1918, when communications with the telegraph and the written letter were primitive compared to ours, we have seen in the century since these antiquated methods provided time for one to think about what they were communicating and the brevity, creativity and thoughtfulness that supplied clarity to their words, a world where now instantaneous video images cascade down on anyone, anywhere, at any time.
This period began with Western Europe decimated and the entire world in chaos. Into this chaos swept a new horde from the east, led by modern khans, intent upon also subduing Western civilization – as their horse-borne predecessors had done fifteen centuries before – when the fall of Rome left Europe in chaos. Only this horde came spouting platitudes about “the workers of the world uniting” under a Communistic ruler – the Soviet Union.
From the Asian steppes to the northern Kush to the Pacific Ocean, they created a modern terrorist state. Later they inspired many New Deal activists in America, Mao in China, Ho in Vietnam, Kim in Korea, Pol Pot in Cambodia and finally a cleric hiding behind the black robes of an ancient, terrorist pseudo–religion – Khomeini in Iran.
In whatever country allegedly educated but, in actuality, mis-informed, dis-informed, politically indoctrinated and spiritually exploited people can be found – terrorism – no longer manifested out of poverty or confined by the state, but freed to become a state-of-mind – threatens that region of the world. Exploiting the spiritual void in the West with a spiritual fanaticism, radical Islamist terrorists seek ultimate world power at the expense of all people. They don’t need great armies, just willing minds.
In August 1945, with Nazi Germany defeated and the surrender of the Japanese Empire at hand and with World War II entering the history books, America stood astride the globe as if a New Colossus – foretold by poet Emma Lazarus in 1883 – truly the “shining city on a hill” from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount – cited by both Democrat John Kennedy and Republican Ronald Reagan.
It was a time when all American children could dream any dream and could be assured that they would be able to pursue that dream, and be the people they desired to be, unfettered and unafraid of malevolent powers within or without the United States. Their only challenge was how big they were willing to dream. It was a glorious and innocent time into which I was born – and headed toward a boundless future upon the shoulders of our parents – America’s “greatest generation”.
Over the next two generations – through law and happenstance, as we have seen – African-Americans, women and most other “protected” groups would fully gain the rights and opportunities that the Constitution promised to those who practiced personal responsibility – thereby becoming able, if they so desired, to join the American parade. Consider these “firsts for African-Americans”:
Major league baseball player in the 20th Century: Jackie Robinson, 1947.
Woman gold medalist (Summer Games; individual): Alice Coachman, 1948.
Draftee to play in the NFL: Wally Triplett, halfback (Penn State). Picked by the Detroit Lions 1949.
Wimbledon tennis champion: Althea Gibson, 1957.
NHL hockey player, Boston Bruins: Willie O’Ree, 1958.
NASCAR stock car driver to win a major race: Wendell Oliver Scott, 1963.
U.S Senator (elected) Edward Brooke, 1966.
U.S. cabinet member: Robert C. Weaver, 1966.
Woman federal judge: Constance Baker Motley, 1966.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice: Thurgood Marshall, 1967.
Male tennis Major Champion: Arthur Ashe, 1968.
Mayor of major city, Cleveland: Carl Stokes, 1967.
Woman U.S. Representative: Shirley Chisholm, 1969.
Woman cabinet officer: Patricia Harris, 1977.
Governor (elected): L. Douglas Wilder, 1989.
Woman mayor of a major U.S. city: Sharon Pratt Dixon Kelly, 1991.
Woman U.S. Senator: Carol Mosely Braun, 1992.
U.S. Secretary of State: Colin Powell, 2001.
Woman Secretary of State: Condoleezza Rice, 2005.
U.S. President: Barack Obama, 2009
Consider these other “firsts for American women”:
Woman who is American citizen to be canonized: Mother Maria Frances Cabrini (1850-1917). 1946.
Woman baseball scout: Edith Houghton, 1946.
Woman in the U.S. to undergo astronaut testing: Jerrie Cobb. 1953.
Woman to serve as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare: Oveta Culp Hobby, 1953.
She is also the first director of the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC).
Woman to break the sound barrier: Jacqueline Cochran by flying an F-86 over California, 1953.
Woman nominated for President of the United States by a major political party; Republican National Convention: Margaret Chase Smith. 1964.
Asian-American woman elected to Congress: Patsy Takemoto Mink, of Hawaii, 1965.
Woman to own a seat on the New York Stock Exchange: Muriel “Mickey” Siebert, 1967.
Female jockey to ride in the Kentucky Derby: Diane Crump, 1970.
Woman rabbi in the United States Sally Jean Priesand, 1972.
Woman appointed Secretary of Commerce: Juanita Kreps, 1977.
Woman to conduct at New York’s Metropolitan Opera House: Sarah Caldwell, 1976.
Female Supreme Court Justice: Sandra Day O’Connor, 1981
Additionally, Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, prohibiting sex discrimination and mandating rough equivalency in public education and federally assisted programs, especially female high school and collegiate athletics, 1972.
Those days are long gone. Now our children are threatened every hour of every day by evil forces within and without the United States – forces that threaten their dreams and oppose their desire to be who they want to be – politically correct forces (and the chaos they breed) within and barbaric forces without. We shield them as best we can while they grow and encourage them to be more than they think they can be but, the day comes when we have to release them to face a dangerous, coarse, cruel, crushing and cancerous world that has metastasized under the influence of ignorant, cowardly, narrow-minded and self-centered political opportunists, both here and abroad.
It is heartbreaking to see such joy and optimism on idealistic and determined young faces, knowing full well the frustration and disappointment they will have to endure and still may be unable to reach their goals. Sure, struggle is good for the soul but, senseless struggle against needless politically inspired or bureaucratic interference and stumbling blocks is just stupid. We must seek to eliminate these hindrances by eliminating the forces that create and maintain them generation after generation.
Why? Because this is where we’re going in America with government control of our lives (read “mis-informed” and “dis-informed”) from cradle to grave as discussed earlier. Consider this from columnist and author Todd Starnes:
“The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or same sex marriage to the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court.”
“The city’s subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is both needless and unprecedented,” an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney said in a statement.
“The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions.”
ADF, a nationally-known law firm specializing in religious liberty cases, is representing five Houston pastors. They filed a motion in Harris County Court to stop the subpoenas arguing they are “overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and vexatious.”
Political and social commentary is not a crime,” ADF said. “It is protected by the First Amendment.” The subpoenas are just the latest twist in an ongoing saga over the Houston’s new non-discrimination ordinance. The law, among other things, would allow men to use the ladies room and vice versa. The city council approved the law.
The Houston Chronicle reported opponents of the ordinance launched a petition drive that generated more than 50,000 signatures – far more than the 17,269 needed to put a referendum on the ballot. However, the city threw out the petition over alleged irregularities. After opponents of the bathroom bill filed a lawsuit, the city’s attorneys responded by issuing the subpoenas against the pastors.
“City council members are supposed to be public servants, not ‘Big Brother’ overlords who will tolerate no dissent or challenge,” said an ADF attorney. “This is designed to intimidate pastors.” The mayor will not explain why she wants to inspect the sermons.
However, ADF suspects the mayor wants to publicly shame the ministers. He said he anticipates they will hold up their sermons for public scrutiny. In other words – the city is rummaging for evidence to “out” the pastors as anti-gay bigots.
Among those slapped with a subpoena is the senior pastor of Grace Community Church. He was ordered to produce all speeches and sermons related to the mayor, homosexuality and gender identity. The mega-church pastor was also ordered to hand over “all communications with members of your congregation” regarding the non-discrimination law. “This is an attempt to chill pastors from speaking to the cultural issues of the day. The mayor would like to silence our voice. She’s a bully.”
The executive director of the Texas Pastor Council also received a subpoena. He said he will not be intimidated by the mayor. “We’re not afraid of this bully,” he said. “We’re not intimidated at all. We are not going to yield our First Amendment rights,” This is absolutely a complete abuse of authority. The actions by Houston’s mayor are “obscene” and said they “should not be tolerated. This is a shot across the bow of the church.
‘This is the moment I wrote about in my book, God-Less America. I predicted that the government would one day try to silence American pastors. I warned that under the guise of “tolerance and diversity” elected officials would attempt to deconstruct (that word, again) religious liberty. Sadly, that day arrived sooner than even I expected.” he said.
A Pastor compared the culture war skirmish to the 1836 Battle of San Jacinto, fought in present-day Harris County, Texas. It was a decisive battle of the Texas Revolution. “This is the San Jacinto moment for traditional family. This is the place where we stop the LGBT assault on the freedom to practice our faith.” Who will hold these public officials personally responsible for their assault on the Constitution? Probably no one — and that’s a shame.
So, in this climate, how does one instill personal responsibility? One method is to introduce children to shame. Shame, you say. How cruel, you say. Well, like most of the central teachings of Western civilization – contained in the Bible – the value and importance of shame in the development of civilized human beings has been forgotten.
“Of course you should shame your children,” says Sam Sorbo, a nationally syndicated radio host, and author of The Answer: Proof of God in Heaven. She studied biomedical engineering at Duke before pursuing a career as an international fashion model and actress. She lives in L.A. with her husband and three children, and advocates home schooling.
“That is your job, as a responsible parent. Shame is one of our most useful tools! Shame is the barrier between decency and depravity in a moral society.” When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, they “were both naked and were not ashamed.” (Gen 2:25). Then they ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
From their (original) sin, they discovered shame; they clothed themselves – why? Because they felt ashamed, and that changed the way they looked. They blushed, and probably sweated, too. They fashioned the grape leaves to cover not their nakedness, but their shame. After God received their confessions, he created garments for them and sent them (in shame) from the garden.
Merriam-Webster defines shame as ‘a painful [personal] emotion caused by the consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety.’ It’s also the susceptibility to having such an emotion. Shameless is the inability to feel disgrace, which describes many of our politicians and other political actors these days.
President Obama was not ashamed of having lied to the American people about their options under ObamaCare. His shameless “apology” stated, ‘I am sorry that they – you know – are finding themselves in this situation, based on assurances they got from me.’
He was not ashamed about the Benghazi deaths, which occurred on his ‘watch’, though, in truth, we don’t know exactly what he was doing while the ambassador and three others suffered and died. He did imply he was ashamed by a video he had no role in making. Clearly, he misunderstands the word.
He could not be shamed into action, though people and pundits everywhere were calling for some answer to the Islamic State’s genocide, Putin’s military maneuvers, and the shameful situation at our southern border. Unashamed, he continued his [fundraisers and] vacations. But he also called for air strikes and humanitarian aid in Iraq, citing, in a New York Times interview, his lack of follow up in Libya as a lesson-learned.
‘So that’s a lesson that I now apply every time I ask the question, ‘Should we intervene militarily?’” Mr. Obama said. ‘Do we have an answer the day after?’ It’s just great that he’s getting on-the-job training, but notice that his hubris prevents a more open nod to the Bush doctrine of nation-building – which he destroyed, in his haste to withdraw from Iraq, but now clearly espouses! And witness, no apology to all to the [Iraqi and Syrian] Christians who are being starved or beheaded. Shameful.
After years of claiming the troop withdrawal from Iraq as his great achievement – because it can now be seen as disastrous – Obama just changed his narrative and blamed President George W. Bush for it. ‘… As if this was my decision.’ Immediately following that he blamed President Maliki as well. His blatant rejection of culpability speaks not to his sense of shame but his lack thereof.
Our societal break with shame traces most clearly to the Bill Clinton White House. Before that, we had Watergate, a spying and lying tale resulting in the resignation of a president, Nixon, who valued the office of the presidency too much to bring the disgrace of impeachment upon it.
Not so for Bill Clinton, who was not at all ashamed of his deplorable seduction of a young woman intern less than half his age. The progressive women’s movement lifted no voice against his predatory behavior because they supported him politically. Shameful.
Then Clinton unabashedly lied directly to the American Public on TV. Impeachment, though inevitable, was unsuccessful, because the Senate was unwilling to shame the man they adored, despite his transgressions. Now he is one of the highest paid speakers in the world. Shameless.
That Clinton’s and also Obama’s actions have demanded impeachment is clear, except that We, the People have lost our ability to shame. We shun the very idea of it, perhaps because we all feel our own so vividly. ‘Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.’ (Matt 7:1-2). Are we seeking so strongly not to be judged, that we refuse to judge others? Shameful.
Recently, we witnessed the late Canadian politician Rob Ford’s brother defend the former Toronto mayor’s right to retain his seat despite his excessive illegal drug use, by pointing his finger at the parliament in Canada and accusing them of smoking pot. But is this redistribution of shame? Does our own shame mean we lose the right to shame others? In that case, there is no more right and wrong.
It is asymmetrical warfare, in that shame is used only on those who can feel it – but for the others, well, there is no amount of scorn the PLDC cannot withstand. They simply turn the finger back on those who would correct them. “What difference, at this point, does it make?” (Read, “You will not shame me!”) And, so good people are disarmed of our ability to defend what’s right and condemn what’s deplorable because of societal defects in others.
Homer Simpson said, ‘It takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.’ That’s even truer of shame. Former New York Congressman Anthony Wiener ought to be ashamed, but no. As a forgiving society, we’ve given him a (snickering) pass – though he, thankfully, didn’t get reelected. ‘Yes, you shouldn’t tweet your private parts, but haven’t we all done something regrettable?’ If we did, we ought to be ashamed!
But (luckily), tweeting inappropriate photos isn’t the same thing as taking some post-it notes from work. So good people ought not to allow themselves to be shamed into submission, just because they aren’t perfect. If it’s wrong, speak up, stand up, and if you are also guilty (of something, aren’t we all?), handle that on your own time. Don’t be a hypocrite, but don’t be a cowardly doormat, either. Or worse, a sycophant, supportive of bad behavior for other rewards.
It is incumbent on a just society to shame those deserving of it. It is simple self-protection. We no longer have pillories, and the mainstream press clearly has no concept (witness the terrorist-graced Rolling Stone magazine), but therefore the moral society must make up the difference. Shame on them if they don’t.”
Strong words, valuable words, necessary words.
How much energy has been wasted to surmount these senseless obstacles created by people who are too self-absorbed to appreciate what damage their truly ignorant actions have wrought at the expense of our childrens’ dreams and their loss of innocence?
How much greater the good if the forces of creative energy and enlightened self and selfless interest would have been, and hopefully will again be, allowed to fully blossom in sunlight instead of the darkness of evil let loose in the world by these maniacally selfish people?
How much more glorious the reward for the millions of lives sacrificed during this nation’s wars to preserve our traditional way of life?
Next time: Recovering respect.