~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
© December 29, 2005 Roger W Hancock
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Church and State?              December 22, 2005

The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down the term "Separation of Church and State" as tiresome. The court voted three to zero rejecting the ACLU's claim that displaying the Ten Commandments violates the First Amendment. Circuit Judge Surheinrich reviles the ACLU stating “repeated reference ‘to the separation of church and state’ . . . has grown tiresome.'"  The ACLU had brought suit against Mercer County, Kentucky for inclusion of the Ten Commandments with, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Charta, the Star Spangled Banner, the National Motto, the Preamble to the Kentucky Constitution, the Bill of Rights to the U. S. Constitution, and a picture of Lady Justice.
"The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.” The court recognized that a reasonable person would not strip public places of symbols and text displaying American heritage and traditions whether religious or otherwise. The court said the ACLU "... does not embody the reasonable person"
Nowhere in our founding documents can the term "Separation of Church and State" be found. It is about time our courts begin to address the truth of our U.S. Constitution.
 - 2005 Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Joe Nacchio's

Joe Nacchio's Indictment                December 20, 2005.

    Self . . .    C E N S O R E D !

(This piece had got me in a little trouble at my day job.  I failed to recall a company policy.  I received a "soft" reprimand.  I am grateful for that, I expected more.) 
- Roger W Hancock

The piece was published as "Letter to the Editor" in the Grand Junction Free Press, 12-27-2005  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)
Selected quotes used by the Denver Post, December 21, 2005; Same article shows at: Headlines @ ATT.net, 12-27-2005 & Billings Gazette 12-23-2005

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

American Tradition              December 04, 2005

    If we are going to condemn our politicians and businesses for celebrating the American Tradition of Christmas and the American tradition of embracing the Judeo/Christian ethics we must then condemn each and every one of our founding fathers who set the traditions in motion. 
    President Washington was not shy, expressing his faith in a manner that pales all the statements by President Bush.  Most if not all of the Presidents through history have expressed and acknowledged the greater God. President Clinton evoked God's name, although probably less than any other.
    To condemn religion now we must then condemn each signer for the words included in the Declaration of Independence that includes: "Nature's God," "their Creator," "Supreme Judge of the world," "divine Providence," and "sacred Honor." The founders addressed their faith first in the Bill of Rights, as the first order of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that restricts government from regulating religion. Every State of the union evokes the name of God in some fashion, without exception. The first textbook authorized and commissioned by the U.S. Congress for use in schools was the Holy Bible. 
    “Separation of Church and State” is a myth, not to be found in any U.S. founding document.  To embrace the religious traditions of America is to embrace the values and fortitude of America’s founding fathers.

     - 2005 Roger W Hancock

Published as "Letter to the Editor" in the Lewis News (WA), 12-04-2005; Tacoma Weekly (WA), 12-08-05; The Weekly (GA) 12-09-05; Moultrie Observer (GA). 12-09-05; The Dispatch, (WA) 12-07-05; American Reporter, 12-08-05; Americus Times-Recorder (GA), 12-11-05; Centre Daily Times (PA), 11-11-05; The Columbian, 12-17-05; Christian Examiner, December, 2005/January 2006  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     Our Veterans                            November 08, 2005

History teaches that pacifism does not protect against threats to peace.  Peace with force may not be peace, but peace without force is fragile.  Peace has only been achieved by force resulting in either of two forms of peace.  One form is an oppressive peace as when the German Nazis over-ran other countries or peace in freedom when oppressors are fought and suppressed as after the victory of the allied forces in World War II. Peace cannot exist without force. Peace when left to its own device dies a slow demise.  Our veterans are the peace keepers of a civilized society.
            - Roger W Hancock

Published as "Letter to the Editor" in the Lewis News, 11-08-2005;  Philadelphia Inquirer (PA), 11-11-05; King County Journal, 11-11-05; Chicago Sun-Times (IL), 11-11-05;  Iraq War Today, 11-11-2005;  The Northern Light 11-11-2005;  The Columbian, 11-15-05;  The Dispatch, 11-16-05;  Federal Way Mirror, 11-26-2005     (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Katrina's Politics ?                    September 30, 2005

   Hurricane Katrina is the most destructive storm in recorded history. Considering all the damage it is amazing the death toll remains relatively low.
In spite of the media and liberal flack, the Federal Government (Military and FEMA) provided the quickest response in any disaster ever. The National Guard was on standby from before the storm, delayed only by the state bureaucracies.  FEMA also was hampered, by established procedures that denied them the authority to act without the permission of the states.
   In spite of the quick response and established regulations the liberal pundits continue to blame Bush.  It is evidently clear through this disaster that Bush will be blamed regardless of facts. The liberals and Democrats have once again stooped to the lowest form in lying and distorting the truth to deceive the general public.
   Then there are the Republicans who rarely defend against the vicious attacks by the mean spirited democrat liberals.
            - Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

America not giving enough, the audacity !                September, 2005

     A trillion is beyond a million, no it is beyond a billion. Is it next beyond a billion or is it beyond that?  How many zeros would that be? A trillion has twelve zeros before the decimal point. I have just heard that the American People last year alone gave over 1/4 of a TRILLION dollars ($290,000,000.00) to various charities much of which went over seas.  Those gifts were not from the government. They were not taxes.  They were not confiscated from those who have to give to those who have not.  That was one fourth of a TRILLION DOLLARS from the generosity of the AMERICAN PEOPLE. !
    Then there is the fact that drug companies gave, not discounted but gave two billion dollars worth of medicine to third world countries to fight aids and other diseases.
    The 15 million Dollars is not the only contribution from the United States government but there is also the troops, cargo, and equipment that is being sent.  That alone will probably out weigh the contributions of other nations to the victims of the earthquake/tsunami of 2004.
    America is viewed as an international sugar daddy, used and hated.  The Unitized Nations again shows its impertinence.  The audacity of the U.N. to say America needs to step up.  Americans and the American Government have done much more than any other nation in helping those in need when in need.  Again I say, "Get U.S. out of the U. N., Now!"
            - Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

© Copyright 2005, Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Democrat Party Extremism.        August 12, 2005

The Democratic Party has been co-opted by the far-left wing of the Party.  That far-left are the factions that once operated outside of the two major parties.  The special interests of Abortion on demand, socialism, anarchists and the environmental extremists have learned co-operation and have infiltrated the Democratic Party. As such the Democratic Party is no longer the party of the people but more precisely the party against civilized democracy.  The U.S. Constitution is an enemy to the policies of the far-left Democratic Party.  They cannot allow the Supreme Court to be filled by Judges who will uphold the Constitution and the intentions of the founding fathers.  If a candidate for Judge does not meet their litmus tests of liberal extremism they will oppose with use of the filibuster, and out-right lies to deceive the mainstream of the Democratic Party.  They want a Judiciary that will, quote foreign law and twist the meaning or simply ignore the U.S. Constitution. The Democratic Party is no longer the party of even its grassroots.
           - Roger W Hancock

Published as "Letter to the Editor" in the Lewis News, 08-13-2005; Tacoma Weekly, 8-18-05; Washington Free Press, Sept./Oct. 2005  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hurst's candidacy                          July, 2005

   Hurst’s official reasons for not taking on Jan Shabro, four years ago, paints a pretty picture.  Chris Hurst surprised everyone leaving his party in the lurch unprepared to replace his candidacy.  I believe the reasons Hurst gave, although noble, were simply more of his smoke and mirrors.  Then the established history of Hurst questions his integrity. The Democrat Party cannot, a third time, afford to simply hand over both positions without a fight.
   Jan Shabro was strong in the 31^st having established herself a favorite in Pierce County where the bulk of the district is located.  Chris Hurst was a virtual unknown in Pierce County making it a most unlikely victory.  It is believed Chris Hurst bowed out to avoid a defeat on his record, to return later when perhaps the waters are warmer.  Well, if not warmer, certainly more profitable as Chris has been fundraising for some time now.
   Chris Hurst will have little chance at beating Jan Shabro.  He must beat her in her own territory where he has never before ran a campaign. If he chooses to run against Dan Roach, he runs against an established candidate that has done well for the people of the 31^st.
           - Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Right but Wrong                             July 8, 2005

   Often many people will speak off the top of their heads in the heat of emotion. Fortunately fewer will act off the top of their heads as do the perpetrators of passion crimes.
   Whether from within passion or not, Donna speaks what she feels. My inclination is to disagree with her, also; however, those who decide the matters of war do so from a secular context. In a practical matter Donna may well be right. When we consider the culture of the terrorist lives and  basis of beliefs we should consider a retaliation that they would understand. The terrorists are not thugs of our own citizenry; they are the enemy , in a war; an enemy which does not respect any agreements of the Geneva Convention.
   The families of suicide bombers are often financially rewarded by supporters of terrorism. Do they not then, become our enemies having profited from the killing of allied forces? Perhaps, perhaps not. The terrorist respect only force, and nothing else, or possibly the safety of their families. Take out the family of one terrorist and we might get their attention. That again is a "maybe". Although barbaric and non-Christian, the extending of the war to family members of the enemy may be the only "victory" the enemy would see as a "defeat."
   From a Christian standpoint, though it may be a pragmatic strategy, will not happen. The public opinion of our country and that of our allies would condemn such actions. That is why this war will continue as our punches are pulled allowing victories to the enemy.
   The Christian has only two cheeks to turn. In the Middle East many cheeks have been turned to appease those who prefer peace without consideration of the costs. At some point one must stand against evil or suffer the consequences.
           - Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Patriot Act                                        July 4, 2005

   The Patriot Act is blamed for new enforcement of laws that have been on the books for 30 years. Such are laws concerning immigration and the tracking of students and others visiting our country. Foreign visitors are only guests and should obey the laws of our land.
The Patriot Act strengthens the abilities of our investigative agencies to efficiently seek out and follow threats to the American people. These are tools the American people, for years, have expected of their law enforcement and investigative agencies.
   Most if not all legal challenges to the Patriot Act have been dismissed as frivolous or struck down by the courts. The Patriot Act stands firm with the Constitution upheld by our courts. Liberals bring the complaints and liberal courts find no merit. The nay-Sayers claim all sorts of distorted views concerning the Patriot Act. We have a government of checks and balances where an unconstitutional law is reviewed by the Executive branch before signing and then the judicial branch when challenges are brought. Abuses are always a concern and will be dealt with as has always been.
   Our intelligence agencies are no longer banned from communicating with the other agencies which has resulted with the arrest and/or expulsion of over 525 individuals that have been linked to the September 11, 2001 investigation.
   America is safer now than before the attacks. Is America safe enough? When we allow non-citizens the same freedom of travel and communications we afford ourselves we will never be totally safe.
           - Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Iraq - better off today.                   July 1, 2005

The Iraqi people are now better off then under Saddam Hussein. You do not believe so, prove me wrong. More Children attend school than under Saddam. More Schools have been renovated and more schools established. Women are no longer required to be treated as dogs. More Iraqi citizens enjoy electricity. 25 students from Iraq have gone to the United States for education under the Fulbright program. Iraq now has a police force to protect the citizens rather than rape and pillage. The Monies left over from the Oil for Food program stopped going into corrupt pockets. The citizens can now criticize their government and the U. S. presence but most are thankful. Many Iraqi citizens participated in an election for the first time exercising free choice. Iraqi new found freedom of speech has enabled an independent media that has 75 radio, 10 television stations, and 180 newspapers. Confidence in Iraq is shown by increase cell phone usage, up nearly 160 percent. Iraq now has an air force, a counter-terrorist unit, a Commando battalion and a Navy that protects and defends the Iraq nation, not Saddam. International confidence in Iraq has increased that now nearly 50 countries have embassies in Iraq. Mistakes have been made but this was new territory for any military. I see the Middle East as more stable than before. The Iraqi people enjoy more freedom and prosperity today than most can remember. The Iraq War has been won. Now it is the War on Terror
           - Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

America; Infiltrated                        June 29, 2005

The extreme left has gained a victory in their assault on the American Dream. When Government can confiscate private property from one individual to place in the ownership of another it has become the oppressor the founder’s fought. The right to own property is a foundation set by the founding fathers. The liberal majority of the United States Supreme Court deviates from our duly established Constitution to an arbitrary decision that can only be substantiated within the writings of the founders of communism and socialism. America cannot be taken by military force. America’s enemy is the apathy that has allowed the ideals of socialism to gain ground in our schools, and our courthouses; to infiltrate our society up to, including America’s highest court. The first steps of a communist takeover are to suppress religion and confiscate all property. Learning from the failed models of communism the holders of socialistic philosophies have patiently waited, incrementally asserting their views claiming, bigotry, right of free speech, fairness as we have succumbed, in the name of tolerance. Where is the tolerance for our liberties? Joseph McCarthy was right but his methods have caused what he feared most, infiltration into our society of communist ideals. American Citizens work their whole lives to own their own home, a piece of the American Dream and now the government of the “Land of the Free” threatens the dream obtained.
           - Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Clinton began the Lie.                    June 29, 2005

   Oh, how conveniently they forget. The policy to deny Saddam Hussein WMDs began with Clinton. In February, 1998, President Clinton said, "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." Later that same month, "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." Madeline Albright, "Iraq is a long way from, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Clinton’s National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, stated, "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
   In a Letter to Clinton, dated October 9, 1998 signed by John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Carl Levin and others, "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
   The Democrats continued commenting well into President Bush’s term, until they decided to twist truth to oppose the President. If WMD is a lie then it began under the Clinton Administration.
- Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

© 2005 Roger W Hancock www.PoetPatriot.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PRIMARY                                      May, 2005
Hammond holds his ground

   The new primary takes the choice of the voters and gives it to the few hundred active grassroots party members in each party. There may be two candidates from the same party, but only one will have that party's support.
   Reagan Dunn challenges incumbent councilman Steve Hammond in the council's 9th District. Hammond is the continuity of the momentum to protect rights that were set in motion by the late councilman Kent Pullin. Reagan Dunn runs behind, playing catch up.
   The voters chose Kent Pullin, who while dying, trained Steve Hammond for this job. Steve has proven his passion to challenge those on the council who would diminish property rights. Delegates of the 9th District to the Republican King County Convention on June 11 should vote for Steve Hammond and then voters should continue Pullin's momentum with Hammond in September and November.
- Roger W. Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," King County Journal, 5-26-05; The Stranger, 5-26-05  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

© Copyright 2005, Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Monkey on the Donkey's back      March 1, 2005

   Governing Democrats are sitting on their hands refusing to walk their talk. Washington State desperately needs election reform. The Governor-in-question, Christine Gregoire and democrat leaders talk reform, only presenting solutions that would have little effect. Whatever the outcome of the court challenges, the democrats loose. It is now known they have facilitated the climate that allows greater fraud by those who would vote illegally.
   Democrats, failing to correct past problems and deliberately avoiding any new laws to effect a legal vote show their colors. Democrats recognize that going light on crime have the effect of generating for them more votes. It is common sense that those who commit crimes would more likely vote for those who would reduce the consequences. Another support for this premise is the differences between rallies or demonstrations for Republican and democrat issues. Democrat issue demonstrations tend to be more rowdy and less law abiding then those supporting Republican issues. Republicans believe in responsibility for ones own actions, democrat leaders have shown they do not, though they may talk the talk. So, if I am committing crimes, who would I vote for? Those who would want me in jail longer?
   The people are fed up, law-abiding democrats are fed up with corruption in government. Attempts to shore up the democrat illegal voter base is back-firing on them. Law-abiding citizens want their votes to count, legally. The devaluing or inflating of the vote by allowing individual fraud to continue is the monkey on the donkey’s back.
- Roger W Hancock                                       

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," Lewis News, 03-01-2005; King County Journal, 3-06-05; Washington Free Press, Mar./Apr. 2005  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

© Copyright 2005, Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   Aiding the Enemy                          January 8, 2005

     The United Nations and Liberal organizations seek to kill and imprison Americans.  If successful they will do so by pressing the American government to do it all for them.  The Killing of an insurgent who lay dying is being portrayed as a war crime.  The Iraqi battle field is quite different than previous wars fought.  A dying enemy may not seek mercy but will seek to draw young American men closer so as with his last breath release a grenade to kill as many as possible.
     The Geneva Convention allows the killing of a wounded enemy that may yet be a threat. The American Soldier does not have to prove the threat but only to perceive a threat.  The enemy is not innocent, any wounded enemy in Iraq, have the potential to be a threat. Suicide killing when already wounded is a part of their training. The American soldier is a hero, stopping a threat before that threat kills him and other American boys. Our American hero followed his training, established protocol for the situation, and followed the Geneva Convention in killing his enemy.
     The terrorist insurgents (mostly NOT Iraqi) are an enemy not a gang in New York or L.A.  The rules our police must follow do not apply in war situations. The Geneva Convention took the unique situations of war into account when spelling out how to respond to wounded enemy. International law allows the killing of a wounded soldier that may be a threat. The intensity of the situation is addressed in the Geneva Convention to allow what seems to be a cruel and barbaric act to defend one’s self and others.  When our soldiers do not defend themselves, they die. Better the enemy than American men.
      Organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Center for Constitutional Rights and others of the far liberal left are providing aid to the enemy by their false accusations based upon distorted views of war.  Who needs enemies with friends like these?  Without knowing what war crimes are they call an act of self-defense a war crime. They sit back in their ignorance making stupid statements expecting “freedom of speech” to give them credence.
- Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Minority Votes                                 January 8, 2005

     The African American community is not being taken for granted.  It may appear so but it simply is that the democrat party has no issues on which to offer. Unless you consider the entitlements that effectively enslaves one to poverty and loss of dignity.  The democrat party has historically opposed civil rights, at least until President John F. Kennedy. Now it will claim inclusion while not including. 
     The democrat party has a dichotomy.  They need the African American vote. The various ethnic factions are needed to obtain and keep power. Should democrats attempt to provide even the appearance of not "taking for granted" they risk educating African Americans that the democrat issues do not support the values of many people.  When that happens the democrat party will lose voters in droves. Today's democrat party is dependent upon the lack of knowledge by the uninformed.
     The democrat party does not take the African American constituency for granted; they simply cannot address them for fear of losing their votes.  Instead they dish out tidbits of disinformation to play on the fears hoping to maintain those votes. Democrats can only truthfully address those issues that are important to a selfish individual.
     Republicans need to educate minorities of the conservative issues. When minorities become more informed about the issues and the parties’ positions, which affect their community, the Republican Party will gain votes. Republicans support policies that benefit all Americans so even though attention may not be on any particular minority they are included because they are Americans not because they are a separate voting block. 
     What is good for the country is good for the people as a whole. That which is good for the individual or groups of individuals may gain votes but may not be good for America.  The Republicans, more so than the democrats, understand that principle.
- Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2004 Archives    -2005-     2006 Archives