Condi’s Convention speech echoes warnings from the past of America’s self-destruction

/1 Comment/in , /by

At the 2012 Republican Convention former U.S Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in her speech, “There is no country, no not even a rising China, that can do more harm to us than we can do to ourselves if we fail to accomplish the tasks before us here at home.”  That got me to thinking of some other prophetic statements regarding America’s self-destruction spoken by others in the past such as, “If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers – normally good Americans, but Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free, Americans who have been lulled away into a false security.”,  Ezra Taft Benson;  “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”, Thomas Jefferson;  “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” and “Nations crumble from within when the citizenry asks of government those things which the citizenry might better provide for itself.” President Ronald Reagan;  “If you establish a democracy, you must in due time reap the fruits of a democracy. You will in due season have great impatience of the public burdens, combined in due season with great increase of the public expenditure. You will in due season have wars entered into from passion and not from reason; and you will in due season submit to peace ignominiously sought and ignominiously obtained, which will diminish your authority and perhaps endanger your independence. You will in due season find your property is less valuable, and your freedom less complete.” Benjamin Disraeli;  and “The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.” , stated by Mr. Alexis de Tocqueville.

What all of these prophetic statements speak of is America’s greatness as well as its curse.  Our nation was established with the greatest of intentions, that is to have codified in our foundation that man is to be governed not by man, but the Creator’s endowed rights to his life, his liberties, and his pursuit of happiness to be limited only by his equal respect to the same of that of the other citizen.  Our nation has an abundance of natural resources, natural gas, oil, coal, and precious minerals.  With our great nation’s unique  freedom to achieve to our wildest dreams and aspirations, we too have freedom to give in to our lowest desires and weaknesses.  We can be the greatest of people who continually look to achieve greatness and not settle for mediocrity, to become the best educated on what responsibilities are borne by our cherished freedoms, to live within our means, and take ownership of our decisions – successes as well as our failures – or we can be a people who celebrate the lowest of ourselves and cherish a life of triviality, be all too willing to exchange our birthrite of individual liberties and freedoms for the promise and illusion of government-provided security and social utopia – whether it is as a nation or globally – to look for others to be the creditors and bearers of our ill-temperance and irresponsibility.   If you take inventory of this nation’s situation today, you would realize that many of the prophetic warnings went unheeded to our detriment.  But it doesn’t have to be our nation’s future.  At the end of the day no one or no nation can defeat us, but ourselves.

Another of my favorite quotes that come to mind was said by Thomas Jefferson, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free … it expects what never was and never will be.”  And nor should it.

Who Put Who In Chains Mr. Biden?

/1 Comment/in , /by

Recently Mr. Obama’s representative remarked that the Republican Party was looking to put blacks back into chains.  Who was that representative of Mr. Obama?  It was none other his Vice President Joe Biden.   As he spoke to a group mostly of Black Americans at a campaign stop in Virginia referring to the  notion that freeing America’s financial institutions, i.e., “unchain Wall Street”, would in fact be a horrible thing, as he arrogantly stated to the crowd, “They’re gonna put y’all back in chains.”  Now mind you this is a largely crowed of Black Americans that he said this to. And in the audio amazingly you can actually hear some laughter from the crowd.  This is the Vice President, who happens to be a member of the Democratic Party, who’s saying this, so it must be true.   Right?  So it’s ok for him to say it.  Right?  And since no one in the Establishment Media or the Republican Party is voicefully rebutting the claim that it was the Republican Party who put blacks in America in chains in the first place, it must be true. Right?  I can think of no truer Maxim at this moment than, “that an unrebutted claim stands as truth”.   The truth is actually that it was the Democratic Party who has  gone through great lengths to place and keep the Black American in bondage, when not physically, then most certainly mentally.  This unrebutted lie is the most tragic distortion and outright falsification of history ever projected on the American people because it preys on the ignorant and the intellectually uninitiated, and it becomes a tool to divide the people of this nation. The historical truth is that from Lincoln till today it has been the Republican Party that has sought to free the Black American, and every American, both physically and economically.

According the author and historian David Barton in his book, Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White, the Democratic Party, particularly the southern democrats, was the proponents of not only Negro, i.e. Black American, slavery, but never allowing the Black American to gain his just liberties and freedoms. Even after the Congress with the 1789 Northwest Ordinance forbid slavery in any territory seeking to become part of the Union and virtually ending slavery in America by the 1800’s.  But it was the Democratic Party-led Congress that reversed the Northwest Ordinance’s banned on slavery in federal territories with the 1820 Missouri Compromise and the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act making slavery federal policy.  It was the Democratic Party who introduced the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law that gave rise to American Blacks fleeing the South all the way to Canada via the “Underground Railroad” .

Also according to Mr. Barton’s book, it wasn’t till the creation of the Republican Party and its entry of the Presidential election of 1856 that the tide of slavery would began to be beaten back politically with its platform including 6 planks of equality and rights for the Black American.  In 1860 the Republican Party took control of the Congress and the White House with the election of Abraham Lincoln, thus beginning the galactic battle between the pro-slavery position of the Democratic Party and  the anti-slavery position of the Republican Party. I think that a  good argument can be made that if not for the fervent and extreme pro-slavery position of the democrats there may not have been a “civil war”.  But, that is just my opinion.  Some point of facts; it was the Republican Party that passed the 13th Amendment to Abolish Slavery, the 14th Amendment  extending government protected privileges to freed slaves, and the 15th Amendment granting voting privileges to Black Americans,  and  the 1875 Civil Rights Act, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Acts, and some dozens of anti-slavery laws, all of which had very very little Democratic support, if any; it was the Republican Party that welcomed blacks to hold political offices, both state-wide and at the federal level, as well as  prominent positions throughout the political spectrum from the “Civil War” till today, irrespective of  the election of the first African-American as president being a Democrat;  it was the Democratic Party that created vast extreme measures and knew of no bounds to suppress the Black American’s rising political strength, even murder and violence; it was the Democratic Party that had the nation’s first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan as a leader of its National Convention in 1868, as well as noted ex-Klansmen and white supremacist as congressional members that included the late Senator Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond (prior to becoming republican); up until the election of John Kennedy, it was the Republican Party that was the home for blacks in America.  Let’s remember what party was in power in the southern States in the 60’s.  If one were to add up all the Blacks who have represented the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, he would have no doubt that it is the party of Lincoln who has welcomed black political participation.  It was Republican Rep. Joseph Hayne Rainey who prophetically stated,  “You gentlemen on the other side of the House have voted against all the … amendments of the Constitution and the laws enforcing the same.  Why did you do it? I answer, because those had a tendency to give to poor Negro his just rights -… and give him freedom of action, and the opportunity of education, that he might elevate himself to the dignity of manhood. Now you come to us and say that you are our best friends.  We would that we could look upon you as such.  We would that your votes as recorded … from day to day could only demonstrate it.  But your votes, your actions, and the constant cultivation of your cherished prejudices prove to the Negroes of the entire country that the Democrats could have sway, our race would have no foothold here … The Democratic Party may woo us, they may court us and try to us to worship at their shrine, but I will tell the gentlemen that are Republicans by instinct, and will be Republicans as long as God will allow our proper senses to sway over us.”  He stated this in 1872.  Rainey was one of the first seven American Blacks elected to the Congress after the “Civil War”.  All were Republican. If one was to review the policies and motives of the Democratic Party he would see that it is it that encourages dependency and servitude, while it is the Republican Party encourages independence and self-reliance.  History tells the perverted truth that it is the Party founded by Thomas Jefferson, the Democratic Party, who wants to place chains about the head, wrist, and ankles of the those wanting to be free.  Freedom was never meant to be convenient, easy, nor for those not wanting to take ownership and responsibility for their lives.

The distortion of  history and truth is most prevalent in this nation.  Coupled with intellectual deprivation that is encouraged in this culture makes the words uttered by the Vice President even more concerning because it does nothing to begin to enlighten, inform, or unite Americans. Instead it seeks to only ignite the smoldering embers of hate based on ignorance and stupidity of who we are as Americans and where we have come from to be such.  106 B.C. Roman Philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero said it best when he said, “To be ignorant of what happened before you were born… is to live the life of a child forever.” Imagine how different our nation would be if true history wasn’t hidden in the dark, manipulated/distorted, and presented to too many of us like bitter vegetables, but displayed in the light to be examined, discussed, appreciated, and resolved?   So as such malicious statements such as that which Mr. Biden uttered would be cause for him, and others of his ilk, to run for sheer shame and dishonor and dare not be seen or heard from again.

If its government is immoral, can America be good?

/1 Comment/in , /by

The current occupant of the Oval Office seems to have a serious issue with issues of right and wrong, particularly when it has to do with the restraints of the Constitution.  The most glaring exhibits are of matters involving illegal Mexicans immigrants being forced to enter the country as other immigrants have done for generations, his attempts to place homosexual unions on par with that of heterosexual unions, and blatantly blurring the traditional lines of ethnicity and morality.

Ever since being placed as president of the United States he has done everything as he promised days before his election, “to fundamentally change America”.  He is doing all that he can to ignore and subjugate longstanding Constitutional principles of conduct. In particular his dealing with the law-making branch of government, the Congress, and his manipulative use of the regulatory powers of the Executive Branch. One of my favorite quotes is from Alexis de Tocqueville when he said of America’s moral standing, “America is great because America is good. If America ever ceases to be good it will cease to be great.’  Is this how he looks to forever alter America, to dismantle its core?  First, he entered the office by being a complete enigma, an unknown entity, speaking words that triggered emotional responses at a time that the American people thirsted for hope for better a future and change from the perceived failings for past.  He’s like an unattractive gal who gives the last guy in the bar, who’s really emotionally distressed and depressed, a minute before it closes, some great tantalizing conversation and attention, saying all of the right things. The guy figures why not her?  But, now it’s the morning after and the guy is feeling like he was been taken advantage of because he has a house full of strangers, the locks on the doors have been changed, and his family jewels are nowhere to be seen.

Mr. Obama came into office promising to be the most transparent Administration ever, the most ethical, and would unite not just of the government, but the people.  Regarding his Administration being transparent, he has sealed all of his personal college transcripts and questions dealing with his actual birth certificate, and his past in general, still linger. I remind you that this isn’t someone who bounces a ball or entertains, but the President of the United States who has a unknown past to most Americans.  This Administration has been involved in one the most massive cover-ups since the Nixon break in with its involvement in the Fast and Furious covert gun-running program that ended up getting Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, age 40, killed by Mexican drug-smugglers during a gunfight.  Incredibly, as reported by  Forbes 9/28/11 report, the deadly gun battle started with USBP shooting bean bags at the smugglers shooting with AK-47s.  Talk about bringing a knife to a gun fight.  Is it just me, or there something seriously wrong with our side’s rules of engagement when it comes to fighting Mexican bad guys at the U.S border?  I’m just asking.  The Administration’s Justice Department hasn’t yet come clean with the details of the covert operation run-a-muck, which led to for the first time ever a sitting U.S  Attorney General, Eric Holder, being held in contempt of the Congress.  The Administration effectively blocked for the AG by inexplicably invoking Executive Privilege so we the people may never know the truth of this horrific debacle.  What makes this offense so astounding is the fact that this may have all been done to manipulate the people into granting for the passage of more gun restrictions on legitimate gun sellers and dealers when massive amounts of guns used in gang and gun violence could be traced back to American guns stores.

Other examples of questionable ethical and moral actions have to do with this Administration’s unwillingness to abide by the traditional protocols and restraints applied by the Constitution when he unilaterally chooses to either ignore established law and or just creates its own regulatory policies, that in essence becomes law.  Thereby he totally ignores the fact that it is the Legislative, not the Executive, Branch that is empowered to make law and thus obliterating all pretenses of traditional Constitutional Checks and Balances.  Just a few examples; President Obama told the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, that allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex partnerships legally recognized in other states. This was enacted not through any process through the Congress or the courts, but just because Mr. O didn’t think that it was constitutional.  Mr. Obama also is the first sitting U.S. president to outright endorse equal marriage rights for gay couples and to dismantle the military’s longstanding ban on service by gays and lesbians, “don’t ask, don’t tell”. The law that allowed gays to serve so long as they simply keep their sexuality a secret. Both laws have been around since the Clinton Administration.

Also Obama’s Administration decided with the stroke of the pen to tell Immigration & Customs Enforcement Agency[ICE], via the Homeland Security Department, to no longer enforce immigration violations by illegal immigrants, particularly those from Mexico and Latin America. The Executive Order allows anyone who was brought to this country prior to age 16 and who is under the age of 30 not to have to face deportation. In addition, they must have lived here for 5 years, obtained a high school diploma, and/or served in the military. Lastly, they could not have a criminal record.  But according to a FOX News report of 7/27/12, the ICE Union President Chris Crane claims that illegal immigrants are “taking advantage” of a new directive allowing some undocumented residents who came to the U.S. as children to stay in the country. The policy ends up allowing illegal immigrants to avoid detention without any proof — particularly so-called “dreamers,” or those illegal immigrants who would benefit under the “DREAM Act” proposal, which Congress has not passed but the administration  has partially implemented. And this is on top of a quietly imposed Administration Directive, as reported by the Daily Caller on 6/20/11, to top ICE officials that they need not enforce immigration laws if illegal immigrants are enrolled in an education center or if their relatives have volunteered for the US military.  Really?!  What about the Black and White poor and middle class Americans who are already unemployed and or under-employed?

So as Mr. Obama methodically pits homo-sexual Americans against hetero-sexual Americans, illegal immigrants against legal citizens, and rich American against poor American supposedly for the benefit of the “little guy” and in the name of “fairness”.  But, he does this mostly not within the traditional restraints and protocols of the Constitution, to which he supposedly swore an oath to, or with apparent and recognizable motives, but with a simple stroke of his pen and an unseen hand he makes the law-biding citizen question the very purpose of law if the head of the government shows such apparent disrespect and distain for it. Maybe Mr. O is following the teachings of one of his idols, Saul Alinsky, early 1900’s Chicago “community organizer”. He spoke of there being one single principle, which is to take power from the haves and give to the have-nots, to which he coined, political nihilism– to assault of the established order in the name of the “people”

The question that needs to be asked of this Administration, and all others, is what laws is law?  The ones that just are or just ones that you agree with?  What is the truth?  That which just is or that which it says it is?  And if the government is allowed to fudge the line of what is law and truth so blatantly who are the people to rely on for justice and truth?  If it is the people who decides who is to govern and represent us, and the government is immoral and unethical, not good, can the moral integrity of the nation and goodness of the people be without question?  Though too many of us want to take to the streets when a leader of a sports team or institution acts immorally or unethically, but let the president of the United States attempt to redefined what is is and be disbarred for ling to a Grand Jury, or have one cost millions in dollar and thousands in the lives of American sons and daughters in invading two sovereign nations for presumably “weapons of mass destruction” and retaliation for attacking the U.S on September 11, 2001, or maybe have one to pretend to be something or someone that he’s not, that’s acceptable.  Really?  Remember, we have the government, we have the nation, which we chose to have.

Rubio Is The Republican Obama

/14 Comments/in , /by

With the recent endorsement of Fla. Senator Marco Rubio by the National TEA Party to be the possible running mate for the Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney  I feel like I’m watching a bad b-rated TV series’ second season.  In the first season the supposed villain does an unforgivable act that increases his villain credibility.  But, now the second season is previewing a supposed hero who presents basically the same unforgivable disposition that made the villainous character in the previous season the villain, yet he is the one to save the day so everyone is acting like the 3 monkeys – hear no evil,see no evil , and by all means speak no evil.

The main issue regarding Mr. Obama, that of many, that has dogged him since taking the seat of U.S president is not whether or not he was or was not born in Hawaii truly, but whether or not both of his parents were themselves U.S Citizens; therefore qualifying or dis-qualifying him to be president, constitutionally that is.  Though there is no doubt of Obama’s mother’s national status of being American, the same most certainly cannot be said of his paternal father.  It is greatly believed that Obama, Sr. was either a British Citizen, by Kenya before it gained its independence; but definitely not a citizen of the United States.  This is why the issue of Junior’s Birth Certificate has been such an critical persistent 4 yearlong issue of major importance.  It’s not just a question of Constitutional integrity, but one of principle and honesty at our nation’s highest levels.

But here comes the Establishment Media’s pick for the Republican savior as number two man on the presidential ticket, Marco Rubio.  But if the Republican Party hopes to show themselves as the party of integrity it will look in another direction.  Because according to WND.com’s May 22, 2011 issues, Now popular Republicans ‘not natural-born citizens‘, like Mr. Obama, both of his parents were not U.S Citizens at the time of his birth neither.  But too, like with Obama, neither the Media nor any one of the elite political complex seem to be overtly disturb by the fact.  Or maybe they are waiting for Rubio to become officially the V.P to be, maybe.

Like in the case of Obama’s birth, it is not like no one was there when he was born.  There was the doctor, or hospital employee, and the mother.  The information is out there.  It’s just that for some inexplicable reason both the Establishment Media and the elite political complex seem to be jointly complicity derelict regarding the crucial matter of these two presidential candidate’s qualifications, being a  Constitutionally mandated “natural-born citizens”, of not just Obama, but Rubio, as well as another potential V.P candidate Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jinda who too was born onto non-U.S citizen parents.  Regarding Marco Rubio, according to WND,  has not released his birth certificate for view by the public, and  what is even more incredible his press secretary Alex Burgos has already admitted that the senator’s parents “were permanent legal residents of the U.S.” at the time Marco was born in 1971, not naturalized citizens of the U.S. His parents didn’t become naturalized U.S. citizens until four years later.  Mr. Jindal’s press secretary Kyle Plotkin too has publically admitted “that both of his parents were permanent legal residents and not naturalized U.S citizens at the time of his birth”.

There is a clear distinction between a natural-born citizen, one who is born of two U.S Citizen, and a naturalized citizen, one who is granted citizenship by the government of the United States by fulfilling a requirement, such as being born on U.S soil or by passing a test for citizenship. It is largely understood by Constitutionalist that the Founders never intended for someone of possible dual allegiances to a foreign power to become the President of the United States.  Doesn’t that make sense?

The Founders being such learned Biblical individuals it should come as no surprise that Deuteronomy 17:15 speaks of choosing a leader, “you shall surely set a king over you …, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.”  Mr. Obama’s actions regarding America’s world standing and position has been unprecedented for a U.S president, in an extraordinary bizarre way.  His actions may be understood better if viewed from a position of someone with confused or conflicting loyalty regarding a nation that he boastfully promised to “fundamentally transform”.  He has acted with indifference to longstanding allies, such as Israel and Britain, and has acted vindictively towards nations that didn’t present any threat to America, such as, Egypt and Libya, while literally and figuratively bowing to traditional enemies and entities who act in opposition to American interests, such as Communist China, Russia, Venezuela, Hamas, via the Muslim Brotherhood, and Iran. And I didn’t even include what extremely destructive economic and social actions he has taken domestically, such as immediately piling trillions of debt on the citizens of the United States, via Obamacare, financial reform act, his antagonistic posture with States regarding oil and gas exploration and development, the invasion of illegal immigration of Mexicans, and traditional American religious view on homosexuality.

Given that we have viewed this presentation with stunned amazement to the fact that this is actually happening and are now looking forward to the end of this grueling 4 yearlong series, do we look forward to a possible recasting of a similar plot this time with someone with possible dual allegiances only centimeters from the presidential seat? Are we not a nation of laws? And if we the people choose to allow exceptions at the highest levels of our government to the most fundamental tenants of our laws, are we not placing ourselves and posterity on a slippery slope toward tyranny and anarchy? The choice is ours to whether or not do an unforgivable act, to settle for a rerun.

Obama has no need to respect law

/in /by

The current occupant of the White House seems to have a serious issue with dealing with right and wrong – particularly when it comes to abiding to the laws of the United States regarding illegal immigrants.  Many of us have heard of his aunt who has been in the country for years illegally. As evident by his silence and inaction he sees nothing wrong with it.  Ever since claiming the seat as head of the United States’ Executive Branch Mr. Obama has done everything to further  weaken and outright subvert the Constitution and federal laws pertaining to immigration to favor Mexican nationals who are in the U.S illegally that was started by G.W Bush; only with unprecedented vigor. 

On June 15th with just the swipe of his pen he created law granting millions of young Mexican/Latino nationals who are in the country illegally virtual amnesty by amending the Immigration & Customs Enforcement Agency [I.C.E] by unilaterally, without any vote of the Congress, removing the enforcement element of the agency regarding young illegals.  ICE will no longer look to deport young illegals between the ages of 15 and 30 years of age who have been in the country illegally for as little as 5 years without committing a serious crime, outside of being in the country illegally.

While many of us may get emotionally lost in the haze of not punishing the young for the possible sins of their parents for coming and staying in the country illegally, we should not lose sight of the real issue of the moral integrity of those entrusted to make our nation’s laws and those who are to enforce them.  Is it right under any circumstances for the President of the United States, or any legislature, to ignore established law for political expediency?  Do the American people or U.S citizenry no long require their elected official to be of the highest ethical and moral character, to be able to tell right and wrong?

In previous generations it was said that two wrongs don’t make right.  Though one could argue whether it is right or wrong to punish the child of a parent who does something illegal.  But, the very word illegal states that something has been done against the law.  There is established law already on the books.  The Federal Immigration and Nationality Act [FINA] Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii), definitively states, “Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.” Under Section 274A(a)(1)(A) of FINA,“A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he  assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.”  Should not someone be punished; if not the children of the lawbreaker, then the actual lawbreaker-the parent, or whomever brought him into the country, housed him, and give them aid and comfort?  Does the law matter anymore really?  In fact the Obama edict does state the illegal immigrant youth has to be a child of an illegal immigrant, between the ages of 15 and 30 and at least 5 years presence, illegally, within the U.S.  So therefore, the youth come have crossed the border at the age of 17 or 25 to become eligible for Obama’s amnesty.  Is this right or just?  What are the consequences to be on a national economy that’s already suffering from high unemployment and unprecedented federal deficit?  I can tell you that it won’t be good.

The actions of Executive Branch creating de facto law and circumventing the constitutional law-making authority of the Congress for no reason other than to garner political favor from a segment of the population should make us all pause with great concern.   The famous French classical liberal theorist, political economist of the 1800’s Frederic Bastiat said once, “No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree.”  If the Executive Branch can do this just on the whim of what it perceives just and right could it not create laws to release the nation’s natural resources to make us energy independent, cut corporate and personal taxes to make the nation the investment destination of the world and economic powerhouse, or make government schools graduates proficient in reading, writing, the sciences, and civics /America history to be in the to five academically worldwide again?  Or could it too create laws to lock-up, or kill,  Americans for just looking wrong or saying something politically unpopular, transfer American wealth and infrastructure to foreign lands and hands, or maybe increase taxes and regulations on the citizens and corporations to make us insolvent, irregardless of the people’s opinion?  Think about that. What laws are to be respected by those who are in charge of executing and enforcing them?  Should each branch of the government start acting as though it is not answerable to the other? The Constitution was created by the Founders to restrain the powers of the branches of the federal government through “check and balances”, but if the final checker of power the people of America and the United States are unable themselves to differentiate between what is right and wrong they cannot demand that from their elected representatives.