What I Learned This July Fourth
from Premier Bill Clin-tong
20 July 1998
The Ultimate Symbol at Beijing
Reporter David Westphal (Bee Washington
Bureau chief; Standing at the edge of history,
The Modesto Bee, 27 June 1998, page 1) wrote
that Bubba's Beijing Homecoming was
"steeped in symbolism -- an American
president honoring his host's demands...."
Westphal mentioned Clinton "putting his
hand over his heart at the playing of the
national anthem," but failed to observe
the most telling symbol in the entire ceremony:
Halfway through the Star Spangled Banner,
while C-SPAN's camera cut away to show
the goose-stepping soldiers whose honor
he was receiving, the president dropped his salute!
This unprofessional act is unworthy of a
Commander-in-Chief. It insults our flag
and our nation. It reveals half-hearted
loyalty to our nation and its Constitution.
Its symbolism matches the reality of the
worst of anything Clinton has done.
It says a lot about Clinton, that nobody
I've told about this has expressed surprise.
The act is so typical of Clinton, that none
even challenged my observation!
Correction: There was one indication of
surprise. One thought I was "going to say
that the Commander-in-Cheat had reached
down to adjust his zipper."
With this president's history, you never know....
Perhaps he thought one salute was enough.
To me, the flag and the anthem don't stand for
the govern-ers. It stands for the concepts laid
out in the Constitution. It stands for people like
my dad, whose coffin it draped; people who risked and
gave their lives to secure our right to make such
a mess out of things.
So our flag and anthem I will salute; while to our
president I will reserve a salute of another kind.
|
What I Learned This July Fourth
from Premier Bill Clin-tong
Richard Wheeler
11 July 1997
Today's text comes from the opening paragraph of
Premier
Clin-tong's July Fourth weekly radio address,
5 July 1997.
(Hush! Respect, please! The Premier pontificateth!)
Good morning. We come together this weekend
to celebrate Independence Day, our 221 years of freedom
and the fundamental values that unite us as one America:
All of us should have an equal chance to succeed, and
all of us have the same obligation to work hard,
to be law-abiding citizens,
to give something back to our community to earn
in our generation the freedom our Founders established.
Has my mind focused on the wrong parts
of that opening paragraph?
[T]he fundamental values that unite us as one America: . . .
all of us have the same obligation to . . .
give something back to our community to earn in our
generation the freedom our Founders established.
Golly, I'm glad Premier Clin-tong straightened me out.
Here I was, under the delusion that life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness were unalienable rights established by
the Creator. I speak not in this context of the defense of
freedom, but of its source. Now I understand how the
inhailinati are able to take such good, maternal care of us:
Since our rights were established through the founding of
our government, they can also be taken away by the same
government when we insufficiently give something back
to the village.
But now I'm in trouble. I started thinking.
Our Founders established their freedom with their blood.
Yet, since we must earn it anew, freedom must, by the
premier's reasoning, not be inheritable. At least, if it is
inheritable, our freedom must have been taxed away like
our income; otherwise it would not have required
replenishment. Our freedom, as originally established,
then, was not so much a 'purchase' by the blood of the
Founders, as it was a rental. And our kindly landlord
is. . . the village government. And the something
which the Paramount Liar would have us give back to
the Village Masters is merely time, money, and freedom. . . .
Now, here's where the trouble erupts -- I need help!
Just as there are haves and have-nots,
the Leading Lia-, I mean, Lawyer has made me realize
that there are earns and earn-nots.
Since our Founders were unable to earn our freedom
-- for we must earn it anew -- it stands to reason that,
likewise, earns are unable to earn freedom on behalf
of earn-nots. Yet, a great portion of
earns' contributions to the village are being
transferred to the earn-nots.
That is, earns
have the least freedom while earn-nots
have the most. Indeed, those who earn
their freedom have been enslaved by those who ignored
its responsibilities. I. . . I. . . I. . . am so conflicted!
I am tempted to pray -- obviously, such supplications
should go to our great Premier, for he has just taught
us that the giver of Liberty is not the Almighty Father,
but Big Brother -- that neither my generation, nor my
daughter's, nor her children's, ever has to pay as
much for liberty as did the Founders. For the entity
with whom the Founders warred to establish their
liberty was an overbearing, meddling government.
And the price was their blood.
|