"I was bold in the Pursuit of Knowledge, never fearing to follow Truth and Reason to whatever results they led and bearding every authority which stood in their way" ~ Thomas Jefferson

Monday, May 31, 2010

In Loving Memory

In Loving Memory - Patriotic Perspectives
This article is in loving memory of those who gave themselves for us and our freedoms. Not all died in wars, but all came back different people than they were when they left. In some measure each man and woman that served our country in military service gave a small or great piece of themselves in providing that service and we should always be grateful for their sacrifices. Some have said of those that died in Europe in WWII that “They gave up all of their tomorrows for your today”. Young men just barely out of high school and in some cases like my father, taken directly from high school fought a common enemy to the world and they won that battle. They defeated Hitler’s Nazis and some did not return. They are buried there on the beaches where they fought and died, some perhaps not fully understanding why, but they did it nevertheless. As Abraham Lincoln said of the soldiers of the Civil War, “They have given the last full measure of devotion”.
My father landed at Omaha and fought in the Battle of the Bulge. There were few battles in history that equaled the size and importance of those two battles. I am proud to say he served, but sad to know that it was such a bad experience for him and those brave young men that served with him in that horrible war. Many have fought in many wars and in many battles. Some of them historically great and some historically of little memory, but to all of us they should hold equal dearness in our hearts as each of them cost the lives and futures of so many who gave for the cause of country.
While this is not intended to be a political message, it is with sadness that we all become aware that our President and Commander-in-Chief has chosen to go on vacation instead of attending the memorial services at Arlington National Cemetery.  The American people have come to depend on their President to show his gratitude on behalf of the nation at this event and it is sad to know that they will not get that gratitude. But is not our right to allow the President to do our mourning for us even if it helps us to see it. It is our duty to mourn these losses ourselves and I know that the vast majority of Americans truly do mourn their losses. It is also our duty to honor those who serve now. We do not ever have to like or even defend the wars that our brave men and women serve in, but we do not have the option to salute their brave devotion to country and their sacrifice on behalf of what we used to call a “grateful nation”. I believe that We The People are grateful, but I now wonder about our leaders gratefulness. But let us not destroy the importance of this day with thoughts of what is not being done. Rather let us rejoice the day that we can set aside to honor our loved ones who have served us.
May God comfort all of your losses and sacrifices as family members.
John Wayne Tucker

John Wayne Tucker, a Baptist Minister and former teacher/professor. He is currently running for the United States Congress in Missouri's 3rd Congressional District

*The Bold Pursuit presents “Patriotic Perspectives” as a forum for candidates and others to express their views and positions on local and/or national affairs. Publication in Patriotic Perspectives is a public service, not an endorsement. We urge our readers to thoroughly review the candidates and issues and cast their votes accordingly.


I watched the flag pass by one day,
It fluttered in the breeze;
A young Marine saluted it,
And then he stood at ease.
I looked at him in uniform,
So young, so tall, so proud;
With hair cut square and eyes alert,
He'd stand out in any crowd.
I thought... how many men like him
Had fallen through the years?
How many died on foreign soil?
How many mothers' tears?
How many pilots' planes shot down
How many died at sea
How many foxholes were soldiers' graves
No, Freedom is not Free.
I heard the sound of Taps one night,
When everything was still;
I listened to the bugler play,
And felt a sudden chill;
I wondered just how many times
That Taps had meant "Amen"
When a flag had draped a coffin
Of a brother or a friend;
I thought of all the children,
Of the mothers and the wives,
Of fathers, sons and husbands.
With interrupted lives.
I thought about a graveyard
At the bottom of the sea,
Of unmarked graves in Arlington.
No. Freedom is not Free!

©Copyright 1981 by Kelly Strong

Reprinted with permission from the author

Biography: Commander, Unites States Coast Guard
This poem is important to Kelly because he wrote it as a high school senior (JROTC cadet) at Homestead High, Homestead, FL. in 1981. It is a tribute to his father, a career marine who served two tours in Vietnam.
When he finds others trying to take credit for the authorship of the poem, Kelly sees it as a dishonor to the man who inspired the poem, his Dad.
Kelly is now an active duty Coast Guard pilot living in Mobile and serving at the US Coast Guard Aviation Training Center. He has three kids and a great wife, Najwa, who just completed work at the Miami VA clinic as a physical therapist.



Thursday, May 27, 2010

Obama: AWOL at Arlington on Memorial Day

by Clio

For the first time since 1992, the American president is delegating the wreath-laying service at Arlington Cemetery on Memorial Day; Mr. Obama is jetting to Chicago aboard Air Force One to enjoy the three-day weekend with his family, leaving the honor of placing a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier to Vice President Joe Biden.

In 2002, President George W. Bush attended a solemn ceremony at the Normandy American Cemetery in Colleville-sur-Mer; 9387 American soldiers are buried in this cemetery near Sainte-Mere-Eglise, the first town in France to be liberated by American troops during the World War II D-Day Invasion, June 6, 1944. Many remember watching the televised ceremonies and President Bush's moving tribute these fallen heroes.

Fortunately, the men and women who serve in uniform can take comfort knowing that the current president’s priorities are in order: he will return to the White House on June 2nd, just in time to present Sir Paul McCartney with the Gershwin Prize, a lifetime achievement award for contributions to pop music.

This marks the first time since 1992 that a U.S. President has delegated honoring those who died in service to our nation. During his 1992 presidential campaign, former President George H.W. Bush, a decorated military war hero, observed the holiday in Maine while his vice president, Dan Quayle (who served in the Illinois National Guard), attended to the ceremony in his stead.

The mainstream media remains Mr. Obama’s friend and marketing division by defending his decision to skip the wreath-laying on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier next Monday:

“So what the hell do these conservatives want out of Obama? And does it matter if Obama throws some leaves on a tomb?” David Corn, www.politicsdaily.com

Let’s take a moment to assess Mr. Obama and his relationship with the military and his concern for the security of our country:

Mr. Obama has not served in the military.

Mr. Obama finds the phrase “war on terror” distasteful, preferring “overseas contingency operation.” Terrorism is now “man-caused disasters.”

Mr. Obama doesn’t condone using terms like “radical Islam,” nor does he approve of the term “enemy combatant.” The Obama administration prefers: "individuals who provide substantial support to al-Qaida forces in other parts of the world may properly be deemed part of al-Qaida itself ...”

Mr. Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, wants to give “individuals who provide substantial support to al-Qaida …” civilian trials in New York City (the scene of the most heinous attack on American soil, September 11, 2001) instead of military tribunals despite strong objections from the American people, including many of the families of the September 11th terrorist attacks.

Recently, three Navy Seals were charged with abusing Ahmed Hashim Abed who claimed that Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe punched him in the stomach. Also charged, Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas and Petty Officer 2nd Class Jonathan Keefe with dereliction of duty based on allegations that they failed to safeguard the prisoner.

According to USNavySeals.com, an unofficial blog; “In addition to being accused of masterminding the killing of four Blackwater contractors and dragging their charred bodies in the streets before hanging them [from] a bridge over the Euphrates, [Abed] is also said to have committed a series of killings – beheadings included – as an Al Qaeda operative in western Anbar province. He is also said to be responsible for recruitment, weapons trafficking, ambushes and attacks using improvised explosive devices…”

Three American heroes were arrested, charged and tried because a terrorist claimed that one punched him in the stomach; all three Navy Seals were found not guilty.

On November 5, 2009, another “man-caused disaster” occurred at Fort Hood; Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 13 people and wounded 29 others in the first act of terrorism on American soil since September 11, 2001.

Mr. Obama was slow to issue a statement regarding the attack, eventually noting the attack during a brief press conference before moving on to promote his health care agenda.

Mr. Obama called the attack a “tragedy,” not terrorism.

The administration and military failed to note or act on information about Major Hasan, a Muslim born in Virginia to Jordanian immigrants.

Since the attack on Ft. Hood, we’ve learned the FBI and Major Hasan’s superiors were aware of Major Hasan’s extremist views at least six months prior to the attack. Major Hasan was monitored by intelligence services because he exchanged e-mails, asking for guidance regarding violence, with radical Imam Anwar al-Awlaki.

U.S. Major Hasan’s business cards identified him as a “Soldier of Islam.”

Hasan was “on the radar” of his associates, superiors and officials, yet they failed to act due to concerns about “…hearings and potential legal conflict.” Fox News

When one takes all of the above into consideration, it is obvious that the current administration is reluctant to identify radical Islamic terrorists and their hostile agenda for America, yet comfortable showing a lack of respect and support for those who serve in uniform.

After a year and a half of apologizing to the world for his perceptions of America’s transgressions and bowing to foreign kings, Mr. Obama continues to show his true colors … and they are not Red, White and Blue.

This Memorial Day, The Bold Pursuit honors the men and women who serve in uniform and pays tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country, our freedom and democracy. Below is The Sentinels Creed of the Tomb Guards at Arlington National Cemetery:

The Sentinels Creed

My dedication to this sacred duty
is total and whole-hearted.
In the responsibility bestowed on me
never will I falter.
And with dignity and perseverance
my standard will remain perfection.
Through the years of diligence and praise
and the discomfort of the elements,
I will walk my tour in humble reverence
to the best of my ability.
It is he who commands the respect I protect,
his bravery that made us so proud.
Surrounded by well meaning crowds by day,
alone in the thoughtful peace of night,
this soldier will in honored glory rest
under my eternal vigilance.

After reading The Sentinels Creed, it’s easy to understand why so many Americans are displeased with Mr. Obama’s decision to take a personal vacation instead of paying tribute to those who served our nation.

“The Sentinel's Creed are the 99 words we live by. The words bring vast emotions to the surface when spoken by a Sentinel. We tend to stand a little taller, back a little straighter and our head just a little higher. These words capture the true meaning of why we are Tomb Guards. When ever a Tomb Guard salutes a commissioned officer, they always say in a loud voice:

"Line Six, Sir!"


Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Patriotic Perspectives: "Death to the Death Tax!"

Matthew Burke, Candidate for the U. S. Congress (WA-01)

By Matthew Burke, 05/17/10
The most immoral of all taxes is the Death Tax. The Death Tax replaces the government as primary beneficiary, in-front of children, family, friends, and charities.

Deceptively called the "Estate" tax, by those who wish to fan the flames of class hatred (connotes that only the "evil" rich have "estates". They can afford it"), the Death Tax will return at a rate of 55% of all assets over $1 million beginning on January 1, 2011.  These assets include both liquid and illiquid assets such as:
  • Cash, including all savings and checking accounts and all bank certificates of deposits (CD's), 
  • Family farms, homes, raw land and all other investment property,
  • Autos, art, jewelry, furniture and any other personal property, 
  • Businesses and all assets associated with them (including, machinery, inventory, property, etc.)
  • Investments, including, IRA's, fixed and variable annuities, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, treasury securities, etc.)
  • Death benefits from all life insurance policies owned by the deceased.
Keep in mind that the money originally earned to purchase these assets has already been taxed at least once. And, it doesn't take much for a family business or value of farm land to be valued over $1 million, especially when you add all of the other assets to it.

To the far-left, this redistribution of wealth has warm-and-fuzzy rationalizations like "fairness, equality, and social justice". But in reality it is in direct contradiction of two pillars of American society, the family and our self reliant entrepreneurial spirit. In Karl Marx’s "Communist Manifesto" he proposes the “Abolition of all rights of inheritance". At 55% we are on our way there.

Additionally, to add insult to financial injury, not only the federal government, but also the State of Washington, has its greedy hand in the cookie jar. Washington's estate tax begins at 10%, increasing to as high as 19%.

I recently met with a local family business owner, now in his 70's but still working, who said that upon his death, his children would have to close the business down in order to raise enough cash to pay the Death Tax.

To add additional perspective, I asked death tax expert, Dick Patten, President of the American Family Business Institute, to comment on the economic implications of the Death Tax. Mr. Patten commented not only on the negative national economic impact, but also on jobs lost in Washington State, a subject near and dear to all of us Washingtonians: 

“The Death Tax is the great destroyer of family businesses and farms in America.  That destruction has many consequences, not the least of which is jobs.  57% of America’s jobs come from family businesses and farms.  Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, analyzed the effect the Death Tax has on jobs.  His conclusion is that if the Death Tax were permanently repealed 1,500,000 jobs would be added to the economy by family businesses.  In Washington State that would mean an additional 28,000+ jobs.  If Congress is serious about jobs and family businesses in America, it should permanently repeal the destructive Death Tax.”

The death tax is not about bringing in needed funds to the government, as it usually represents around 1% of total tax revenues. After doubling federal government spending in the last ten years, they can easily cut 1%. The Death Tax is really about ultra liberal belief in the systematic redistribution of wealth in the U.S.
"What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue." - Thomas Paine.
The Death Tax is truly an assault on America’s core values. It is anti-family, anti-charity, anti-business, and unfair. A tax of this sort is a destructive force in a free society and should be repealed permanently. When you work hard and pay taxes your entire life to build a future for your family, the government should not be allowed to reach into your grave and extract over half of your life savings.

The Death Tax is flat-out wrong. Dying should not be a taxable event!

Monday, May 17, 2010

Big Versus Small, Government--- the Impending Collision

Special to The Bold Pursuit ... an insightful blog by Robert Arvay

Two major philosophies of government seem to be on a collision course. In the “Big Government” approach, the view is that ordinary people cannot be left to their own devices. The ordinary man, unruled by a wise and benevolent government, is either incompetent or greedy. The greedy will take advantage of the incompetent, and social injustice will inflict its cruelties upon the weak and helpless.

In the “Small Government” approach, big government is not viewed as wise and benevolent, but rather, insulated from the consequences of its failed policies. It is government, not the populace, which must be held accountable, and restrained from becoming cruelly tyrannical.

Among the great confusions of the argument, is that “Small Government” is taken by its opponents to mean, “No Government.”

The US Constitution clearly rejects that myth. Instead, the powers and responsibilities of government are specifically enumerated. Within its boundaries, the federal government is very powerful. It can levy taxes, declare war, imprison miscreants, and put to death traitors. Although the fifty states are each sovereign, self-governing entities, the federal government can regulate their inter-state relations, and in some cases, overrule their laws. This is hardly a “no government" approach. The limited powers of the federal government are significant to say the least.

Key to understanding the US Constitution is its first ten Amendments, known collectively as the “Bill of Rights.” Freedom of speech, of religion, from unreasonable search, and so forth, give the citizenry enormous powers of autonomy, and freedom FROM government, except where specified in the Constitution. And just in case anyone misses the point, the final and Tenth Amendment (of the first ten) stipulates quite carefully, and I quote its entirety:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Clearly, the boundaries of the federal government confine it to the Constitution only, and not to any whim, not to any sense of a “good cause,” not to any opinion of fairness, nor to any conception of” social justice.” Those kinds of value judgments are left entirely to the states and the people, and prohibited to the federal government.

And just as clearly, there has been a steady drift away from those limits, and toward an ever more powerful, ever less accountable, federal government, until finally, we have a president and congress that are unabashedly socialist. Although they prefer the term, “Progressive,” their policy ambitions are barely distinguishable from West European socialism. Indeed, they often seem more draconian.

Now that the gloves are off, now that the US federal government has extended its reach far beyond its Constitutional confines, there finally is a popular backlash. It may be too late, but those who say it is too little are underestimating its strength.

In the past, social policy protests have largely been conducted by college students, and by people who have the leisure time to spend on picket lines.

No more.

The recent protests in the US are dominated by older, working-class Americans, including moderates, independents, and yes, even some liberals, who have finally been awakened to their impending fate. The trigger seems to have been the health care law, but that was only the trigger.

Regarding health care, nowhere in the US Constitution is the federal government authorized to dictate to Americans which health care measures they are obliged to purchase. The amendment process is the only legal way for the federal government to obtain that power, and the voting public would never tolerate such an overreach. The Tenth Amendment specifically denies such powers to the federal government, and there is little sympathy to make an exception.

Many Americans have become aware, that if the federal government can blatantly disregard this limit on its power, then it can with impunity ignore any limits on its power.

Suddenly, the vastly popular president has slipped in his approval ratings to historic lows. The upcoming November elections threaten to remove his Congress from power and replace it with not only one of the opposition party, but even, a body of those who represent an energized and outraged public.

Warning. Nothing in the behavior of the present government suggests that it will relinquish power easily. Nothing in its record indicates that it will bow to the will of the people if there is any possibility, by any means, of enforcing its will.

War against Iran seems to me to be the perfect pretext for canceling the elections. A devastating attack on Iran, the preparations for which have been far more reported in the British press than in the American news, would surely unleash havoc. Many tens of thousands of Islamic fanatics already inside the US could be called upon to wage Jihad in our shopping malls, schools, and government offices. Such and various forms of chaos have already been anticipated by the “Continuity of Government” plans, in which UNELECTED officials would take control of the infrastructure.

While this is an extreme “worst-case” scenario, it is not entirely out of the question. Britain would not be spared, and undoubtedly, all of Western Europe might find itself engulfed in Parisian style riots by Islamics.
My hope and dream is that the November elections will be held, will be honest, and will be obeyed by the US federal government. We shall see.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Patriotic Perspectives: The Most Important Political Issue; John Wayne Tucker

John Wayne Tucker: a Baptist Minister and former teacher/professor. He is currently running for the United States Congress in Missouri's 3rd Congressional District.

The Most Important Political Issue

I recently asked my friends on Facebook and Twitter what they thought was the most important political issue right now. I had expected a general consensus on something, but the answers were as varied as are the issues, so this article will cover my stand on each of these issues. While I already point out my stand on each of these issues somewhere on my site, here is a single article that addresses what you are interested in politically.

1.The Constitution is being destroyed. I agree completely. There have never been such liberties and outright violations of the Constitution. We have nationalized companies, allowed the President to issue laws by Executive Order and allowed courts to legislate from the bench. Congress has turned over power to the President to do what he will to print money, create bailouts, and cram legislation down our throats. I am appalled at the failure of our elected officials to follow the Constitution. Rest assured that when I take an oath to defend the Constitution, I will take that as a sacred oath that binds me to do so. I will not accept any legislation that obviously flies in the face of the Constitution. We are nothing if we refuse to follow our clearly designated rules and guidelines as set out in the Constitution.

2. Abortion or the destruction of the next generation. As I have stated everywhere and frequently, I was a very young boy when I first learned about the existence of a thing called abortion. I did not have to have anyone tell me that this was wrong. It was obvious to me that this violated God’s laws. Abortion is a non-negotiable issue with me. I stand firmly against abortion, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, denial of feeding, or any form of euthanasia. I value life from conception until its natural end.

3. Illegal aliens or the invasion from Mexico. Here again, I have made this clear continuously. The protection of our borders is not an optional law. The government cannot ignore the law or the Constitutional responsibility to protect our borders. Illegal is illegal and it costs us approximately $120,000 per year per illegal. Plus there is the significant loss of jobs in America. While the government would have you believe that these jobs are jobs that no American wants, we have seen here in Missouri that illegals were working as construction workers (and when caught, police were ordered to let them go). I think Americans would like to have those jobs. Illegals were working as UPS workers. I believe those are good jobs that Americans would love to have. Please know that I will do everything within my power to end this violation of the law and the Constitution. In fact, I already work against illegal immigration by requiring any company that does work for me to verify in a letter that no illegal alien will be involved in working on my project. Also, please note that I have no problem with legal immigration. I know the efforts and expense that are involved to get to America legally. My wife is an immigrant who came here legally and I can testify to the expense, health reports, police background checks, interviews, fingerprinting, waiting lists, inability to work or drive for at least one year and other requirements of those who come here legally.

4. Unemployment. I had expected this to be the most important issue right now and I do believe that it is first and foremost on many people’s minds. It is certainly an important issue in my mind. I have watched as the 3rd District of Missouri has dropped lower and lower in financial standing in Missouri. Remember please, that St. Louis was the 8th largest city in 1948. In 1949, the Democratic Party took control of this district and has held it until now. The current rank of St. Louis among American cities is number 52. I know that jobs are important. I have watched as jobs have been shipped to other countries. I have watched as companies have left the St. Louis area. Good jobs and good companies have left and nothing is being done to bring them back. I know that I cannot represent the interests of our people without providing a plan to return good jobs to the area. This economic dilemma is the reason that I have pledged to give back half my salary to the district to be used for community and other significant projects. But more importantly than my economic contribution is my total commitment to return jobs to this area. I have thought and worked for a long time to understand the cause of our job losses here and I am certain that I have hit on the reason. I have a very specific plan that will bring our area back to significant employment levels and return business to our area. I cannot disclose this plan at this time, but as soon as the primary is over, I will make my plan clear. Of course, not only will I be working to improve the situation here, but across the country. Rest assured that any legislation that will return jobs to America will be at the forefront of my agenda in Washington.

I have important views on many more issues than this, so please visit my website to find out about them. Remember, I am not a politician. I only have a history of service, not a history of backroom wheeling and dealing. Please stand with me on August 3rd and put real representation in Washington.

John Wayne Tucker

*The Bold Pursuit presents “Patriotic Perspectives: Your Candidates, Their Words…” for city, state and national candidates for office. The Patriotic Perspectives is a forum for the candidates to express their views and positions on the issues. Publication in the Patriotic Perspectives is a public service, not an endorsement. We urge our readers to thoroughly review the candidates and cast their votes accordingly.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Patriot's Platform: Candidate John Wayne Tucker, U.S. Congress, Missouri

John Wayne Tucker: a Baptist Minister and former teacher/professor. He is currently running for the United States Congress in Missouri's 3rd Congressional District

The Patriot's Platform presents a blog by John Wayne Tucker:

Marriage and Family – More Value Than You Imagined

We all know that marriage and family have been a part of the life of every culture since the beginning of recorded history. In fact, the family has been the most consistent entity in existence since the beginning. However, we all know that in our current society, marriage faces the biggest assault it has ever faced since the beginning of time. Divorce has permeated our culture for decades now and the anticipated results of “marriage-absence” have arrived along with it. And the cost to the country is significantly greater than you might think.

If you thought this was a strictly personal issue, you need to analyze the cost from some new thinking perspectives. First, let’s try to analyze the reason for “marriage-absence”. Some propose the reason for this problem is based with the government having created laws beginning back in the Kennedy/Johnson era that make it easier for people to survive alone without the benefit of marriage. This would be the reason for the huge social welfare system that we now have. Others would suggest that the upheavals of society that occurred in the 1960’s led to a decline in the perceived value of marriage in our society. Such social upheaval as drugs, “free love”, the feminist movement and resulting gender wars, the push for women to take a different role in society, the development of more reliable birth control and the general changes that occurred in the social mores’ of society led to the decline of marriage and the reaction of the government that led to the massive welfare system was the reaction of the government to a changing society.

Whatever you believe the reason for the decline of marriage to be, the cost to American Society is huge. We have already indicated the financial cost of the social welfare system which is an enormous and growing part of our budget. Of course there are many other costs which are not generally considered. The cost of having inadequate parental supervision of children at home has led to a large number of ills in our society that both decrease the overall quality of our life, but create other enormous expenses. A child not properly supervised by absent parents is a child who will tend to gravitate toward lower educational skills, drugs, criminal activity, disrespect of adults and society, gangs, teen pregnancy, jail or juvenile detention, etc. All of these activities take us down a fiscally expensive path also. There is lost potential from lack of education; more attempts at abortion or children raising children alone (hence an increase in the welfare rolls); drug rehabilitation or the cost of criminal activity associated with drugs and on and on. This crisis has led to significant cost to women and children who now live in poverty, unsafe neighborhoods. Women have to work more and there just isn’t time to get everything done. Of course we cannot even begin to measure the emotional loss and feeling of safety for everyone involved.

Social Science, psychology, and history tell us that the tendency of society has always been toward monogamous, heterosexual marriage. This has been the norm for all of history. Whether you believe this is a religious, genetic, or otherwise innate behavior, it is certainly a behavior that is desirable from many standpoints. People benefit from and actually prefer marriage to “marriage-absence”. It is good for society; good for people; good for the economy and generally produces a happier existence for all involved. The problem we face today is that there are now generations of people that have no real or genuine role models or experiences that teach them how to be married and how to be effective parents since "marriage-absence" has existed for such a long period of time now. Therefore, people will have to be retrained in how to do these things.

In light of all these issues, I am introducing a new plan for my campaign. I suppose that I assumed that people would understand automatically that I am a strong supporter of marriage and family due to my background. However, since I have never stated it, I am stating that now. In fact, I intend to be very proactive in this issue on the basis that whether the laws of the government created this dilemma or whether they perpetuate the dilemma, there is a significant fiscal savings to be had by making it easier for people to return to traditional heterosexual marriage and family. While the vast majority of details regarding marriage and family are conducted and controlled by the states, there are certainly some aspects which are presently controlled by the federal government.

Since I am a strong states’ rights advocate, I leave the power over marriage and family with the states. However, where there is federal intervention, I intend to work diligently to make the “marriage absence” issue a priority. And I pledge to work as closely with the states as possible to help them be able to reorganize their circumstances so as to bring about the enormous fiscal savings that can be achieved by embracing this issue also. It is proposed that there could be a cost savings to the state of Missouri alone in the area of $250 million per year by correcting the problem of “marriage-absence”. These are figures that cannot be ignored, and the other benefits and cost factors just increase the benefit to all of us. We cannot just stand by while the cost of this crisis is passed along to taxpayers and businesses.

I am asking that you please stand with me as we seek to reverse one of the largest expenses to our budget (A budget item that can be massively reduced while bringing back a happier and healthier America). Please support me now and at the polls on August 3rd.

John Wayne Tucker

*The Bold Pursuit presents “Patriot’s Platform: Your Candidates, Their Words…” for city, state and national candidates for office. The Patriot’s Platform is a forum for the candidates to express their views and positions on the issues. Publication in the Patriot’s Platform is a public service, not an endorsement. We urge our readers to thoroughly review the candidates and cast their votes accordingly.

Saturday, May 8, 2010

America’s Finest ... On the Defensive

Special to The Bold Pursuit … Robert Arvay, former military, shares his unique perspective on the attempted courts-martial of three Navy Seals.

During my twenty years of military service to the United States, I was privileged to see some of the very finest Americans on a daily basis. From the lowest private to the highest general, and in all branches of the service, I witnessed constant dedication and devotion to our highest ideals.

I am now in my twentieth year of post-military retirement, and I have never had anything disparaging to say about our Armed Forces. But the recent courts-martial of three heroic Navy Seals compels me to speak my mind.

Every house has its soiled laundry, and as a general rule, we are all better off not mentioning it. The bad apples in the military are few and far between, but sometimes, they have a negative influence all out of proportion to their small numbers. And I warrant that the vast majority of military veterans know exactly whereof I speak.

So it is that I call for an investigation of exactly how it was, that three American heroes were not only falsely accused of a crime they did not commit, but actually brought to trial on the basis of a prosecution case that could not survive two hours of jury review before the just verdict of acquittal on all charges.

This was never a case about a crime. It was never a case about serving justice. From the very earliest stages of this case, superior officers had the discretion and the duty to exonerate these men on the basis of the flimsiness of the prosecution evidence, if evidence it was.

Let us consider the very worst case scenario possible, that the three men had presumably been guilty as charged. Guilty of what? Of punching a terrorist who had murdered Americans? Which they did not, but let us presume guilt. How serious was this charge? Serious enough to warrant a court-martial?

Remember, these men had risked their lives to capture the terrorist. They had risked death to take him alive. During the capture operation, they had every opportunity to punch, kick, stab, shoot and even bomb the terrorist, to insult, hurt, wound or kill him. They did not do that. But according to the prosecution, the Navy Seals chose to bloody the terrorist in front of a witness whom they did not know well enough to trust with a secret. Preposterous!

So why did the commanders, after seeing the Navy Seals refuse the dishonor of nonjudicial punishment, then proceed with a full blown court-martial? Why did they choose to believe the discredited witness, who admitted dereliction of duty?

To answer that, we have to understand that there are two kinds of people in the military. First are the warriors, those willing to risk their lives in the performance of dangerous, often thankless duties. Second, there are a small number of the politically correct.

And if you think that is of little consequence, you are tragically mistaken.

To prove that, ask yourself which of these two kinds of people supervised Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Warriors or bureaucrats? Hasan is the man who murdered 13 Americans in the Fort Hood massacre. There was strong reason for Hasan’s superiors to report him for terrorist sympathies, long before he actually murdered his victims. He had a long history leading up to the murders. But you see, Hasan is a Muslim. You might not know that. The press either did not report his religion at all, or downplayed it. Because you see, it is politically incorrect to associate terrorism with Islam. The politically correct do not wish to offend Muslims.

This is the kind of thinking that led to the courts-martial of the Navy Seals, but not even nonjudicial punishment against Major Hasan prior to his act of terrorism. The thinking is that we must not offend the terrorists who are killing us. We must instead punish those who defend us.

This is the kind of thinking that requires American warriors in Afghanistan to warn the enemy of our impending attacks, and to read them their (nonexistent) Miranda rights on the battlefield.

This is the kind of thinking that gets us killed. And it is well past time that Americans put a stop to this insanity.