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

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

Travel Tidbits

My girl and I took a short, much needed trip out east and saw a host of wonderful things.  We also saw some curious things as well.  One thing I can say with absolute certainty is that the United States is blessed with many gorgeous, majestic, wonderful landscapes.   Sure, there are other places in this world worth seeing, but I owe it to myself and my country to see it more.

With that, then...

--  I wish there was a national speed limit on the interstate highways.  This notion of going 60 in some places, then 65, then 70, then back down to 65, then 70 and then back down to 60 is annoying.

--  The concept of a continental breakfast offered by hotels as an enticement to book rooms there is dead.  A continental breakfast is supposed to be lighter than a full breakfast, but throwing out stale cereal, fruit that's a day from being rotten and ersatz French toast that isn't remotely appealing won't cut it.

--  The state flag of North Carolina is just ugly.  Sorry.

I could have come up with something better than that in kindergarten.

--  Seeing a Muslim pray openly on his prayer mat on the National Mall in Washington D.C., was revealing and jarring.  First, no one approached him or ridiculed him in the slightest.  I doubt a Christian praying in public in Riyadh or Tehran would be left alone similarly.  But what was jarring about it to me was that the young Muslim was facing northeast off of 14th Street, directly across from the Washington Monument.  I thought they were supposed to face toward Mecca, which is southeast from D.C.

--  The Pennsylvania Turnpike isn't that bad when it isn't under construction.  The Ohio Turnpike, however, is not only boring but vile.  Apparently, only certain gas stations and food franchises are allowed on the Ohio Turnpike, which limits choices.  I'm not a fan.

--  Gatlinburg, Tennessee, is useful for one reason only:  It's close to the Great Smoky Mountains. Otherwise, it's a trashy tourist trap with a decided cornpone edge.

--  I bought MegaMillions tickets for the big lottery tomorrow night in Tennessee and Kentucky.  I think it we win it we have to go down there to collect the prize.  O' well.

--  It should be a civic duty to visit Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 went down on September 11.  It's very, very sad.

--  Being by the ocean is best in the morning.  One gets to see all sorts of fauna out at that time.

--  Speaking of Gatlinburg but not mentioning the hotel chain (Days Inn), what idiot thought a great interior design choice would be to have bathtub walls decorated with what resembled smears of fecal matter in swirls?  When we walked into the room, I thought I was in Bobby Sands' cell in the Maze.

--  I don't know how we did it, but not until the last day of the trip did we encounter any rain at all.

--  Watching the pure pathos at The Wall in D.C., was humbling.

--  For whatever reason, the Lincoln Memorial seemed smaller in real life than I thought it was.

-- Trust me:  Having a mattress that folds up on one like a hot dog bun when one is in it isn't fun.

--  No, I didn't visit the White House.  As long as Mr. Obama is the resident, it has no appeal for me.

--  Watching local newscasts is always quite interesting.

-- Listening to the fishing report on the radio in North Carolina tickled me.

--  The eastern portion of mainland North Carolina is a snoozefest.

--  Seeing the actual sites of the Gettysburg battle and the Yorktown siege was amazing.

--  So was piloting a sailboat, even if only for fifteen minutes.

--  Not knowing exactly what day it was was pleasant.

--  I've now visited twenty states.

--  Sadly, I ate an inordinate amount of junk food on this trip.  But I will never forget the wonderfully simple yet tasty meals we had at the Blue Moon restaurant in Nags Head, North Carolina.  I don't normally care for fish and chips, but this was the best prepared fish meal I've ever eaten.

--  As with universities, apparently T-shirt manufacturers haven't gotten the memo that just as alums get bigger as they age, so do tourists.  Topping out at XXL is just stupid.

--  The trip from Pennsylvania to Virginia was so quick I didn't even realize when we entered or exited Maryland.

--  The Virginia towns around D.C. are ugly in a modular sort of way.  They're clean, but they're just so built up one can hardly move.  It was like a classier version of Gatlinburg.

--  Inside joke time:  I wonder when Karen will want to go to another Ross store.

--  Driving to Newfound Gap Overlook and Cades Cove are two of the prettiest drives I've ever made.

--  There is no better traveling companion than my girl Karen.  Unfortunately for the rest of you, she's taken.

(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

MSM Bias

For months -- years? -- I've been beating the drum about the self-evident bias in the MSM for liberal candidates and causes.  Perhaps I'm the canary in the mineshaft along with my fellow citizens disgusted by the blatant favoritism dressed up at journalism as it's practiced at the major news outlets in this country.  Most of the time, people simply yawn and turn away.  But recent developments really call for greater scrutiny.

This past week, George Stephanopolous, the moderator of the Sunday morning political talk show This Week and one of the anchors of Good Morning America was discovered to have donated $75,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative for such endeavors as the fight againts AIDS and other noble causes.  In and of itself, there's no problem with the donations.  But the fact that he never disclosed this fact to the public and continued to act as an impartial interviewer of political themes calls into question his bias.  In fact, just before the public disclosure, Mr. Stephanopolous interviewed Peter Scheweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, an expose of the Clintons' ties to big money and usages of those connections.  Here's the interview:

Let's not forget: Not only did Mr. Stephanopolous donate money to the Clintons' foundation, he used to work for Mr. Clinton when he was President.  If nothing else, he should have recused himself from doing the interview to avoid the appearance of impropriety due to his previous position.  To ask Mr. Schweizer about his connections to the Bush White House is almost laughable, especially when the CGI donation scandal was hanging in the air.  Mr. Stephanopolous apologized publicly for his omission, and ABC later called it a simple mistake, but for a public that relies on the media to be its watchdog on the government, this is a serious breach of trust.

Earlier, Bob Schieffer, a well-known liberal commentator, announced his retirement from Face the Nation, and CBS quickly named as his successor John Dickerson, the political director for CBS.  Mr. Dickerson wrote for Slate magazine and penned this ditty:

Go for the Throat!
Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party.

... A second inaugural suggests new beginnings, but this one is being bookended by dead-end debates. Gridlock over the fiscal cliff preceded it and gridlock over the debt limit, sequester, and budget will follow. After the election, the same people are in power in all the branches of government and they don't get along. There's no indication that the president's clashes with House Republicans will end soon.

... The challenge for President Obama’s speech is the challenge of his second term: how to be great when the environment stinks. Enhancing the president’s legacy requires something more than simply the clever application of predictable stratagems. Washington’s partisan rancor, the size of the problems facing government, and the limited amount of time before Obama is a lame duck all point to a single conclusion: The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat.

... Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition's most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.

... This approach is not a path of gentle engagement. It requires confrontation and bright lines and tactics that are more aggressive than the president demonstrated in the first term. He can't turn into a snarling hack. The posture is probably one similar to his official second-term photograph: smiling, but with arms crossed.

The president already appears to be headed down this path. He has admitted he’s not going to spend much time improving his schmoozing skills; he's going to get outside of Washington to ratchet up public pressure on Republicans. He is transforming his successful political operation into a governing operation. It will have his legacy and agenda in mind—and it won’t be affiliated with the Democratic National Committee, so it will be able to accept essentially unlimited donations. The president tried to use his political arm this way after the 2008 election, but he was constrained by re-election and his early promises of bipartisanship. No more. Those days are done.

It is unthinkable that a person writing a blueprint for the destruction of a political party can in any way be unbiased when it comes to reporting or interviewing.  That anyone believes the MSM is impartial and unbiased is living in an earlier time and under a rock.

Let's not forget that CBS News' President is David Rhodes.  He only happens to be the brother of Ben Rhodes, currently the deputy national security advisor for strategic communication.  Technically, his title is Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication and Speechwriting.

Well.

Mr. Stephanopolous made a point to question Mr. Schweizer's Bush ties and whether they had anything to do with the book he wrote about the Clintons.  Isn't it only fair to question whether Mr. Stephanopolous's ties to Clintons had anything to do with the way he interviewed Mr. Schweizer?  Or how Mr. Dickerson will treat the White House during the balance of the Obama administration?  Or how CBS reports news about the Obama administration?

How is it that the media is allowed to get away with this?  The last time a MSM was this closely tied to government was when Josef Goebbels and Leni Refinstahl worked for the Nazis.

This isn't Nazi Germany.  This should not be allowed.

I would love to put any of these flacks on the witness stand under oath and ask them questions about how they conducted their work.

The answers they would give would be sad or they would be scary.

This is un-American.  The Fourth Estate, as my liberal friend once presciently noted, is letting down the country.

(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Liberal Idiocy

Apologists, from what I'm gleaning from various reports, are trying to suggest that the jihadi attempt in Garland, Texas, that was foiled heroically by an off-duty police officer, could have been avoided had the cartoonists not poke the Islamofascist bear by exercising their First Amendment rights.  I'm stupified.

There very same apologists try to say, at the same time from the other side of their mouths, that they support the concept of Free Speech.  Although there is a philosophical argument that can be made in a vacuum that the right to exercise one's freedom of speech includes the right to withhold said exercise, in reality the two are mutually exclusive.

To not engage in the freedom of speech intended by the cartoonists who were going to have a contest to see whose depiction of the prophet Mohammed was deemed the best would have been, necessarily, to curtail freedom of speech due to fear.  Liberals love to declare freedom of speech when the speech they support bothers conservatives, but when speech such as this contemplated in Garland, Texas, is supported by conservatives, they make excuses for why it shouldn't be exercised.

The utter hypocrisy of the situation is galling.  Where were these voices of restraint when Robert Maplethorpe was displaying his very graphic sexual photos that offended so many Christian people? Or when artwork was making the rounds involving a crucifix in a jar of urine.  Where were the apologists suggesting that this artwork shouldn't be displayed?  Nay, they were championing freedom of expression and lecturing the rest of us to restrain our impulses, the same impulses jihadis act on now.

Just because Christians don't put people to death whom they believe blaspheme what they believe doesn't make their offense any less valuable.  Muslims may well take great offense to what the cartoonists were doing, but that doesn't entitle them to silence the cartoonists by killing them.  And that the cartoonists' actions provoke howls of disagreement is beside the point; just as we Christians had to restrain ourselves when the other putative artists were poking at us, so too must Muslims behave in a civilized manner -- or leave the country.

Liberal apologists miss the point:  The First Amendment especially protects offensive speech.  The only limitations on free speech are those that time, place and manner impose because of the dangerous nature of the speech, e.g., yelling out Fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.  Just as Christians had to endure the blasphemous works of so-called artists, so too must Muslims -- and their liberal apologists -- sit on the sidelines and seethe quietly.  As loathesome as the Westboro Baptist Church expressions have been, they are allowed -- with time, place and manner restrictions, but still allowed.  The same must hold true for cartoonists and others whose speech offends a segment of society.

Muslims are emboldened by our failure to depend the Constitution.  Their bellicose threats and transparently false grievances allow them to push an agenda that is unacceptable to the vast majority of people here.  No bacon in restaurants because it isn't halal.  Neither is it kosher for orthodox Jews, but no one sees them threatening Subway shops.  It's ludicrous that we kow-tow to their demands in the name of political correctness unaware of what it's doing to the very essence of our Constitution.

Yet, I'm not surprised by this.  The liberal mantra -- do as we say, not as we do -- underlies the liberal approach to all things constitutional in this country.   So if the majority of this country is offended by their urgings of restraint of freedom of speech, we should just sit back and say nothing.  If we're offended by someone else's free speech, we should sit back and say nothing.

Soon enough, with the imposition of sharia law, it won't be a question of choosing to remain silent.

We'll either be quiet or have our heads lopped off.

(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Treason and Traitors

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

So says 18 U.S.C. §2381, the federal statute that defines treason and its consequences. Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. §2385 states: 

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

To me, it seems pretty clear what treasonous and seditious activity is.  Lately, with the recent revelations that two turncoat Americans, Adam Gadahn and Ahmed Farouq, were killed in drone strikes, there's been a lot of handwringing about the lack of due process afforded these traitors prior to their executions.  From a purely legal standpoint, there's probably some truth to the concern.  A duly sitting court of law with the traitors represented by counsel before the obvious verdict is handed down never existed for these two (and a couple of others before them, it should be noted).  Technically, this is wrong according to our constitutional guarantee.  

At the same time, I have no trouble with what happened to them.  Nevermind the collateral deaths of two hostages -- that's another topic for another day.  These two traitors were clearly bent on the overthrow of our way of life and the installation of sharia law, a medieval way of life that elevates Islamic men over all others, with serious consequences for anyone not an Islamic man or one not following sharia law to the letter.  

It's antithetical about everything I believe as an American, an attorney and a human being. Were the most heinous criminal in American history, caught on tape doing his crimes, to be brought to justice, I would insist that he first have the benefit of his constitutional guarantees.  But these traitors are a different breed apart.  They threaten not only our lives, but our way of life and all that we hold dear.  They want to convert the entire world into an Islamic caliphate.

I don't claim to know a lot about the Koran.  I have a copy -- know they enemy, they offered to send me a free copy, probably thinking I would be happy to convert once I read their truths -- and intend to read it to decide for myself whether it's the religion of peace as they claim.  In the meantime, these two traitors, whether they've bought into a radical version of Islam or the real thing, meet the defintions set forth in the United States Code as traitors.  Since trying to round them up to bring them to justice as we'd expect under our system of justice is problematic, I have no issue with them being eliminated without due process.  For my money, they've forfeited their right to constitutional protections through their treason.  What's more, by actively waging war outside the country against us, they necessarily don't have the same level of rights as they would were they in the country.  In other words, were they caught here planning terrorism, or if they'd carried out an attack here and were caught, then they'd have to get their constitutional rights.  But outside the country, they enjoy no such privileges.

It's hard, it's indifferent and it's fundamentally wrong, but I have no trouble with my position.  They wouldn't hesitate to kill me and mine because we're Christian.  I have no hesitation killing them because they're traitors.

(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Get Americans Home

What with the Iranian nuke deal and the Bergdahl trade, one would think that the administration would be eager to combine the two and combine its questionable negotiating skills to make political hay and get back four Americans being held in Iran.  Thus far, at least publicly, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to link the negotiations to the fate of the four captive Americans, but the public outcry has been met with yawns and denials that anything other than sanctions or nuclear weaponry would be included in the agreement with Iran.

The administration has a very curious approach to negotiations and getting Americans released from jail in foreign countries.  Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi took a wrong turn at a border crossing in California and spent four months in a Mexican jail because he had weapons in his car that he was lawfully carrying -- in the United States. What should have been a very quick diplomatic resolution dragged on for months.  Contrary to assertions that the administration did the right thing by not pressing for Mr. Tahmooressi's immediate return, there are scores of such incidents involving citizens from both countries who mistakenly cross the border and are returned with reasonable dispatch. Such was not the case with Mr. Tahmooressi.

Then there is the journalist, the Marine, a pastor and a tourist reputed to be a CIA agent being held by the Iranians.  Three of the cases seem like slam dunks:  The journalists and the pastor, at least, should be returned.  I suppose each of them could be a covert agent, but there is little evidence beside the Iranians' assertions in support of such a thesis.  The pastor, Saeed Abidini, is a Christian, which seems the only plausible reason for his incarceration.  The journalist, Jason Rezaian, is of Iranian descent as is Pastor Abidini.  He's been charged with security-related offenses, probably espionage, and awaits trial.  The Marine, Amir Hekmati, obtained permission from the Iranian government before his trip so he could visit family in the country.  He's also been charged with espionage.  The fourth, Robert Levinson, was an FBI employee investigating cigarette smuggling in a region that doesn't require a visa to visit.  Iran has denied Mr. Levinson was in its country, but the state-run Iranian press has acknowledged the government's involvement in his disappearance.

If nothing else, we should hold up the nuke deal until the fates of these men are settled, preferably with repatriation.  But for some reason, the government is proving itself feckless and refuses to include their cases in the nuclear deal.

This is both typical and unusual at the same time.  Remember the trade for Bowe Bergdahl?  The administration created a cover story that Bergdahl was a serviceman who had served with honor and distinction and that under the rubric of leaving no American behind, we had to get him back.  At the same time, it served the President's purpose of emptying Gitmo to trade five hardened Taliban terrorists for him.  The political implications were transparent, only to blow up in the administration's face when the Army later brought court martial charges against Bergdahl for desertion and misbehavior with the enemy.

It would seem like a no-brainer: Either we get out American citizens back or there's no deal, the sanctions will continue and Iran's economy will be ruined.  Yet the administration seems to be hell-bent on restoring the country that is the foremost exporter of terrorism, one with whom we are in a proxy war in Yemen, to the league of nations and will not allow four Americans' lives to get in the way.  The chances of Iran ever having the capability to send an intercontinental nuclear weapon to the States are slim, but lifting sanctions and getting Iran to slow down its effort to build the bomb are more important than Americans' lives.  Just as emptying Gitmo and ridding ourselves of five terrorists in exchange for a deserter whom the President could turn into political fodder is more important than keeping the terrorists locked up.

History will be the best judge of this.  Perhaps there are things to which we aren't privvy at this time. But unless there's some shocking revelation in a history book in the future, these missteps involving Americans' lives will paint a shameful picture of our government.

(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles