Sometimes words remain appropriate, not only for the era in which they are spoken, but for multiple eras, and perhaps for the length of humanity’s struggle to overcome the worst aspects of our collective nature – greed, avarice, hypocrisy and the bondage of others to forward one’s own self interests – in other words, FOREVER.
Martin Luther King Jr.’s words of April 4, 1967 now known as the “Beyond Vietnam” speech are such words. They illustrate the depth of Dr. King’s comprehension that the Civil Rights Movement was a struggle of more than one race in one nation at one point in time.
These words, spoken exactly one year to the day before his assassination, are why some pause each January to remember and celebrate his life; while others are simply reminded of why he was, and continues to be hated by those attracted to power without compassion.
As the past three years when Royal Examiner has published these words on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, in this first month of 2020 we might again ask ourselves if our ongoing borderless, worldwide war on terror isn’t at least in part, a legacy of our collective failure to heed Dr. King’s words of April 1967?
And 53 years down the road from this speech as Central American Hispanic refugees fleeing chaos and anarchy in their own nations are increasingly lumped together with international terrorists and drug dealers for partisan political advantage, we must again ask ourselves one final question – how close to the “too late” moment Dr. King described in 1967 are we as a people and a nation today?
– Due to the speech’s length, some introductory comments and other details on the Vietnam era have been edited out – deletions are indicated by (…) and some points have been emphasized with bold highlights.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
I come to this great magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization that brought us together, Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” … The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one
…Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world … Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.
And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation’s history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history … For we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us …
“Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King?” “Why are you joining the voices of dissent?” “Peace and civil rights don’t mix,” they say. “Aren’t you hurting the cause of your people,” they ask?
And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live …
Since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the Poverty Program.
There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything on a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such …
My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettos of the North over the last three years, especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked, and rightly so, “What about Vietnam?” They asked if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted.
Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today – my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent …
Now it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read “Vietnam.” It can never be saved so long as it destroys the hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that “America will be” are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.
As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1964. And I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was also a commission, a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for the brotherhood of man. This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances.
But even if it were not present, I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me, the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the Good News was meant for all men – for communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the one who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this one? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?
… Finally, as I try to explain for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place, I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of son-ship and brotherhood. Because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned, especially for His suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them. This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation’s self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation, for those it calls “enemy,” for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.
And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula … They must see Americans as strange liberators … We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops … Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness … They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again, and then shore it up upon the power of new violence?
… At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called “enemy,” I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved … and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.
Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now.
I speak as a child of God … I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.
This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote: “Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism.”
The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit … and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing “clergy and laymen concerned” committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about … Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy.
And so, such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God. In 1957, a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution … It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments.
I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin … the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, “This is not just.” It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, “This is not just.”
The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them, is not just … America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood …
We must not engage in a negative anti-communism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice … It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries … A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional.
Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies … This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind … When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response … I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality … This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: “Let us love one another, for love is God”
…We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late … Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, “Too late.”
There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam is right: “The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on.” We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace … and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight … Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world …
As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:
Once to every man and nation comes a moment do decide,
In the strife of truth and Falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God’s new Messiah offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever ‘twixt that darkness and that light.
Though the cause of evil prosper, yet ‘tis truth alone is strong
Though her portions be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
And if we will only make the right choice, we will be able to transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace. If we will make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. If we will but make the right choice, we will be able to speed up the day, all over America and all over the world, when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.
Thoughts on the debate that black lives matter
There is no legitimate debate that black lives matter. Without capitalization, those words capture an issue of tantamount importance in today’s America.
But there is extreme cause to be concerned over Black Lives Matter (capitalized). If ever there was a wolf masquerading in sheep’s clothing, this is it. This is no Aesop’s fable. It is a treacherous strategy. If unchecked, Black Lives Matter will destroy the very people it feigns to help – black lives. And with them, the nation itself.
American black citizens have for decades been victimized by the very Democrat party they thought to be their shepherd. And now they are being victimized by Black Lives Matter. The ruse is racism. The reality has everything to do with destruction of America and little to do with racism.
For those who doubt that our nation’s black citizens have been victimized by the Democrat party, you need only review a bit of recent history. Democrats collect votes on promises. Once elected they fail to deliver. Between 1931 and 2016 the Democrat party held the majority in both houses of Congress for 62 years. Yet, year after year, city after city, the record is the same. Failure at education. Failure at crime control. City after city mired in debt.
So, if Black Lives Matter were truly about racism, about improving the lives of black citizens, they would direct their ire at the Democrat Party.
But BLM is not what it wants us to believe it is. Jeff Minick (Intellectual Takeout, June 22, 2020) peels back layers of deception. He writes, “The reality is that BLM is after power rather than justice, suppression rather than liberation, and class and racial warfare rather than peace.”
Minick, and fellow author Mike Scruggs (The Tribune Papers, September 28, 2016) lay bare the truth behind Black Lives Matter.
The violence and destruction we’ve seen in the wake of the George Floyd killing uses smoke and chaos to conceal BLM’s true objectives. Make no mistake. There is no excuse for police brutality. Our nation must face and address its law enforcement problems. Yet destruction of law enforcement agencies in an attempt to rectify abuse is nothing short of insane. We’ve already seen black citizens suffer still more from lack of law enforcement owing to diminished police presence. Were these citizens in any way protected or aided by Black Lives Matter leadership?
The answer to that rhetorical question is “No.” And that is why we must return to revealing the reality of the BLM organization.
Here, along with my own reports, is some of what Minick and Scruggs have revealed, and what BLM has been concealing.
Black Lives Matter Global Network co-founder Patrisse Cullors is a trained organizer. “We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories,” she said, adding that the group’s founders sought to “build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk.”
Marxist? This fits well with the Democratic Party which embraces concepts such as ending capitalism, putting limits on speech and religious practices, and fundamentally transforming American laws, government, and society. But neither Black Lives Matter nor the Democrats recognize the truth about Socialism and Communism.
Socialism and Communism are merely labels. Even at its height, Russia was never a communist nation. It was an oligarchy hiding behind the communist label. The same is true for the Chinese Communist Party today. Minick put it this way: “Like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, also known as North Korea, Black Lives Matter is a fine name. And like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, that name is a mask hiding reality.”
Yet another reality behind the Black Lives Matter label is its cozy relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood and other Muslim organizations. “The Muslim Students Association (MSA), another Muslim Brotherhood front, recently joined BLM in a Chicago protest to disrupt a Donald Trump campaign rally,” Scruggs discovered.
Need more evidence? “In a December 2015 speech to the Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of CAIR, urged American Muslims to support the cause of Black Lives Matter, saying: “Black Lives Matter is our matter. Black Lives Matter is our campaign.”
So much is Black Lives Matter a Muslim agenda item of great interest that Muslims have been creating a Black Lives Matter Toolkit.
According to Margari Aziza of the Muslim Anti-Racism Collaborative, “I’ve helped facilitate roundtables on Black Lives Matter at ISNA, a panel at Mosque Cares. For almost two years, I’ve been curating the Black Lives Matter Toolkit.”
It is not at all clear how Black Lives Matter members see the benefit to American black citizens given this Muslim Brotherhood goal: “Their primary stated objective is to bring the whole world under Sharia Law.”
What is clear is this: the next time we see a Black Lives Matter poster we ought to think long and hard how that organization plans to solve America’s problems with racism.
I study history because I think we can benefit from learning from mistakes of those before us. Why make mistakes that others have already made? It may seem odd to look at the Middle East, a region that has struggled with freedom and peace. Yet, historically speaking, I believe there is something we can learn from them that might benefit us here.
Since the death of the Prophet Mohammed, the Middle East has split into two warring camps, the Sunni and the Shia. The original conflict was over who should have taken over leadership of the Ummah, or community of the faithful. The next few decades were strife with wars over this issue of succession.
Jump ahead to WWI and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, which led to the formation of several new nations. One such nation was Iraq. At first Iraq was placed under the leadership of King Faisal of the Hashemite Family who led the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans. Faisal governed fairly between the Shia and Sunnis in his realm. However, the Hashemite rule was ousted in 1968 by the Ba’ath Party that included Saddam Hussein. Hussein, a Sunni, turned on the Shia population, treating them as second-class citizens and subjugated them to all manner of hardships, including torture and death. Experts estimate that Hussein may have killed up to half-a-million of his people, mostly Shia and Kurds.
Finally, in 2003, when the United States declared war on Iraq, the Hussein regime was toppled. The U.S. has allowed the once oppressed Shia to take over leadership of the government and the militia. What is now happening is Shia oppression of the Sunni. This oppression, however, is much less than the decades of pain and murder by the Sunni towards the Shia. In some ways, the Sunni possibly deserve to know what it feels like being oppressed. I completely understand the Shia’s treatment towards their past oppressors. However, though perhaps justifiable, what has it done for the nation and the people? Not only is there no peace in Iraq, but the Sunni began to fight back with the creation of the Islamic State.
I have no idea what it feels like to be oppressed, and some may think I have no right to speak on this subject. However, speaking as a historian, it is difficult to find examples of where any type of reprisal or revenge has helped anyone. It is easier said than done, but the best way I can think of to help any situation of historic oppression is some type of forgiveness. If the oppressor can honestly repent and recognize its wrongs and the oppressed can offer historical forgiveness, maybe not only can we see peace in areas like Iraq, but here also.
When I see the Governor of Virginia taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee from the famed Monument Alley, I can‘t help but think just because you can does not mean you should. How does angering the other side, make anything better? Yes, the Confederacy was wrong. Yes, removing a monument is in no way comparable to treatments Black Americans have endured. But what will it accomplish? Will it make race relations better? Can you say you want peace while purposely provoking the other half of the population to anger, even if justified? I try to understand how this will be hard, but if somehow we can find a way to practice historical forgiveness, perhaps we can find a way for all sides to work together in the future.
A friend recently gave what I saw as a good suggestion. For a compromise, why not leave the statue of Lee in place while also erecting a monument of a slave having her child torn way and sold. That would be a powerful monument and could help tell a painful history. If we don’t want to follow the pasts of other nations, compromise and forgiveness may be our only chance for real peace. We need to work towards racial reconciliation, not racial revenge.
Abraham Lincoln, in his Second Inaugural, noted that the four years of the Civil War resulted in the greatest violence in American history, and called on everyone to forgive each other: “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation’s wounds…to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.” If those who actually fought against the Confederates can forgive, why can’t we 150 year later?
Dr. James Finck is an Associate Professor of History at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma and Chair of the Oklahoma Civil War Symposium. Follow Historically Speaking at www.Historicallyspeaking.blog or Facebook at @jamesWfinck.
Response to Mr. Kushner: Race is a difficult and complex topic
I am writing in response to the letter from Gary Kushner, published on June 16. Although he seems to have made up his mind that “liberal arguments mostly can’t stand on their own,” I will take him at his word that he plans to give “full consideration to all responses” from his fellow Americans.
Race is a difficult and complex topic. As a White person, it has not been easy for me to learn and talk about race and racism. It has not been easy for me to accept that my perceptions and experiences are not universal, that racism (often in subtler forms) is still commonplace, and that even when I have nothing but good intentions, my words and actions can still harm others.
And guess what? Because I’m White, and because most of the people I know are White, I am almost always able to avoid thinking and talking about race! It’s very easy for me to assume that a person is exaggerating when they describe an experience that doesn’t conform with my perception of the world. If that person is different from me and holds different political views, it makes it that much easier for me to dismiss them.
But if you are willing to genuinely consider the perspectives of others, I encourage you to seek out information about systemic racism and the very real role it still plays in our society. To cite one example from your letter, I encourage you to look into the history of the Black Congressional Caucus, the Black College Fund, and the NAACP. These and many other Black organizations were formed when segregation and “White only” organizations were still legal and commonplace in this country (or they were formed in the wake of the Civil Rights Act, when Blacks still faced significant opposition to being considered full, equal citizens—after all, it’s not enough to pass a law, it must be enforced). These organizations continue to exist, and newer organizations like Black Lives Matter are being formed, because race-based inequality still exists today. It exists today not only because some racist policies still exist, but also because the legacy of segregation, housing and job discrimination, and other widespread forms of racism have long-lasting impacts (if you doubt this, consider the role that generational wealth often plays in people’s economic lives—just growing up in a home that your parents owned can make a huge difference, and redlining made this impossible for many black families).
I encourage you to consider that it’s not automatically racist for an organization to have the word “Black” in its name—rather, these organizations are evidence of the racism against Blacks that existed for a very long time, and sometimes still exists, despite the progress that we have made as a nation. If a Black person tells me that they still face discrimination, I will listen to them. If a Black person tells me that their life matters, I will affirm that statement unequivocally, rather than insisting that we put equal focus on the fact that my life matters, too. I am willing to acknowledge and talk about race and racism even though it feels divisive and uncomfortable, because I know that while I have the ability to just ignore race, Black folks (and other people of color) don’t.
Being willing to listen to others and acknowledge that my own perspective is limited doesn’t mean that I agree completely with every policy being advocated. You can be liberal, conservative, or centrist and still care about racism (I suspect that not everyone would agree with me on that, but I welcome other perspectives). You can develop a more sophisticated view of race and understand that while anyone can be subject to individual discrimination and all humans have prejudices, systemic racism is about deeply ingrained power structures and economic patterns that are unlikely to disappear on their own.
You can also continue to not think about or learn more about race and racism, in which case you probably won’t notice it very much, and others’ claims of racism will probably continue to seem exaggerated and unreasonable to you.
Front Royal, Virginia
Another ‘Thank You’ to local law enforcement for its community policing
A couple of weeks ago, a friend told my wife this true story, based on self-experience.
“The lady had just brought her dog home after major surgery. The dog went downstairs and opened its stitches. She found the dog downstairs bleeding to death. It died in her arms. She did not want her daughter coming home to the scene, but also did not know how to move an 80-pound dog.
She called the Front Royal Police and soon admitted an officer. He was very happy to help and told her so. The officer gently placed the dog’s body in his car, asked her where she would prefer it be taken. With her following, he then took the dog’s body to where she asked. He was respectful, solicitous, and considerate the entire time. He told her that the entire force was there to serve the community.
After hearing this story from my wife, I had to ensure that the Front Royal Police Department be thanked. The Police get a lot of bad press, mostly because of a small number of bad apples. I wanted to make sure they were thanked for their service, and got some positive press, for a change.
Front Royal, VA
A missing child search and a heartfelt ‘Thank You’ to local law enforcement
Last night, July 2, around 11 p.m., on a very starry night, the sound of a chopper circling and circling over the High Knob Community broke the stillness.
A check of Facebook group pages revealed a 3-year-old child had gone missing. The mother informed us her baby had presumably followed the dad who had taken the family pup outside for a late evening relief. When the parents discovered the child was missing and couldn’t be found, they called for help and our local deputies responded in a hurry.
In addition to sweeping the area and calling in a search and rescue helicopter, nearby concerned neighbors turned on their yard lights and looked for the missing child. While the outside work was underway, a thorough search of the home was undertaken. And there that 3-year-old was, hidden under a pile of blankets playing hide-and-seek.
What a relief!
So we have a happy ending. The deputies were able to go home, neighbors headed back to bed, and we were all secure in the knowledge that a cherished child was safe.
A big thank you from a neighbor to all the deputies who jumped to help find a missing child, and to the officers who were flying the search and rescue helicopter. That’s a job with some big risks over mountainous terrain. I happen to know the local police department and sheriff’s department spend a lot of their resources in looking after our vulnerable children and teens. If we can get better mental health services throughout the Commonwealth, the schools to jails pipeline could be broken, and lives mended.
Please if you see a police officer or sheriff’s deputy, thank him or her for being ready to serve, protect, and rescue the most vulnerable in our community. Right now they need to know we appreciate their service very much. And yes, indeed, there are some things that need fixing. Nonetheless, if we all work together, every mother’s child will be safe.
High Knob, Warren County
What are American values?
Today, we have many debates over the values of Americans. We disagree on some, but some ring true to most:
Human dignity: Every human being is entitled to what our founders called life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The rule of law and equal justice: The powerful person will not be allowed to escape the law. The accused person must have the right to face accusers, state his case, and be judged by fellow citizens. No one person or group of persons should be exempt from facing justice or winning justice. The mob does not determine guilt, innocence, or punishment, but only by due process of law can a person be found guilty or innocent.
Respect for women: The empowerment of women is visible everywhere, from business to academia. In every walk of life, women should have the same rights as men.
Private property: This fundamental belief reaches into every aspect of our lives. We can start a business by hanging out the shingle. Our home is our own. Our property is sacred. And tucked into this notion of private property is ultimately the idea of ownership of your ideas and work.
Free speech: Free speech is one of the most radical ideas in history. The common man can criticize the government; the powerful man can do the same. Each should be able to do so equally and without restrictions.
Religious tolerance: For centuries, the king’s religion was yours. Period. But free people today recognize freedom of conscience and religion, to believe or not as they will.