>Joe Hoyle (7 Aug 2004)
>"THE FIRST AMENDMENT"
 
>  HELLO AND GREETINGS TO EVERYONE
 
>  I've been doing quite a bit of reading and thinking lately on the Ten
>  Amendments of the Bill of Rights.
>  One reason is a sad looking back through history from where they came from,
>  up to the present, and to where this Republic has now come to, and which is
>  now coming close to the end.
 
To paraphrase Mark Twain "the rumors of America's demise have been greatly
exaggerated". You (and some others) may see nothing but doom and gloom for
the United States, but quite frankly - you're not in a position to second
guess the Mind of God. HE will deal with America as He will deal with every
nation on the Earth, and He will deal with all the nations as HE sees fit,
not as you or anyone else seems to think appropriate.
 
>  And then I've been thinking back to the late 60's and early 70's to the
>  Vietnam fiasco, which has now unfortunately reared its ugly head again
>  in this election year.
 
First of all Mr. Hoyle, Vietnam was never a 'fiasco' due to the lack of
fighting ability of United States Armed Forces. The Communists, whether
the regular NVA or their allies the Viet Cong guerillas, were never able
to engineer an actual military victory against American troops. Time and
time again, they were utterly hammered and destroyed by superior firepower.
 
What WAS a 'fiasco' was the lack of will on the part of the Lyndon Johnson
administration to unleash ALL of America's military resources in order to
achieve victory, and an unconditional surrender of the Communists. This was
due to fools like Robert McNamara, (just to name one) who micromanaged the
War, and refusing to follow the advice of professional military leaders.
 
President Nixon had actually salvaged what was a dire situation, and he did it
by applying superior American military strength, which is exactly why North
Vietnam and the Viet Cong agreed to begin peace negotiations. It was the
continued threat of U.S. force that kept those negotiations going. But in the
end, it did indeed end in a 'fiasco', but not the sort of fiasco you're referring to.
 
The 'fiasco' was ended in the Spring of 1975, when our former allies, the
SOUTH Vietnamese (you remember them don't you?) were stabbed in the back
by the 93rd Democratic Congress, which tied the hands of President Ford,
and even after the Communists in Hanoi violated the Paris Peace Accords,
crossed the DMZ, and invaded the South once again, Democrats in Congress
REFUSED to authorize funds and military support for the Saigon government,
and President Ford's hands were tied, and he was unable to take any legal
action to prevent Hanoi from seizing control of the entire country.
 
>   Below is the all important First Amendment:
>
>  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>  prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
>  or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
>  petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>  The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
>
>   No.......... "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"............
>
>   ABRIDGE- To shorten, to lessen, to diminish, to curtail, to deprive, to cut
>   off.
 
We get the idea Brother Joe.
 
>  Back during the Vietnam era, there were many people who had been hawks on
>  that conflict, who later on turned dovish.
 
What people are you referring to? Ordinary citizens? Elected officials? Media
celebrities? News personalities like Walter Kronkite? Could you be a bit more
specific there Joe?
 
>  There were many young people who refused to go to Vietnam from the get go.
>  Then there were ones who went, and became disillusioned by the whole thing
>  while there.
 
That is a sweeping generalization which is not supported by fact. Perhaps you
should label such statements as 'opinion'? Not ALL of those who went to serve
in Vietnam became 'disillusioned'. They were fighting for the cause of liberty
and freedom for our ally South Vietnam, a member in good standing of SEATO (the
counterpart to NATO, and when Hanoi attacked South Vietnam, America was bound by
the terms of the SEATO agreement to come to the defense of Saigon, as did other
members of SEATO - a fact that is often forgotten during discourses on Vietnam)
 
>  And then there were other veterans who themselves became disillusioned after
>  backing back, and as well as all through the ensuing years.
>  Those who became disillusioned had the right to speak out, and they did that
>  and still do.
 
Yes, everyone has the right to express their opinion, however many of those who
you call 'disillusioned' were not just disillusioned, they went out of their way
to provide aid and comfort to America's enemies during a time of war. Jane Fonda
went to North Vietnam, sat on top of an anti-aircraft gun for pictures, and she
betrayed American POWs who tried to slip messages to her, she passed those tiny
slips of paper to the Communists, who proceeded to beat those POWs savagely. As
for John Kerry, he aligned himself with, and became a leader in the subversive
group 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War', and was active in that group when it
was proposed by one Scott Camill that U.S. Senators who supported the war effort
should be assassinated, and suggested gunning them down in their Senate offices.
Coincidentally, the very same Scott Camill has been working in behalf of the
Kerry Campaign in Florida during THIS election cycle, and that is a matter of
public record. It also demonstrates the concept 'you are known by the company
you keep'. The fact is, the Communists encouraged their American fifth column
allies like Fonda, Kerry, Hayden, etc., to sow discord and doubt among the public,
because Hanoi KNEW they could not possibly prevail on the battlefield - therefore
they concentrated their efforts on the home front, and with the aid of their dupes
and willing accomplices, they were indeed successful. Perhaps you have forgotten
the riots, bombings, the murders of police officers and the robbing of banks for
the purpose of supporting the 'revolution' of those violent radicals who plainly
stated that their objective was the overthrow of the United States Government?
 
>  But that right is now fading as the U.S. Republic becomes more and more
>  police totalitarian like; as in Nazi, Communist, or whatever--take your pick.
 
Could you provide some examples of your alleged 'totalitarian' state? Perhaps you
could tell us which concentration camp Michael Moore has been locked up in? Oops,
what's that? He hasn't been arrested? Neither have the Dixie Chicks? You mean to
tell me that Whoopi Goldberg is still running around making vulgar jokes about
President Bush, that none of the people who are protesting the liberation of
Iraq, or the War on Terror, have been beaten with riot sticks, or pepper sprayed
into submission, or suddenly made to 'disappear' in the middle of the night?
 
Brother Joe, there are still many totalitarian states on the planet, but America
is not one of them. Perhaps you were thinking of some OTHER totalitarian state,
like Cuba, or North Korea, or Iran, or perhaps even Vietnam, where Christians
are routinely tortured and killed by the Communists even today? Surely you must
condemn such actions, do you not?
 
>  But back to Vietnam; it truly was a waste in human terms on both sides; and
>  there really was no good reason for it in the first place--unless you consider
>  the old guys like LBJ and other old geezers who got personally wealthy from
>  owning the stocks of the various war suppliers; and people have said
 
WHAT people Brother Joe? Name your source. Cite your reference. You are accusing
the 36th President of the United States of ramping up the war in Vietnam for the
purpose of making a profit. That alone, is libelous. Therefore, name your source.
 
>  that LBJ had a stock portfolio that made him very wealthy from the blood shed
>  of others and it all really isn't all that different from today.
 
Proof Brother Joe, Proof. Kindly supply it.
 
>   Fighting Communism was all a ruse for being there in the first place, and
>  staying there so long; but that's all crapola.
 
Do you deny that Communism was a threat to the free peoples of the world? As I
mentioned above, are you aware that the COMMUNIST regime of Vietnam kills and
tortures Christians as a matter of policy today? Are you not aware that the
faux hero John Kerry, after elected to the U.S. Senate, has done everything in
his power to protect the Vietnamese Communists from any penalties for violating
the human rights of Christians in that country?  Do you think that the genocide
of millions of Cambodians by the Communists was just a wild story dreamed up by
people who didn't like Pol Pot?  The entire region experienced a true holocaust
after the North Vietnamese consolidated their power and exported their violence
to their neighbors. Have you forgotten about the thousands upon thousands of
South Vietnamese who were arrested, (if not killed outright) and sent away to
're-education camps' where they were beaten and tortured for having been part
of South Vietnamese society, classified as "enemies of the people"?  You dare
to call that 'crapola' Brother Joe? What would Jesus call it, I ask you?
 
 
>  For me, I started to turn against the Vietnam conflict when I heard about
>  the death of Rickie Whitehead in 1969.Rickie and I grew up going to the same
>  church.
 
So because of the death of your friend Brother Joe, (is it alright for me to
refer to him as your friend? Just want to check first...), that caused you to
change your entire view of the rightness of America coming to the defense of
South Vietnam? I ask you this: if your friend Rickie had instead, died while
storming the beaches of Normandy on D-Day during World War II, would you have
suddenly decided that seeking the defeat of Hitler's Nazi Germany wasn't worth
it? What if Christians who witnessed the stoning of Stephen, even while, with
his dying breath, praised God Almighty, what if the Christians who saw and heard
of that, decided that following Jesus Christ "wasn't worth it"?
 
Now think about that, and see if you can see the slippery slope of your thinking
process - it isn't valid Brother Joe, and it shouldn't take me to point it out
to you.
 
>  I always admired him a lot because he never said a bad word against anybody,
>  and always tried to use words to build people up, rather than knock them
>  downAnd for that I would rate him right at the top of the best Christian
>  people I have ever personally known.
 
Have you considered that your decision to oppose America's involvement in
Vietnam, after your friend Rickie's death, actually dishonors his memory?
 
>   And I admire him, even today, because I know that I'm not like that, and
>  thats unfortunate for me; but that's the way it is.
 
Have you asked Christ to change your heart Brother Joe? Nothing is impossible
for Him. I encourage you to consider it.
 
>   I don't know why Ricky joined the Marine Corps in the first place, because he
>  really never seemed to fit in a mold like that.
 
It seems to me Joe, that you never really knew your friend and you were not
(and still are not) able to comprehend his beliefs and motivations, which I
must say sound very honorable to me.
 
>  But I don't think that he joined to kill and hurt people; but probably just
>  to be a patriotic American and grow up.All I know is that his death was a
>  waste in general; and if he died for anything, it was so the rest of us could
>  speak what we want to say and write what we want to publish, all without
>  retribution or being quenched or silenced.And as well as for the right of
>  being free and safe from slanderous and libelous assaults on our persons.And
>  that means everybody--and that's what I think.
 
So are you saying Rickie's death was a waste, or not? You are contradicting
yourself Brother Joe. And while I agree with you that people have the right,
as defined in the First Amendment, to express their opinions without fear of
being persecuted, with that right, comes responsibility. And that is clearly
defined in the Constitution of the United States, which precisely states in
Article III, Section 3:
 
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person
shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the
same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
 
The meaning of Article III, Section 3 cannot be interpreted any other way
except that Treason is clearly defined as:
 
1.) going to war against the United States
 
or
 
2.) giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.
 
Therefore, John Kerry clearly committed treason by lying in sworn testimony
that American military forces were responsible for heinous war crimes and
atrocities, charges that were NEVER proven. Kerry's statements were used
by the Communists in Hanoi as part of their psychological torture program
against OUR POWs being held. Kerry proceeded to support and embrace the
so-called 'Peoples Peace Plan' which was in fact drafted by the Viet Cong.
Kerry then violated U.S. Law which prohibits any private citizen from
entering into negotiations with America's enemies, when he travelled to
Paris to meet with representatives of North Vietnam and their allies the
Viet Cong. Kerry admitted to this:
 
"I have been to Paris...I have talked with both delegations at the peace
talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam [North Vietnam]
and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam
Binh's points . . . ." - John Kerry, testimony before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, to Senator William Fulbright, April 1971.
 
The bottom line to this Brother Joe, is that John Kerry's actions, and
the actions of those who foolishly followed him and others like him,
provided aid and comfort to the Communists, and the proof of that is
Kerry's picture, now prominently displayed in Hanoi in a 'war museum',
as they consider him a friend. That is not something to be proud of.
 
And in closing, retired Communist Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap was
feeling spry enough this past May Day to tell a few old stories and
jokes, and to express appreciation to the Communist fifth columnists
and anti-war subversives in America who helped undermine the U.S. war
effort. Giap, according to Reuters, said of those who protested,
marched in the streets, burned the U.S. Flag, threw their medals
and/or ribbons over the fence at the U.S. Capitol:
 
"I would like to thank them."
 
As I said about John Kerry - "one is known by the company one keeps".
 
Regards,
 
John Russell