BOTTLE ROCKET TRAGEDY: WHOSE FAULT?

Last Thursday night, two 12-year-old cousins Garnet Willis and Jon Winterhawk were shooting bottle rockets at passing cars in Spanaway, WA, according to the Washington State Patrol.[1] The fireworks hit a passing Toyota Camry, prompting the car's occupants to stop and pursue their juvenile assailants. [1] In the course of the chase, one of the boys, 12-year-old Garnet Willis, tripped over the median curb, fell into the path of a passing car, and was killed.[1][2]

This case is a great tragedy. Nobody wants a child to lose his life, even knowing that it was the result of his own dangerous prank; but the tragedy is being compounded by the prosecution of the boys' victims. Grieving friends and family and well-intentioned supporters are trying to shift blame to the victims and some are crying for blood.[2] According to prosecutors, the men may be charged with second-degree manslaughter, even if they did not intend to cause the boy's death.[3]

"The boys knew it was wrong," admitted Carol Forgey, Willis' aunt and Winterhawk’s mother.[4]

"Kids will be kids..." said Washington State Patrol Trooper Johnny Alexander[4], indicating that their actions were intentional. Their prank may not have been intended to cause real harm, but that does not justify their behavior nor excuse them from their own fault... nor does it transfer the fault to their victims who chose to defend themselves.

The surviving boy himself admitted that the two men in the car were reacting in self-defense. "These guys thought we were trying to shoot them," said Jon Winterhawk, "so they got out of their car and we started running."[4]

Okay, let me make this perfectly clear. I feel sorry for the loved ones of the boy who was killed, but my sympathies cannot change the fact that the kids caused the accident with their own illegal activities. They assaulted the occupants of the car with a potentially-deadly device and now their victims have been arrested for their natural and completely-justified reactions.

It has been suggested that the men's criminal records somehow prove their malicious intent, but I don't see how their past records have bearing in this instance. The two boys admittedly initiated the events by assaulting the men in the vehicle, not vice versa. Who knows how many other vehicles they may have narrowly missed with their rockets? It just happened that the vehicle which they did hit was occupied by two men who knew how to defend themselves and were not going to sit still while they were attacked.

"I felt like this was cut and dry," said Carol Forgey, Winterhawk’s mother. "The accident happened because of those men chasing Garnet."[1][3] Of course, this is the natural reaction of a grieving relative, so I will pardon Ms. Forgey's faulty logic on the grounds of her grief. But cause-and-effect, by definition, requires that the effect follow the cause. The men were chasing the boys after the boys attacked them. Had the boys not shot a bottle rocket at their heads, the chase would not have occured. So, to correct the faulty statement, the cut and dry conclusion has to be that the accident happened because of those boys playing their dangerous prank.

This is yet another example of what's wrong with our legal system, where the criminals become the victims and the victims become the criminals. The kid did not deserve to die, but his death was the direct consequence of his own violent and criminal actions. And if liberal logic continues to twist the truth --especially in circles of power-- then I fear for the law-abiding, God-fearing American citizen who dares to defend himself from Joe-Criminal-with-an-ACLU-lawyer who chooses his home as his next target. God defend us, because apparently we're not allowed to defend ourselves.

<><}}}0>


SOURCES:

[1] "Spanaway Boy Killed After Chase into Street", by Laurie Au, The News Tribune, Tacoma, WA, 07/20/05, http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5025988p-4585288c.html
[2] "Charges On Hold In Deadly Spanaway Chase" by Keith Eldridge, Komo News, 07/18/05, http://www.komotv.com/stories/38041.htm
[3] "Charges Up in Air in Boy's Death" by Laurie Au of The News Tribune and Genoa Sibold-Cohn of The Herald, Mid-Columbia Tri-City Herald, Kennewick, WA, 07/19/05, http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/6724641p-6612172c.html
[4] "No Decision on Charges in Boy’s Death" by Laurie Au, The News Tribune, Tacoma, WA, 07/19/05, http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5032649p-4590658c.html

NEWS ALERT: 4 Detainees Escape U.S. Base in Afghanistan

Monday, July 11, 2005
Associated Press

KABUL, Afghanistan — Four suspected terrorists escaped Monday from the main U.S. base in Afghanistan, the first time anyone has broken out of the heavily guarded detention facility, sparking a massive ground and air search, officials said.

"They are considered dangerous and are suspected terrorists. That is why they were detained initially," a U.S. military spokeswoman, Lt. Cindy Moore, told The Associated Press....
Click here for the full story

And some of our representatives want Gitmo closed so these terrorist prisoners can be held on U.S. soil? Talk about being suicidal!

WAR ON TERROR VIA CHESSBOARD

Are we safer with George W. Bush as President? Is victory in the Iraqi War essential to the War on Terror? Is Saddam Hussein connected to Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Should we pull out of Iraq and focus exclusively on bin Laden himself? Let's look at these questions from a different viewpoint.

Think of the War on Terror as a game of chess. There are ultimately two players: good and evil. But there are many pieces on the board. First of all, our opponent in the War on Terror is not the individual pieces on the board, but rather the player himself, the spiritual Father of Evil. Christians call him Satan; the terrorists call him Allah. We must keep in mind that our battle is not against flesh and blood, but rather with the spiritual forces that lead the pawns.

With that in mind, we must recognize that the enemy's pawns and pieces on the board must be dealt with. While our true enemy is the one controlling the pieces, the pieces are the physical obstacles we have to face.

The leaders of the Coalition in this particular game of chess, if you will, have been getting a lot of flak from dissenters as to the strategy behind their game. In order to understand why I believe their objections are unfounded, let's identify the pieces on the board.

First of all, let's assume that Osama bin Laden is the black king, the main target in our game. Many spectators want us to attack the king directly and win the game, but they're ignoring the other pieces on the board. They may even consider the black queen, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but they are completely disregarding the rooks, bishops, knights, and pawns, which are the other terrorist nations and groups supporting the black king and queen.

In this War on Terror, Saddam Hussein is one of the pieces, perhaps a black knight or bishop. It may not be as significant a target, in the eyes of some spectators, as the king or queen; but it would be a fatal mistake to underestimate it.

Let's assume, for the sake of this analogy, that the United States is the white king and Great Britain is the white queen. The other members of the Coalition are the other white pieces. Like it or not, our leaders are controlling the movement of the white pieces on the board. We, as spectators, are not even pawns on the board. We can second-guess the players and groan at their choices of movement, but the decisions are theirs to make. Hopefully, they are better-equipped to play the game and that's why we put them in charge. So we stand by and watch, sometimes whispering our advice, while the game is played out.

The game began when the black king (bin Laden) sent some of his pawns in an attack upon the white king (the U.S. on 9/11). He strategically chose to sacrifice those pawns in an attempt to take out the king. Our team (the Coalition), rather than attacking the well-protected black king, chose first to take out Saddam Hussein, one of the mid-ranking pieces of the enemy player. In response, the black king and queen sent their pawns (the various terrorist organizations and groups) to attack the white pieces on the board. This week, one of those black pawns (perhaps even the black queen herself) attacked the white queen (Great Britain).

And the chess game continues. And the spectators continue to groan and second-guess the players. They say, the black king and queen are still out there. We may have captured some pawns and one or two mid-ranking pieces, but that's not good enough for us. On the other hand, the other side has been attacking our pieces. They attacked the king (the World Trade Center on 9/11/01), the queen (London on 7/7/05), and several other of our pieces throughout the past several years (such as Madrid on 3/11/04). But they have not captured our higher-ranking pieces, either. Yes, they've captured some of our pawns and mercilessly executed them, but we've captured some of their pawns as well.

Were we wrong to focus on Hussein, rather than bin Laden? I don't think so. We're still going after the king and queen, but we've got to clear the way of some of the knights, bishops, rooks and pawns first. If we had checked the king with one of these pieces lurking on an adjacent square, it could have potentially cost us the game. It's a game of strategy perhaps best left to the professional strategists.

It's too early in the game to call a retreat. We're discouraged to see our pawns brutalized and beheaded while the captured black pawns complain about the taste of the caviar at Club Gitmo. And, to top it off, the spectators who are supposedly rooting for the white team are shouting their dissent at our leaders, disrupting the player's concentration and essentially becoming pawns themselves of the black team. Regardless of the ridiculous rantings of liberals such as Ted Kennedy (D-Mass), Iraq is not a "quagmire" and all is not lost, but we must keep our resolve and stand strong lest we let the dissenters turn this into the VietNam of our generation.

Bottom line: the War on Terror is a real-life chess game with world-wide consequences. Which side are we on? We, as spectators, may not always agree with the moves our player makes, but we must remember what our goal is. Our goal is for our player to achieve victory, and providing moral support to the enemy will certainly not help us reach that goal. The American people re-elected President George W. Bush because we believed he was best-equipped to lead the game. The people of Great Britain re-elected Prime Minister Tony Blair for the same reason. Now it's time for the spectators to support them lest our grumbling cost us the game, our freedom, and perhaps our lives.

<><}}}0>

RESPONSE TO LONDON TERROR ATTACKS

British Prime Minister Tony Blair responds to the terrorist attack on London, from the G-8 Summit in Auchterarder, Scotland (AP Photo)

This morning, terrorists struck London in a series of blasts. At least 33 people were reported dead and at least 360 others wounded. With no advance warning, this surprise attack on London's public transportation system took the Nation by surprise.[1]

British Prime Minister Tony Blair got the news from the G-8 Summit in Scotland and made a brief announcement before leaving for London.[1] He said, "There will of course now be the most intense police and security service action to make sure that we bring those responsible to justice.... When they try to intimidate us, we will not be intimidated. When they seek to change our country or our way of life by these methods, we will not be changed. When they try to divide our people or weaken our resolve, we will not be divided and our resolve will hold firm. We will show, by our spirit and dignity, and by our quiet but true strength that there is in the British people, that our values will long outlast theirs. The purpose of terrorism is just that, it is to terrorise people, and we will not be terrorised."[2]

London's Mayor Ken Livingstone echoed Prime Minister Blair's sentiments in this open statement addressed to the terrorists responsible for the attacks: "I know that you personally do not fear to give your own life in exchange to taking others ... but I know you do fear you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society ... in the days that follow, look at our airports, look at our seaports and look at our railway stations ... you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world, will arrive in London to become Londoners, to fulfill their dream and achieve their potential … whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail."[1]

According to FOX News, "a previously unknown group, 'Secret Group of Al Qaeda's Jihad in Europe,' claimed responsibility in the name of Al Qaeda for the blasts, saying they were in retaliation for Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. The group claimed the attack in a website posting and also warned Italy and Denmark to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan." As of press time, the claim could not be verified.[1]

In response to the attacks on London, the European countries of Italy, Czechoslavakia, Hungary, Russia, the Netherlands, France, and Spain raised their terror alert status.[1] The United States also raised the terror alert to "orange" for U.S. mass transit systems.[3]

A statement from the G-8 Summit said, "Those responsible have no respect for human life. We are united in our resolve to confront and defeat this terrorism that is not an attack on one nation but on all nations and on civilized people everywhere. We will not allow violence to change our societies or our values...."[1]

President Bush added, "We will not yield to the terrorists. We will find them; we will bring them to justice."[1]

Russian President Vladimir Putin issued this surprising statement in a televised address: "What happened today shows that we all do too little to unite our efforts in the most effective way for fighting terrorism." And then he urged world leaders to "give up double standards in evaluating bloody crimes."[4]

Putin was actually referring to a Sept. 7 2004 reference he made to the double standards concerning Chechen separatists, but the term could easily be applied to opposititon to the War on Terror in Iraq.


The Omaha World-Herald //
KOTERBA
War of the Worlds
6-30-2005
Copyright © 2005



The problem is, by and large, we just don't get it. This editorial cartoon[5] ran locally in The Parkersburg News on July 5 and I thought it made a lot of sense. Many people today (specifically, liberals) don't seem to understand the whole threat of terrorism to our world today. They don't understand why we are fighting terrorists in Iraq, they don't understand why we're fighting terrorists in Afghanistan, and they don't understand why so many Conservatives are making a fuss about illegal immigration and our unsecure borders.

Well, this editorial cartoon says a lot. The aliens are attacking us. I'm sorry if it looks like I'm racial profiling, but let's be real. It wasn't blond-haired, blue-eyed, Norwegian cheerleaders who flew three planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on 9/11. It wasn't little old Catholic Italian grandmothers who slit the throats of innocent American hostages while they screamed for mercy. And it wasn't Cousin Jethro from the back-hills of West Virginia who bombed London this morning. It's the aliens. And they are sneaking across our borders to perpetrate these attacks on our own soil.

Now, I'm not against Mexicans or Muslims coming to America and grabbing their piece of American apple pie (that's a metaphor for the American dream, by the way), but they darn well better be doing it legally. I'm not opposed to law-abiding immigrants seeking a better life, but I am opposed to terrorists and other criminals sneaking into our country in order to rape, rob, and kill American civilians. In this day of heightened security and terrorist threat, we must be diligent in protecting our homeland. And that means, in part, tightening security on our horrifyingly lax borders.

According to Canadian Intelligence officials, there are reportedly "at least fifty terror groups now operating north of the border, including al-Qaida, Hezbollah, and Hamas."[6] David Harris, director of the Canadian Terrorism Consulting Group said, "I think there's got to be a decisive focus on this issue and the U.S. government has got to keep hammering away at this so that we in Canada can't avoid the obvious fact. Canadians themselves in general are more or less asleep on this issue because we're not used to seeing ourselves as being at the front of any kind of global conflict, certainly not since the Korean War, really... So it's got to be a focus and the U.S. can be of a great help to itself and to Canadians in putting that kind of focus on us."[7] So the threat isn't just coming from the southern border, but also from Canada to the north. For our own safety, both borders need to be secured and those who violate them need to be stopped at all costs.

Liberals (and let's be clear here; I said "liberals", not "Democrats", so don't go accusing me of being partisan. This is not about partisan politics; it's about National Security.) don't seem to understand just how dangerous it is to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration. But the threat is there, and the threat is real. American liberals and a large portion of the European populace want to stop the terror, but they're not willing to do what it takes to actually accomplish it. Nobody said it would be easy or quick, but we need to be unified with resolve behind those who are fighting for our freedom and safety; because if we back down and retreat now, this will be the VietNam of our time.... but only because we quit too soon.

In regard to these most-recent attacks, our sympathies and prayers are with the people of Great Britain. I am sure that the United States will stand beside them in resolve to bring their attackers to justice, as they have stood with us in the wake of 9/11; for this evil cannot be permitted to continue to threaten the peace and security of the free world.

<><}}}0>


SOURCES:

[1] "Terrorists Strike London in Series of Blasts", FOX News, 07/07/05, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161768,00.html
[2] Transcript of statement made by the Prime Minister Tony Blair, 07/07/05, http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7858.asp
[3] "U.S. Hikes Terror Level for Transit", Associated Press, 07/07/05, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161773,00.html
[4] "G-8 Leaders Vow to Defeat Terror After London Blasts (Update 2)", Bloomberg, 07/07/05, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000082&sid=aho4BtaNimUw&refer=canada
[5] Editorial Cartoon, The Omaha World-Herald, Koterba, "War of the Worlds", 06/30/05, Copyright © 2005
[6] The O'Reilly Factor, 07/06/05, 8:00 pm ET, FOX News Channel
[7] David Harris, Director of Canadian Terrorism Consulting Group, ibid.

SUPREME COURT (IN)JUSTICE

With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the battle over the bench enters a new level

First, a word of caution: This message is going to be pretty heated. I generally try to maintain a civil tone and comment on the issues without getting "worked up", but there are certain times when I feel the need to vent and this is one of them. If you're a die-hard liberal or faint of heart, then you may not wish to read this post. If, on the other hand, you are a freedom-fighting, life-loving, warm-blooded American Patriot, then read on.

Picture this: A family walks into a home announcing to the homeowner that they've finally found the house they want to buy, and this is it. The homeowner, shocked to find this family standing in his hallway, announces, "It's not for sale." Completely ignoring him, the trespassing father sends his two children upstairs to pick out their new bedrooms. He asks the homeowner his price, to which the homeowner responds, "There is no price." The intruding couple announces "Sold! We'll take it!"[1]

The first time I saw Century 21's "Not For Sale" commercial[1], I laughed at its jest on a ludicrous situation. When I watch it now, I shudder that the Supreme Court has made it a reality.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Kelo vs. City of New London (04-0108) that the city of New London, CT could use the right of "eminent domain" to seize private property for commercial development by private developers. City officials had thus far bullied 80 homeowners into selling their property while seven homeowners remained to fight for their rights; but the New London Development Corporation, led by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, has usurped the Constitution in this tragic case.[2]

This has got to be one of the most Communistic rulings to ever come from the so-called high court. But there is hope for common sense to return as the tables are being turned on the elite who have been, until now, above the law. But now, their own ruling may be their worst nightmare.

As reported Wednesday night (June 29) on Hannity & Colmes, "a Los Angeles-based activist faxed a letter to the town of Wier, NH, urging local officials to sieze the home of Justice David Souter and turn it into a hotel."[3] According to Logan Darrow Clements of Freestar Media, this is not a stunt and that they "will proceed with [the initiative] if money comes forward."[3] When asked by guest-host Rich Lowry if the ousting would extend to the other Supreme Court Justices (Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Stevens) who had voted in support of the New Hampshire land-grab, he responded, "There are such things as hotel chains, so we can certainly have other locations."[3] Maybe there is justice in this world after all. These Justices (and I use that term loosely) may have life tenure and cannot be held accountable for their decisions, but they can be held to them. Now we need to boycott Pfizer and the other property thieves disguised as businessmen. Let them know that Communism is not welcome in the United States of America.

On June 27, the Supreme Court delivered two more conflicting verdicts, allowing a Ten Commandments display outside the Texas state Capitol[4][5][6][7], while Justices Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, O'Connor, and Stevens banned two others in Kentucky, citing some idiocy about the intent of those who set up the displays.[5][6][7][8] As if they understood anything about intent! The liberal majority once again ignored the rule of law and the original intent of the Founders of the Constitution, and created their own precedent on a whim. God help us.

According to the Declaration of Independence, the basis of the American dream is built upon our God-given rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."[9] The eminent domain debacle and the latest attacks upon the Ten Commandments are just some new examples of the liberals on the Supreme Court and the Federal Judiciary abusing their power and attacking the foundation upon which this country was founded. And this is just the latest testament to the vital importance of the right nominee being placed as the next Supreme Court Justice.

As Sandra Day O'Connor announced today that she was retiring upon the confirmation of her successor[5], the next phase in the battle over the Supreme Court has begun. O'Connor was among the dissenters on the aforementioned eminent domain ruling, but she voted with the majority on the banning of the Kentucky Ten Commandments display. Historically, it's been difficult to predict where she might rule on any given subject; which is illogical, since the Constitution is a solid document which does not change from case to case. Whoever replaces her on the bench must have a working understanding of the Constitution and rule consistently according to its original intent. Unfortunately, the liberals in the Senate won't have any of it.

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said today, "If the President abuses his power and nominates someone who threatens to roll back the rights and freedoms of the American people, then the American people will insist that we oppose that nominee, and we intend to do so."[10] What a joke! The liberal B.S. is starting to flow, right on schedule.

What the American people need to realize is that it is the liberals who are "roll[ing] back the rights and freedoms of the American people." It's not the Conservatives who voted to steal the homes of tax-paying American citizens; it's the liberals.[2] Kennedy's buddies are the ones who are stealing peoples' homes. It's not the Conservatives who want to ban the Bible from American school-children, but insist that we provide Korans for our terrorist prisoners; it's the liberals. It's not the Conservatives who defend pornography as "free speech" while insisting that evangelical Christians shut up; it's the liberals. It's not the Conservatives who insist on keeping legal the murder of innocent children; it's the liberals. Kennedy and his country club Communists are the ones who support abortion (translate: murder) on demand, including the barbaric partial-birth abortion. It wasn't the Conservatives who allowed Michael Schiavo to murder his wife in the name of "quality of life"; it was the liberals. It's always the liberals.

Listen, fellow Americans. There's a place in America for liberalism, but it cannot be allowed to perpetrate these atrocities. There's a time for leniency and compromise, but we can't compromise on the principles upon which America was built. If you want to preserve the life, liberty, and the American Way of life for this, and the next, generation; then support President Bush as he nominates a Conservative Justice who interprets the Constitution as it was originally intended. Let Ted Kennedy, David Souter, and their fellow Communists know that we're not falling for their lies and propaganda. We believe in truth, justice, and the American Way. We believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We're not ashamed to be called Americans and we're not ashamed of the name of Jesus Christ. From the Minutemen of the 1700's to the Minutemen watching our borders today, we are what America is really about, and we're not going to sit idly by while our country is hijacked by Communist baby-killers. America was built upon God, freedom, and Capitalism; and if the Commies don't like it, they can go live with the Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan. See how they like that culture. God bless America, and God save our land. Amen.

<><}}}0>


SOURCES:

[1] TV Commercial: Century 21: "Not For Sale"
[2] "Supreme Court Backs Municipal Land Grabs: Justices affirm property seizures for private development" by Bill Mears, CNN News, 06/24/05, http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/index.html
[3] "Hannity and Colmes", 06/29/05, 9:00 pm ET, FOX News Channel
[4] Justice Rehnquist, majority opinion, U.S. Supreme Court decision,
[5] "FOX News LIVE", 06/27/05, 12:00 pm ET, FOX News Channel
[6] "Dayside" w/ Linda Vester, 06/27/05, 1;00 pm ET, FOX News Channel
[7] "Studio B" w/ Shepard Smith, 06/27/05, 3:00 pm ET, FOX News Channel
[8] Justice David Souter, majority opinion, U.S. Supreme Court decision, McCreary vs. ACLU
[9] Declaration of Independence of the United States of America
[10] "Your World" w/ Neil Cavuto, 07/01/05, 4:00 pm ET, FOX News Channel