This is a mess. As should be evident by now, I'm against abortion on demand, unless it is deemed medically necessary for the life of the mother or if the child will be born with a lethal or fatal illness that will kill it shortly after birth.
Planned Parenthood traces its lineage back to Margaret Sanger, a pioneer in birth control and a known bigot. The irony is that people knowingly support the organization despite the fact that Sanger made statements that were clearly directed at reducing the number of minorities and Jews in the population. That untidy bit of information is glossed over by the desire to raise women's right to control their own bodies over all.
Recently, guerrilla videos taken of Planned Parenthood executives negotiating the sale of fetal tissue and organs. Incredibly, the executives approach the negotiations as if they were selling car parts from a chophouse, even joking in one instance that the goal is to buy a Lamborghini. The callous way they discuss the methodology of harvesting the body parts or tissue is chilling. The unborn children have no life. They are simply chattel to these people, something with which they can earn money.
I'm not going to rehash my objections to abortion. Ultimately, it comes down to whether a person believes the unborn child is human prior to birth or whether it becomes human only after delivery although, unbelievably, there are those who argue that even terminating a pregnancy shortly after birth is acceptable. No, what this involves is yet another version of man's inhumanity to man.
Unlike the exceptions to abortion that I support, terminating the life of an unborn child is simply ghoulish, especially when viewed through the prism of abject capitalism. Putting a price on the unborn's organs and tissues, as if they were bred for that purpose alone, is one step away from Dr. Mengele. I cannot conceive being so callous as to blithely barter body parts for fast cars.
Although I have no way of knowing this for certain, these very same people may well protest against the harm of pets (with which I agree) or be vegetarians or vegans who see the slaughter of animals for our consumption barbaric (with which I disagree). How they justify these seemingly inconsistent beliefs with their support of abortion is beyond me. If it's cruel to harm animals, why is it all right to kill unwanted, unborn children and use them as inventory? Saving a life is one thing, but using the unborn's parts as stock for one's financial gain?
Almost as unbelievable as this dirty capitalism is the reaction of supporters. They've lashed out, claiming that the videos were edited (which they were, but only to shorten them, not to remove content) and, incredibly, calling for the group that produced the undercover videos to be investigated. As if that weren't enough, the people doing this are female politicians, notably Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. In the latter's case, it's not incredible that she'd pull such a stunt. What's unbelievable is that she has support for her position. Deflection is the last argument they have, since they know what is being done is horrible.
I'm fully supportive that federal funding be pulled from Planned Parenthood. My tax dollars shouldn't be used to support something in which I don't believe, and it shouldn't be forced to support what is in essence a for-profit industry. If the Left is insistent that non-profit status should be pulled from churches that, for religious reasons, refuse to perform gay weddings, it's at least fair to require funding to be pulled from Planned Parenthood.
Sanger wouldn't care, though, because those funds come, in part, from the very people she wanted exterminated, Jews and minorities.
Just don't try to remind Cankles and Pelosi of that fact. They'd want to have one investigated for making that assertion.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Friday, July 24, 2015
Monday, July 13, 2015
White Lives Don't Matter
I happened to catch this segment on The Kelly File the other night. I'd been thinking about posting this blog but Ms. Kelly beat me to it.
Since Ms. Kelly did such a fine job, I'll only add some embellishments. With Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and the Charleston Nine, the administration jumped at the chance to look into whatever issues the individual incidents presented. Certainly, there were issues that merited attention in each of them, although to the same extent to which the administration involved itself is debatable. But beyond the involvement of the FBI and the DOJ, in each instance the administration, including the President himself, commented on the tragedy.
Yet whenever a white person is killed tragically by a minority the administration is telling silent. Ms. Kelly mentions Kate Steinle, but she leaves out a host of others killed by minorities:
-- In 2014, Dillon Taylor was an unarmed white teenager shot to death by a black policeman in Salt Lake City, Utah.
-- In 2013, Australian exchange student Christopher Lane was shot in the back and killed by three minority teenagers in Oklahoma.
-- Also in 2013, World War II veteran Delbert Belton was beaten to death by black youths in Spokane, Washington.
-- In Moore, Oklahoma, Colleen Hufford was beheaded by a black Muslim convert.
-- Within the last two weeks, Carrie Jean Melvin was killed by a shotgun blast to the back of her head by an unknown black assailant while walking with her boyfriend on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood.
There is also the casual indifference displayed by the administration to other white deaths:
-- After the gruesome video of the beheading of white journalist James Foley, the President made a statement while on vacation and then went golfing within fifteen minutes after his statement, never once calling the family to offer his condolences.
-- When Major General Harold Greene became the highest ranking battlefield casualty since Vietnam, no one from the administration appeared at his funeral at Arlington National Cemetery.
- When Steven Sotloff was beheaded, no attempt was made by the administration to contact the family.
Like the Brown, Gray, Martin and Charleston incidents, these are incidents at least as worthy of the administration's commentary, if not involvement, as are the Brown, Martin, Gray and Charleston cases. When random acts of violence occur that seem to have a racial component, it behooves the President to use them as -- in his words -- a teachable moment. Yet it seems that the only people who deserve a lecture are white people and the only lives that warrant such lectures are black people.
It is beyond disgusting how the administration uses sophistry to worm its way out of talking about uncomfortable minority-on-white crime but has no hesitation about becoming involved on white-on-black crime...even when it is later proven that there is no crime.
Perhaps the Reverend Jeremiah Wright influenced President Obama more than he lets on. But he's supposed to be the President of all the people.
Not just the black people.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Since Ms. Kelly did such a fine job, I'll only add some embellishments. With Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and the Charleston Nine, the administration jumped at the chance to look into whatever issues the individual incidents presented. Certainly, there were issues that merited attention in each of them, although to the same extent to which the administration involved itself is debatable. But beyond the involvement of the FBI and the DOJ, in each instance the administration, including the President himself, commented on the tragedy.
Yet whenever a white person is killed tragically by a minority the administration is telling silent. Ms. Kelly mentions Kate Steinle, but she leaves out a host of others killed by minorities:
-- In 2014, Dillon Taylor was an unarmed white teenager shot to death by a black policeman in Salt Lake City, Utah.
-- In 2013, Australian exchange student Christopher Lane was shot in the back and killed by three minority teenagers in Oklahoma.
-- Also in 2013, World War II veteran Delbert Belton was beaten to death by black youths in Spokane, Washington.
-- In Moore, Oklahoma, Colleen Hufford was beheaded by a black Muslim convert.
-- Within the last two weeks, Carrie Jean Melvin was killed by a shotgun blast to the back of her head by an unknown black assailant while walking with her boyfriend on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood.
There is also the casual indifference displayed by the administration to other white deaths:
-- After the gruesome video of the beheading of white journalist James Foley, the President made a statement while on vacation and then went golfing within fifteen minutes after his statement, never once calling the family to offer his condolences.
-- When Major General Harold Greene became the highest ranking battlefield casualty since Vietnam, no one from the administration appeared at his funeral at Arlington National Cemetery.
- When Steven Sotloff was beheaded, no attempt was made by the administration to contact the family.
Like the Brown, Gray, Martin and Charleston incidents, these are incidents at least as worthy of the administration's commentary, if not involvement, as are the Brown, Martin, Gray and Charleston cases. When random acts of violence occur that seem to have a racial component, it behooves the President to use them as -- in his words -- a teachable moment. Yet it seems that the only people who deserve a lecture are white people and the only lives that warrant such lectures are black people.
It is beyond disgusting how the administration uses sophistry to worm its way out of talking about uncomfortable minority-on-white crime but has no hesitation about becoming involved on white-on-black crime...even when it is later proven that there is no crime.
Perhaps the Reverend Jeremiah Wright influenced President Obama more than he lets on. But he's supposed to be the President of all the people.
Not just the black people.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Questions for the MSM
I am a dire critic of the MSM. I believe that it, not ISIS, is a greater threat to this country's existence. The reasons I believe this are well-documented in this blogspace. The MSM has become a lapdog of this adminstration and is no longer concerned with either investigative journalism or holding our government accountable for the decisions it makes or the actions it takes. Simply put, it wants to play with the cool kids.
Knowing that, I would love to see the day when someone in a position of authority -- say, a network anchor, the head of the news division or some such person -- was put under oath and forced to answer these questions without being able to filibuster. It would be interesting to see what truthful answers were obtained, if any.
-- What does the expression The Fourth Estate mean to you? Does that meaning change depending on which party sits in the White House?
-- Where race is involved in an incident, whether it be a criminal action or merely a social action, how is it decided when to cover the story as racially motivated? Who makes such a decision?
-- Is it the responsibility of the press to further the agenda of one party or one politician over the other?
-- Realistically, how big a role do ratings play in what stories are put on the air and what anchors read the news?
-- Does the press believe in the theory of Chinese walls? To wit, is it acceptable for the head of a network news division to be related by blood or marriage to someone high up within the administration or in another position of power within the government? Do you believe such a relationship compromises the impartiality of the press?
-- When the Trayvon Martin shooting occurred, who made the decision to refer to the shooter, George Zimmerman, as a white man or Hispanic descent given his biracial background and why was that done? Furthermore, wouldn't it then be fair to describe President Obama as a white man of African descent, and why isn't this done?
-- In your opinion, is it more important to be first with a story or to get it right? For example, in the Duke lacrosse case, the Aurora, Colorado shootings and the Ferguson incident, the media was wrong with key elements of the story in the rush to be first with the story. How would you change this?
-- Is it proper to give noted agitators like Al Sharpton a platform to push their political agenda under the guise of promoting diversity?
-- What, for you, constitutes journalistic ethics? What would you have done with Britt McHenry, Brian Williams and Martin Bashir?
-- Do you believe that the MSM has a particular political bent? Explain your answer using examples.
-- Can you explain why none of the major networks and cable outlets, besides Fox News, have kept on the following stories: the IRS scandal, Benghazi, the VA story, the Bowe Bergdahl trade, the AP story, the James Rosen incident, the NSA surveillance and Obamacare? Or do you simply believe that Fox News acts out of spite in covering these stories?
-- Why does the MSM avoid reporting on and questioning stories involving black-on-white crime and the administration's handling of such incidents?
-- Do you believe that a debate moderator's role is to ask questions only?
-- Just how close can the media be with the subjects it covers regularly and still maintain an unbiased approach to its coverage?
-- Should one network take potshots at another network?
-- Should there be proper labels on network shows to differentiate between straight news shows and those that either give nothing but opinions or that editorialize?
-- Who makes the decisions as to what stories to cover and are those decisions arrived at impartially, or is there concern that by covering a certain story access to those in power will be shut down?
-- Does the First Amendment protection allow the MSM to be partial, or should the MSM try to be as impartial as possible for the benefit of the American people?
The answers, elicited by a very good litigator, would quite interesting.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Knowing that, I would love to see the day when someone in a position of authority -- say, a network anchor, the head of the news division or some such person -- was put under oath and forced to answer these questions without being able to filibuster. It would be interesting to see what truthful answers were obtained, if any.
-- What does the expression The Fourth Estate mean to you? Does that meaning change depending on which party sits in the White House?
-- Where race is involved in an incident, whether it be a criminal action or merely a social action, how is it decided when to cover the story as racially motivated? Who makes such a decision?
-- Is it the responsibility of the press to further the agenda of one party or one politician over the other?
-- Realistically, how big a role do ratings play in what stories are put on the air and what anchors read the news?
-- Does the press believe in the theory of Chinese walls? To wit, is it acceptable for the head of a network news division to be related by blood or marriage to someone high up within the administration or in another position of power within the government? Do you believe such a relationship compromises the impartiality of the press?
-- When the Trayvon Martin shooting occurred, who made the decision to refer to the shooter, George Zimmerman, as a white man or Hispanic descent given his biracial background and why was that done? Furthermore, wouldn't it then be fair to describe President Obama as a white man of African descent, and why isn't this done?
-- In your opinion, is it more important to be first with a story or to get it right? For example, in the Duke lacrosse case, the Aurora, Colorado shootings and the Ferguson incident, the media was wrong with key elements of the story in the rush to be first with the story. How would you change this?
-- Is it proper to give noted agitators like Al Sharpton a platform to push their political agenda under the guise of promoting diversity?
-- What, for you, constitutes journalistic ethics? What would you have done with Britt McHenry, Brian Williams and Martin Bashir?
-- Do you believe that the MSM has a particular political bent? Explain your answer using examples.
-- Can you explain why none of the major networks and cable outlets, besides Fox News, have kept on the following stories: the IRS scandal, Benghazi, the VA story, the Bowe Bergdahl trade, the AP story, the James Rosen incident, the NSA surveillance and Obamacare? Or do you simply believe that Fox News acts out of spite in covering these stories?
-- Why does the MSM avoid reporting on and questioning stories involving black-on-white crime and the administration's handling of such incidents?
-- Do you believe that a debate moderator's role is to ask questions only?
-- Just how close can the media be with the subjects it covers regularly and still maintain an unbiased approach to its coverage?
-- Should one network take potshots at another network?
-- Should there be proper labels on network shows to differentiate between straight news shows and those that either give nothing but opinions or that editorialize?
-- Who makes the decisions as to what stories to cover and are those decisions arrived at impartially, or is there concern that by covering a certain story access to those in power will be shut down?
-- Does the First Amendment protection allow the MSM to be partial, or should the MSM try to be as impartial as possible for the benefit of the American people?
The answers, elicited by a very good litigator, would quite interesting.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, July 6, 2015
Gay Intolerance
With the recent SCOTUS decision legalizing gay marriage in the United States, there's been an outpouring of emotion, especially from the gay community, Given the historic struggles of the gay community, the release of emotions is understandable. From Stonewall to Matthew Shepard to the countless and nameless gays and lesbian who were attacked and beaten for their sexual orientation, the SCOTUS decision was the equivalent of the Jews being freed from Egypt.
On the other side, there has been a mixture of reactions. Some are overtly hostile to the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, others are happy and supportive and a large number are casually indifferent. I'm somewhere between the last two camps, worried about the slippery slope this begins and more supportive of the notion of civil unions. But I digress.
What's troubling me is the reaction from some quarters of the gay community. As with any labeled community, the whole can't be blamed for the parts that comprise it. Yet for a community that, generally speaking, preached tolerance and understanding before Obergefell seems to have forgotten all about that in the euphoria following its issuance.
Three incidents in particular concern me. A young Catholic priest walking by two gay men celebrating the decision spat upon him despite not being provoked by the priest. Admittedly, the priest was probably not supportive of the ruling, but the randomly spit on this man simply for what he represents is no better than a pair of knuckleheads beating the tar out of a gay man simply for wearing a rainbow flag on his jacket. For a group that preached tolerance and understanding to suddenly become what they opposed taints the position they once held.
The more national manifestation of this anger came from a noted gay rights activist and online darling George Takei, who played Sulu on the old Star Trek series. Mr. Takei, not satisfied with the Court's ruling, took issue with the dissent penned by Justice Clarence Thomas and called him a clown in blackface. This isn't the first time that the progressive/liberal/sensitive/thoughtful has used ad hominem attacks on Justice Thomas, a man who raised himself up from humble beginnings to be a member of one of the most exclusive -- not to mention respected, educated and important -- fraternities on earth. During the Anita Hill hearings he was subjected to horrible, scandalous attacks that were baseless to try to sabotage his nomination to the Supreme Court solely because of his conservative bent. To his credit, Mr. Takei did take back the comment and apologize for it, but he could hardly have done otherwise. The outcry was such that it will be a long time before Mr. Takei allows his emotions to take control again.
Here's Mr. Takei in all his indignant glory:
Although Mr. Takei is certainly entitled to his opinion, he's hardly qualified to rate Justice Thomas's credentials...unless, of course, Justice Thomas makes the mistake of appearing as a clown in blackface on an episode of Star Trek.
But even Mr. Takei's outburst didn't disturb me as much as the last example did. Up front, I should disclose that although I'm more conservative that liberal on many things, I was never a fan of Ronald Reagan as President. I admired some things that he accomplished, but I always saw him as playing a part more than leading the free world. That being said, he was still President. At the first gay pride reception held in the White House, certain gay rights activists used the opportunity to express themselves in a manner unbecoming the institution of the White House and the Presidency itself as can be seen in these images:
That they would not be pleased with Presidents Reagan and Bush is understandable. But no matter how much I dislike Presidents Obama and Clinton, when I get the opportunity to visit the White House, I will not be acting accordingly. I may not respect the man, but I respect the rank. These people didn't belittle Presidents Reagan and Bush so much as they lowered their own self-respect. Perhaps they're lionized in segments of the gay community, but I can't believe that mature adults, gay or otherwise, were impressed with this immature demonstration of their displeasure.
It would be interesting to see what Matthew Shepard would say about this.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
On the other side, there has been a mixture of reactions. Some are overtly hostile to the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, others are happy and supportive and a large number are casually indifferent. I'm somewhere between the last two camps, worried about the slippery slope this begins and more supportive of the notion of civil unions. But I digress.
What's troubling me is the reaction from some quarters of the gay community. As with any labeled community, the whole can't be blamed for the parts that comprise it. Yet for a community that, generally speaking, preached tolerance and understanding before Obergefell seems to have forgotten all about that in the euphoria following its issuance.
Three incidents in particular concern me. A young Catholic priest walking by two gay men celebrating the decision spat upon him despite not being provoked by the priest. Admittedly, the priest was probably not supportive of the ruling, but the randomly spit on this man simply for what he represents is no better than a pair of knuckleheads beating the tar out of a gay man simply for wearing a rainbow flag on his jacket. For a group that preached tolerance and understanding to suddenly become what they opposed taints the position they once held.
The more national manifestation of this anger came from a noted gay rights activist and online darling George Takei, who played Sulu on the old Star Trek series. Mr. Takei, not satisfied with the Court's ruling, took issue with the dissent penned by Justice Clarence Thomas and called him a clown in blackface. This isn't the first time that the progressive/liberal/sensitive/thoughtful has used ad hominem attacks on Justice Thomas, a man who raised himself up from humble beginnings to be a member of one of the most exclusive -- not to mention respected, educated and important -- fraternities on earth. During the Anita Hill hearings he was subjected to horrible, scandalous attacks that were baseless to try to sabotage his nomination to the Supreme Court solely because of his conservative bent. To his credit, Mr. Takei did take back the comment and apologize for it, but he could hardly have done otherwise. The outcry was such that it will be a long time before Mr. Takei allows his emotions to take control again.
Here's Mr. Takei in all his indignant glory:
Although Mr. Takei is certainly entitled to his opinion, he's hardly qualified to rate Justice Thomas's credentials...unless, of course, Justice Thomas makes the mistake of appearing as a clown in blackface on an episode of Star Trek.
But even Mr. Takei's outburst didn't disturb me as much as the last example did. Up front, I should disclose that although I'm more conservative that liberal on many things, I was never a fan of Ronald Reagan as President. I admired some things that he accomplished, but I always saw him as playing a part more than leading the free world. That being said, he was still President. At the first gay pride reception held in the White House, certain gay rights activists used the opportunity to express themselves in a manner unbecoming the institution of the White House and the Presidency itself as can be seen in these images:
That they would not be pleased with Presidents Reagan and Bush is understandable. But no matter how much I dislike Presidents Obama and Clinton, when I get the opportunity to visit the White House, I will not be acting accordingly. I may not respect the man, but I respect the rank. These people didn't belittle Presidents Reagan and Bush so much as they lowered their own self-respect. Perhaps they're lionized in segments of the gay community, but I can't believe that mature adults, gay or otherwise, were impressed with this immature demonstration of their displeasure.
It would be interesting to see what Matthew Shepard would say about this.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Thursday, July 2, 2015
Independence Day Perspective
Admittedly, it's been awhile since I've posted. Life has a nasty way of controlling things sometimes.
Karen and I went to the eastern seaboard at the end of May and saw our nation's capital, me for the first time. We also saw Gettysburg, Shanksville and the Outer Banks. But the most poignant part of our visit was Washington, D.C.
While we were traveling, the Stanley Cup playoffs were in full swing, and as it turns out, my beloved Blackhawks won their third Cup in six years, much to my happy surprise. As is always the case in such circumstances, part of the tradition involves getting the names of players from the winning team engraved on the Cup itself. There's a byzantine process whereby the number of games played in the regular season or the number of games played in the Finals determines whose name is engrave for posterity on the Cup. It's a big deal. There are plenty of great players whose names are missing from that Cup. In terms of career honors, it's probably as big a deal, if not bigger, to have one's name on the Cup than it is to be elected to the Hall of Fame.
But the contrast with that competition hit me hard after I visited D.C. Although it's true that the players' names will be forever memorialized on the Cup (and in the Hall of Fame, where rings are kept to make room for later generations on the Cup itself), somehow it pales by comparison by the monuments I saw -- and witnessed -- during out trip:
Shanksville, Pennsylvania
Shanksville, Pennsylvania
The Vietnam Wall, D.C.
The Vietnam Wall, D.C.
Arlington National Cemetery
These images of graven reminders of men's ultimate sacrifices are far more powerful than the engravings on the side of the Cup. Sure, what the Blackhawks did this season was heroic, but only in a very, very, limited sense. The names that are engraved in Shanksville and D.C. are heroic in a much broader sense because these memorialize lives given for freedom and for the safety of others. The people whose names appear on these marble slabs represent the unlimited best that one man can do for others. The Blackhawks, triumphant as they were, would even admit this.
On this Independence Day, when threats to our security abound from ISIS, we should remember what those braves souls did back in the 1700's to set us on the course of the greatest human experiment ever. They faced grave danger themselves, although the names that we frequently associate with Independence Day largely survived unscathed. But it should not be forgotten that the names that appear on these marble and granite markers defended what the Founding Fathers set out to do. They repelled threats to our freedom that was so dearly bought.
Sadly, not every name that died in the cause of freedom is recorded. It's an impossible hope, of course, but a valiant effort was made to recognize those who made the ultimate sacrifice. So as not to be remiss, we should remember those whose final end still goes unanswered:
Although their names may be known only to God, the sacrifices they made are known to a grateful nation. A nation that still allows more freedom than any other country in the world.
May God bless the United States of America on its two hundred and thirty-ninth birthday.
(c) The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Karen and I went to the eastern seaboard at the end of May and saw our nation's capital, me for the first time. We also saw Gettysburg, Shanksville and the Outer Banks. But the most poignant part of our visit was Washington, D.C.
While we were traveling, the Stanley Cup playoffs were in full swing, and as it turns out, my beloved Blackhawks won their third Cup in six years, much to my happy surprise. As is always the case in such circumstances, part of the tradition involves getting the names of players from the winning team engraved on the Cup itself. There's a byzantine process whereby the number of games played in the regular season or the number of games played in the Finals determines whose name is engrave for posterity on the Cup. It's a big deal. There are plenty of great players whose names are missing from that Cup. In terms of career honors, it's probably as big a deal, if not bigger, to have one's name on the Cup than it is to be elected to the Hall of Fame.
But the contrast with that competition hit me hard after I visited D.C. Although it's true that the players' names will be forever memorialized on the Cup (and in the Hall of Fame, where rings are kept to make room for later generations on the Cup itself), somehow it pales by comparison by the monuments I saw -- and witnessed -- during out trip:
Shanksville, Pennsylvania
Shanksville, Pennsylvania
The Vietnam Wall, D.C.
The Vietnam Wall, D.C.
Arlington National Cemetery
These images of graven reminders of men's ultimate sacrifices are far more powerful than the engravings on the side of the Cup. Sure, what the Blackhawks did this season was heroic, but only in a very, very, limited sense. The names that are engraved in Shanksville and D.C. are heroic in a much broader sense because these memorialize lives given for freedom and for the safety of others. The people whose names appear on these marble slabs represent the unlimited best that one man can do for others. The Blackhawks, triumphant as they were, would even admit this.
On this Independence Day, when threats to our security abound from ISIS, we should remember what those braves souls did back in the 1700's to set us on the course of the greatest human experiment ever. They faced grave danger themselves, although the names that we frequently associate with Independence Day largely survived unscathed. But it should not be forgotten that the names that appear on these marble and granite markers defended what the Founding Fathers set out to do. They repelled threats to our freedom that was so dearly bought.
Sadly, not every name that died in the cause of freedom is recorded. It's an impossible hope, of course, but a valiant effort was made to recognize those who made the ultimate sacrifice. So as not to be remiss, we should remember those whose final end still goes unanswered:
Although their names may be known only to God, the sacrifices they made are known to a grateful nation. A nation that still allows more freedom than any other country in the world.
May God bless the United States of America on its two hundred and thirty-ninth birthday.
(c) The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)