Quantcast
Religion

Atheist Marines Challenge Camp Pendleton Cross

article image

If atheists have their way, U.S. Marines can fight for freedom--they just can't exercise it. That fact was made painfully clear last week, when four Marines climbed a steep hill at Camp Pendleton on Veterans' Day, determined to build a tribute to their fallen brothers. They brought a cross, 13-feet tall, to replace one that was lost in a wildfire in 2003. "We wanted them all to know that they'll always be in our hearts, that they'll never be forgotten," said Staff Sargeant Justice Rettenberger. Unfortunately, what they'll most be remembered for is sparking another controversy over religious expression on government property. The Marines spent two hours physically carrying the cross to the peak, and that same day, the Los Angeles Times published an inspiring story about their climb and the heroes they dedicated it to.

That drew some unwanted attention from a group called the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (MAAF), which demanded the cross come down. Its location,they argued, "makes us feel like the federal government privileges Christianity over non-Christians like us, makes us feel like second-class citizens." In the Marines' defense, Camp Pendleton said the men were "acting as individuals, not as representatives of the military." Even so, the base's officials did agree to review the matter internally. Unfortunately, this is the effect of an administration intent on driving faith out of the public square. The families who lost so much are forced to lose more: the honorable expression of their sacrifice. I commend these young Marines for commemorating those who've given their lives in the effort to obtain and preserve freedom for others. I've climbed those hills at Camp Pendleton and getting a cross to the top of them is no small challenge. Sadly, the greater challenge is to ensure radical secularists don't crucify on the cross of political correctness the freedoms won by the heroic efforts of the men and women who serve.

Get More:
 

Comments

athensguy's picture

If I was a dead Marine, I

If I was a dead Marine, I wouldn't want to have a torture device put up to "commemorate" me.

jaycanadian's picture

Hi all. I thank you all for

Hi all. I thank you all for the posts and to those who really made me think there for a moment and expressed my views. Experience in the trenches, so worth its weight in gold, in the classroom.

jaycanadian's picture

As I have thought about it

As I have thought about it and being a Freethinking Atheist, I too commend these young Marines for commemorating GOD's wrath that inspired those who've given their lives in the effort to kill as many as possible in GOD's NAME to obtain a body count that is worthy of GOD's praise and preserve their Christian GOD's freedoms for others they deem worthy and drilling a 13 foot Cross into the ground to inspired fear into their fellow soldiers, as well as their enemies. I've seen those hills at Camp Pendleton and getting GOD's killin' Cross to the top of them was no small challenge, especially with all the weight of the blood that it was been soaked in the Cross, over the centuries. Sadly, the greater challenge is to ensure radical Christian soldiers, don't soak the ground by crucifying everyone who disbelieves or even questions the massacres marked by a Christian Cross throughout history. It's bad political correctness, when dealing with the freedom of religion issue, of which has been fought and won by the heroic efforts of the men and women who served; they did so -- in order for one to keep one's faith, along with one's freedom to be free of faith. So to all you non-Christian America soldiers, if you don't like a 13 foot Christian Cross rammed down your throat and without your consent -- tough, if you don't like it, you can move to France.

chuck1al's picture

Jaycanadian...I'm sure all

Jaycanadian...I'm sure all the non-christian solders who sacrificed their lives for freedom would be proud of you undemocratic response.........Your bigotry and hate are without parallel................In America if we don't like something we don't run away, as I suppose they do in Canada, we fight and change it..................................... That's why America had to pull your sorry asses out of the Germans clutch in WWII and WWI..................What short fucking memories you cowards have.

Chuck

jaycanadian's picture

Heads up on a little history

Heads up on a little history lesson. The republic of the United States of America is what it was setup as, exactly when did the USA become this 'DEMOCRACY' you speak of? I am not a bigot, nor do I have hate in me -- I speak facts as evidence, simple look into the history of the 'Spanish Inquisition'(1478 - 1834), in the 1700s a 100 Protestants were burnt at the stake, for not being Christian enough, but hey 'What Do Christians Need With Actual Facts'. Well let me see, another history lesson, the Mighty USA started a war with a bunch of rice eating, Third World Vietnamese, and had those rice eaters, kick the USA's ass out of the country on April 30, 1975. Another history lesson - in the WWI, the Germans referred to the Canadian soldiers, as 'Stormtroopers' and second, the USA didn't show up until the last year of the war. As for WWII, the Canadians were the only ones to fully secure their assigned beachs on June 06, 1944, the USA didn't. Unlike the USA who starts and loses wars, Canadians let others start wars and we come, put the fear of their 'GODs' in them and kick their asses all the way back to Berlin. And don't even get me started on the current 'War on Incompetence' the USA is currently engaged in. We American soldiers are afriad to go into those big scarey caves -- CALL THE CANADIANS, when you want something done right -- call real soldiers to get the real jobs done. When any American soldier has a hang nail - he gets a purple star. Also, educate yourself in actual history BOOKS, not what you saw at the movies.

chuck1al's picture

jaycanadaian.............The

jaycanadaian.............The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in each U.S. state in the name of "The People"...............................................................The United States Is a "Representative Democracy"..................................................................This is very easy information to find for an American, I guess Canadians are DUMB-ASSES.

Chuck

TheCatholicHeretic's picture

Do a quick search on

Do a quick search on 'Canadian government cover ups' on Google. I got 185,000,000 hits. Chemical spills, radioactive leaks, salmon virus and the list goes on. I'm sure you could replace 'Canadian' with any country and get hits because we are all humans and make mistakes. Injustice is not exclusive to the USA but it is exclusive to man. No one is worthy, not one of us. Even Mother Teresa of Calcutta would have told you that....and one more thing...I expected a rendition of 'Oh Canada' after your soap box speech. :D

The Catholic Heretic

jaycanadian's picture

You seem to missed the point

You seem to missed the point of my response that the USA did not save Canada from anything during the First & Second World Wars. As for corruption, I would be the last person on the face of the earth, to defend any government -- ALL governments are corrupt, along with all the people that make up the government. If you want a response from me, as it pertains to the USA -- it would be the bullshit lies & propaganda campaign that the US of A, so the best at anything. It would like says the USA of the nice pedophile in the world, just because it uses lube & sexy voice.

So where will be no rendition of 'Oh Canada' because it is just more propaganda - the government has no duty to protect anyone and finally, I need no soap box speech because I expect the facts to speak for themselves. :D

chuck1al's picture

@ jaycanadian...Do you have a

@ jaycanadian...Do you have a diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder with paranoia?

Chuck

jaycanadian's picture

First, just because I cannot

First, just because I cannot prove they are going to pepper-spray me, doesn't they are not going to pepper-spray me. ....... NOTE: The use of pepper-spray is for self-defence and NOT as a deterant. ...... Have you not watched the news over the last few weeks - the beatings, pepper-spraying and the alike. ...... As for anti-social personality disorder with paranoia -- if you believe your government has a duty to protect you or your property -- you would be wrong and not because I wrote it. LOOK up court cases that state as such. Also, in general the system is corrupt because it acts in its best interest, over that of its people.

chuck1al's picture

@jaycanadian ....You

@jaycanadian ....You said..."if you believe your government has a duty to protect you or your property -- you would be wrong and not because I wrote it. LOOK up court cases that state as such"......................................................................................................

Making such a claim means you must prove your assertion, not that I must prove or disprove it....................................................................................................... I'm am only denying your assertion for lack of empirical evidence..............................................Now is the Time to put up or shut up.

Chuck

jaycanadian's picture

Hey Chuck, I understand your

Hey Chuck, I understand your position and I wasn't trying to side step providing proof, but in the past I have been accused that is my opinion or interpretation, as to the way I read things of a legal nature. ... I believe mainly because legalese is not the English language and sometimes one has to read in-between the lines. .......... BUT here are some examples - as I see it: .................. R. v. Godoy, [1999] 1 SCR 311 - 15. In Dedman, supra, at pp. 11-12, this Court held that the common law duties of the police (statutorily incorporated in s. 42(3)) include the “preservation of the peace, the prevention of crime, and the protection of life and property” (emphasis added). ...... the telling part is "the common law duties of the police" as in a Peace Officer, remember the police wear different hats at different times. The highest level the police can become is to actually remove their uniform and step beyond it to the same level as all men, as we are all charged with keeping the peace. ........................ R. v. Godoy, 1997 CanLII 557 (ON CA) - "From the statements above, I emphasize that the constables' duty to protect life is a "general duty". It is not stated to be limited to protecting the life of victims of crime." ..... the telling part is "a general duty", of which I see as meaning, well if the police can protect a victims life, but it is not strictly to protect his/her life. ........................... REGINA v. JASON GORDON LONGO ...... [22] The court's analysis at page 6 talks about the Police Services Act and what police should or should not do in terms of assisting people and preserving safety. And I was referred to that. Paragraph 16 specifically they talk about a 911 call, a cry for help, and they go on to say the court, and I quote: It may indeed be precipitated by criminal events, but criminal activity is not a prerequisite for assistance. The duties specifically enumerated in s. 42(1) of the Act –- And that is the Police Services Act. -- may or may not be engaged. ...... the telling part is "The duties specifically enumerated in s. 42(1) of the Act may or may not be engaged.", so the police have discretion to protect or not protect, as is outlined in the Police Services Act. So they are shielded by the colour of law, against legal liability. ................................ I have given (3) examples and the list could go on forever --- now this is the part where you are going to have to look up and investigate for yourself. Your interpretation may be different ... as is why I dislike giving such examples. I hope this meeting my obligation as facts as proof.

chuck1al's picture

@ jaycandaian......

@ jaycandaian...... Fourteenth Amendment was passed, which stated, in part, that:..................................................................................................

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Chuck

jaycanadian's picture

Chuck - true, very true,

Chuck - true, very true, unless ... you give your consent to the contrary and then it is valid to NOT be bound to the 14th Amendment. They trick you by using legalese, of which is not English and confusion to believe you are getting a lawful remedy. ....... My reasoning - 'One cannot sue on another behalf', so with that -- the fiction known as the STATE, cannot charge you for doing damage (loss, injury or harm) to me. ....... BUT by tricking you in to pleading - what you are really doing is waiving the deficiencies of the case, being brought against you. ..... Especially when you use a lawyer - you have heard it before, "We waive reading of the charges", of which means you consent to whatever was contained in those charges. ..... I don't know your level of understanding of the legal system, but I was in the mindset the government was honourable ... until I started looking into the system and found out that it is based on a fraud, so everything it touches, is a fraud by default. 'Once a fraud, always a fraud'.

chuck1al's picture

@jaycandaian......Just

@jaycandaian......Just explain how this trick works in real life, run me through it step by step. Or shut your mouth.

Chuck

CRW's picture

Hmmm... the people elect the

Hmmm... the people elect the governments in most countries, so are most people corrupt? Pretty silly thing to say. I assume by the anarchist icon, you believe in no government. Sorry... that was tried before and it didn't work. Set everyone "free" in the anarchist sense, and the streets will run red with victims' blood.

jaycanadian's picture

The propaganda runs deep in

The propaganda runs deep in this post. Okay then, if you classify yourself of a US citizen - you actually only vote within the District of Columbia, of which only has I believe is 3 electrial votes, so sctually no the people are not corrupt ==> the system is. Actually, that is an Atheist icon and second yes & no, I do not have any faith in the current governmental structure of, the mandatory providing of any service, at the end of the barrel of a gun. I believe in a very small & open market government. And that is a no to 'setting everyone free', as some want or need nanny, but for the rest of us, who don't need the Nanny State -- we can consent to work with one another. Also, as a final note - "in the anarchist sense, and the streets will run red with victims' blood", this is just baseless propaganda because of this simple fact - we currently have blood righting in the streets and a large portion of it, is created by our Public Servant, those agents of the government. There are only 3 real laws you have to follow: 1) DO NO HARM 2) DO NO DAMAGE 3) DO NOT USE FRAUD IN YOUR CONTRACTS. All other Statutes/Acts are just for control of the citizens, as the government has NO DUTY to protect the citizens -- the courts have ruled on this fact, timie & time again. **Simply put, if I don't want the services of government, then NO service should be provided to me, without my consent and against my will.

CRW's picture

You're living in the wrong

You're living in the wrong country if those are your beliefs. I don't think there's a place for you on the planet in fact.

jaycanadian's picture

Actually NO - they are not my

Actually NO - they are not my beliefs, they are unrefuted presumptions. ..... A US citizen is a legal title, of which only contributes to 3 electorial votes, within the District of Columbia. The government's agents do assault and kill people, of which has been & is documented. The system is corrupt because it is built upon a fraud - since a partial truth is a lie. The current governmental structure of, the mandatory providing of any service, at the end of the barrel of a gun -- you are threatened with everything. Examples - jury duty, show up or go to jail / keep of the public grass, or get fine and/or go to jail / pay taxes or you get fine and/or jail / etc. Question - who is the government to give you orders, if 'We the People' created the government. Maxim of Law - The created cannot become greater than its creator. (Ex. GOD and his children us -- we cannot beome bigger than God.) ...... I believe in a very small & open market government - this is exactly what the Founding Fathers created, in the beginning. ..... You have to be free, so you can not be 'setting everyone free', as some want or need nanny, but for the rest of us, who don't need the Nanny State. ..... Under the current governmental system people are beaten & killed, and some of those are done by our Public Servants. ........................................... The 3 golden rules to follow: 1) DO NO HARM 2) DO NO DAMAGE 3) DO NOT USE FRAUD IN YOUR CONTRACTS. ................. Proof - NOT one of the 10 Commandments is 'Those shall not Jay-walk', of which does no harm or damage to anyone, but just one of the useless Statutes/Acts on the books. Statutes/Acts are all about making money of the State. ............. DO NOT BELIEVE ME - look it up in case law - the government has NO DUTY to protect the citizens -- the courts have ruled on this matter.

chuck1al's picture

@jaycandadian...you

@jaycandadian...you said..."Actually NO - they are not my beliefs, they are unrefuted presumptions"....................................................................................................Who made these un-refuted assumptions?......................................You seem to base your whole argument on some mysterious person who made assumptions.............................................Don't you think that it would be wise to know if these assumptions are correct?

Chuck

jaycanadian's picture

Oh sorry Chuck, I wasn't

Oh sorry Chuck, I wasn't point a finger at you --- the unrefuted presumptions were the questions (presumptions) I asked the city's lawyer, the city's prosecutor and the Department of transportation manager. ........... I send them all Notices of my presumptions and they did not refute my presumptions, so I followed up with a Notice of Non-Response and Notice of Default, telling them that they have agreed with me, by their silence. ..... I gave them all ample time to respond and they didn't, so we have agreement on my presumptions. ....... I can only follow the Maxims of Law and specifically - 'He who is silent appears to consent', so I shall accept their silence as consent.

chuck1al's picture

@jaycandaian...You said-."he

@jaycandaian...You said-."he who is silent appears to consent".......Silence does not imply consent, if you remain silent in a police interrogation you are not consenting to their questions the same in a court room. In the USA we have a right to remain silent. Which means we nether approve nor disagree , we are silent on the subject.

Chuck

jaycanadian's picture

Hey Chuck, the Maxim of Law -

Hey Chuck, the Maxim of Law - "he who is silent appears to consent" ... is used when being accused of something and that accusation is not refuted. ... The City of Hamilton made accusation and I was seeking clarification, through the use of removing their presumptions, so I questioned their position and asked for their answers. ............ They made the accusation, I refuted, then I have the presumption of innocenece and they have the burden of proof. ....... It is different from - 'Silence does not imply consent', if you remain silent in a police interrogation. Maxim of Law - 'You are not obligated to arm your adversary'. Then you are not consenting to their questions, the same as when in a court room. ..... The plaintiff always has the burden of proof. In both the USA & Canada - we have a right to remain silent and to refute our accusers. ............... The plaintiff cannot make accusations, without meeting their burden of proof, though facts and legally admissible evidence. So they cannot remain silent and stop the accused from putting on a proper defense.

chuck1al's picture

@jaycanadaian....This isn't

@jaycanadaian....This isn't Canada.

Chuck

jaycanadian's picture

It doesn't really matter US,

It doesn't really matter US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand => as they all date back the England and Roman English law, along with Common Law. ... The only things that are different are some of the words used. .... Example - Canada & England call it a Warrant Card - in US it is call Police Creditials. The same for offence and in US is called an indictment. ..........Part of the propaganda trick is getting us to believe there is a big difference. Also, the government hides behind presumptions. ..... As I stated in my earlier post, for me I was removing their presumption that the City of Hamilton is the same as Hamilton city. These are to totally different things. As it would be for you -- your City of Whatever is a body corporate - a corporation, of which is not to be confused with Whatever city, of which is a geographical area. ......................As the Police & courts - is there jurisdictional authority limited to the City of Whatever? When by their own admission, they cannot have any authority over Whatever city because it is not the same thing. ................. Example - when you send a letter, you write Houston, Texas - not - the City of Houston, State of Texas. ........ unfortunity the rabbit hole really goes much further down.

CRW's picture

Let's set things straight.

Let's set things straight. 90% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles/160 KM of the US border, 60% of all Canada's combined exports/imports are with the US, the economy of Canada is smaller than that of California, and the Canadian population is 1/10th that of the US. When watching Canadian news 30-50% of the stories are about the US, while in the US news Canada gets a mention at most a few time a month. As far as the US population is concerned, CANADA DOESN'T MATTER! Historically, Canada goes down as an afterthought. In WWII, Canada lost 45k people, while the US lost 416k. In WWI Canada lost 65k people, while the US lost 116k. The US has always contributed more, sacrificed more, and had a larger impact than Canada. Canada is one the US most important allies, but for all intents and purposes it is like a whiny younger brother who feels continually overshadowed by its big brother to the south, while the big brother really couldn't care less. This being said the US and Canada in directly tied to each other and interdependent. I think there is plenty to criticize about the US, and there is within Canada. Due to the size of the US, our mistakes are much more impactful and we can make mistakes that Canada wouldn't have the resources to make.

Sniping and saying who is better than whom is nothing but meaningless blather. The US and Canada are tied now and forever.

jaycanadian's picture

Let's supply you with facts.

Let's supply you with facts. YES - 90% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles/160 KM of the US border because to is warmer to the south, so just because a fictional line on a map says USA - it could be Iraq for all that it would matter. YES - 60% of all Canada's combined exports/imports are with the US, ITS JUST GOOD business to cut shipping costs, so if Iraq was next door, we would sell them our stuff. Yes - the economy of Canada is smaller than that of California because the Canadian population is 1/10th that of the US. YES - Canadian news 30-50% of the stories are about the US because that is where most of the corruption, cover-ups, propaganda and political entertainment is. YES - the US news only give Canada gets a mention at most a few time a month because the Americans prefer reality shows and have attention spans of nano-seconds. YES - As far as the US population is concerned, CANADA DOESN'T MATTER, well except for our natural resouces, oil, paper, wood, etc., along with entertainers and news men, of course! YES - In American view of history, Canada goes down as an afterthought because Brittany Spear vagina and what famous stars just got married/divorced, you know, the pointless shit in life. YES - in WWII, Canada lost 45k people, while not entering until 2 years later, the US lost 416k -- this goes back to my earlier post about Canadian being better soldiers. YES - in WWI Canada lost 65k people, while not entering until 3 years later, the US lost 116k -- this goes back to my earlier post about Canadian being better soldiers. YES - the US has always contributed more to killing non-Christians and putting more people in American run concentration camps, sacrificed more people's rights, and had a larger impact than Canada because we are a humble and formidable opponent. YES - Canada is one the US most important allies, but for all intents and purposes America is like a whiny big brother who feels continually overshadowed by Canada's good rapport that our big brother to the north does not have. So sniping and saying who is better than whom is not what I do, but more of what we have done better, as it pertained to a lack of historical accuracy of WWI & WWII, the one poster - posted earlier.

CRW's picture

Here's a few other key

Here's a few other key differences: Canadian Nobel Prize Winners -> 20. US Nobel Prize Winners -> 333 and counting. Number of Canadian patents ->89233. Number of US patents -> 2312272. Even accounting for the population size, the US has produced 1.5x more Nobel prize winners per capita and 2.5x more patents. Many more Canadian students come down to the US for a superior university education than students from the US go to Canada. Even when it comes to entertainment, the CBC puts a restriction on all Canadian radio stations so that they play a fixed percentage of Canadian music so that Canada's musical culture isn't completely overshadowed by music from the US. Last year, Canada produced 81 feature films, many of which were funded by US studios while the US produced 520. In terms of personal wealth, the US is second only to Norway, while Canada is a distant 17th.

There are many good things to say about Canada. I think the health system is better than the average coverage someone in the US receives. I think the primary education system is in general better. Canada in general has less violent crime and takes better care of its poor. The downsides of the US are the price of American freedoms. Canada does not have the equivalent of the first amendment or some of the other criminal protections in the 4th and 5th amendments of the constitution. Canada does not have the equivalent of our 14th amendment.

Canada has reason to be humble - even accounting for population size differences the US outperforms Canada almost everywhere. Yup... the US was dumb enough to elect GWB - twice (I voted against him twice). Yup... Vietnam was a dumb war, but it was only an extension of what we did in Korea to try and slow the spread of communism in Asia. Yup... splitting the US effort between Afghanistan and Iraq was dumb too. I could go on, but I am sure you know the issues just as well as I do. After WWII, the largest single contributor to the rebuilding of Europe was the US through the Marshall plan. Every single country funded through the Marshall plan had economies stronger than before the war. The US's contribution to the rebuilding of Europe after WWII was much more per person than Canada's. The US now has partially normalized relations with Vietnam, and we are providing humanitarian and development assistance.

You can take a crap on the US, but performance-wise Canada isn't second to the US... it is very far behind even accounting for size differences.

Yes.. the US culture is sometimes gross and exaggerated, but our achievements more than make up for the crassness of some of our people.

jaycanadian's picture

I don't think I understand

I don't think I understand the point you are trying to make, but I shall take a shot at it. Patent numbers really, are all these patents really of use. The pay toilet has probably a patented idea, but has gone the way of the Dodo. Albert Einstein won the Nobel in 1921 & 1929, while in Germany, is he counted after the fact, when he moved to the US, just a thought. Don't even get me started on the CBC, just one of the many statements, I have made about government corruption & waste. Americans are easily entertained and rarely read, so more films would be needed. Americans worship Mammon, money is your GOD and the crap one can by with it. An intellectual idiot, with a grand house, fancy car and big bank account - is at the end of the day, still an idiot. The Canadian Constituation just simplified the legalese - Article 52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. AND Article 32. (1) This Charter applies: (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and (b) to the legislatures and governments of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province. Simply put - the Constitution is the supremem law of Canada and only applies to the government, its business and its agents. Therefore all statutes only apply to Public Servants, and NOT private citizens engage in private business. Who is the US to decide is Communism is adopted by other country? - is the question I would simply ask. The Marshall plan was not charity, it was about banking & profit making, then and in the future. Also, the US just bombs the hell out of everything and Canada uses precision strategic strikes/bombings. Vietnam really ... bomb the shit out of it and when 35+ years later, having a small rapport, that's just great, instead of letting them have open elelctions in the late 50s and NOT bombing the shit of them, which of course would be an opening to freedom -- of which the US stamps out, everything it wants to. And YES - "but performance-wise", the US kills more people, creates more wars, stamps out more freedoms, creates more financial crashes, pepper-sprays more of its citizens, puts more alleged criminals in jail/prison, lies to its people, perform more genocides against Native Americans, then there northern neighbour - Canada. And "Yes.. the US culture is sometimes gross and exaggerated, but our achievements more than make up for the crassness of some of our people" and if I don't believe you will designate me an enemy combatant and either jail me or kill me. "Oh, say! can you see by the dawn's early light".

chuck1al's picture

@ jaycanadian....The United

@ jaycanadian....The United States is a "Representative Democracy" the term was coined by James Madison in Federalist paper #10. The reason being the US Republic does not fit the classical definition of a Republic I.E. Roman Republic....................................................I think I've explained this at least 100 times on different and this forum and am a little tiered of correcting ignorant people who won't research their pitiful arguments........................................................Your quote.."USA didn't show up until the last year of the war". What you left out was they defeated the Germans at Belleau Wood, which won the war for the allies..............................................WW II in Normandy, the Canadians had a small section of beach to secure and the US Army had two large beach heads to battle, with the toughest one off them all.."Omaha Beach" Plus the US Airborne landed two Divisions behind the German lines........................................................................................You forgot to mention "Dieppe" The Dieppe Raid (Operation Jubilee) of August 19, 1942, landed nearly 5,000 soldiers of the Second Canadian Division and 1,000 British commandos on the coast of occupied France, in the only major combined forces assault on France prior to the Normandy invasion of June 1944. The air and naval support promised by the British did not materialize and as a result the Canadian forces assaulted a heavily defended coast line with no supportive bombardment and the unsupported raid was a disaster. While Dieppe did provide valuable information on the absolute necessity of close communications in combined operations, of nearly 6,000 troops landed over a thousand were killed and another 2,340 were captured.

Chuck

jaycanadian's picture

So what you are saying is,

So what you are saying is, one man James Madison, who coined the term "Representative Democracy", coverted the USA of which did not fit the classical definition of a Republic I.E. Roman Republic, into a democracy? This sounds more like a dictatorship, if one man is calling the shots. I will clarify - "USA didn't show up until the last year of the war" with - The well rested and big bank account filled from supplies sold for the war by the USA, didn't show up until the last year of the war, fully supplied with brand new equipment, supplies, men, vehicles and morale, that did defeat the battered, weary and braking German stronghold at Belleau Wood, which won the war for the allies. At which time. Captain Lloyd W. Williams uttered the now-famous retort "Retreat? Hell, we just got here", of which is very very true. As for WWII at Normandy, the rag-tag little Canadians had a little section of beach to secure and they secured it. As apposed to the Big & Mighty US Army which new equipment and vehicles, of which would only make sense to have had two larger beach heads to secure, but did not secure. As for Dieppe, both a badly planned and supported battle, but those Canadian still followed through, though with a horrible, but with an educated outcome, that helps secure sucess on D-Day.

chuck1al's picture

@ jaycanadian .....You said..

@ jaycanadian .....You said.. "So what you are saying is, one man James Madison, who coined the term "Representative Democracy", coverted the USA of which did not fit the classical definition of a Republic I.E. Roman Republic, into a democracy? This sounds more like a dictatorship, if one man is calling the shots". .............................................................................................NO THAT IS NOT what I am saying, read the Federalist paper #10, if you even know what they are, you MORON,........... James Madison and Thomas Jefferson where the main architects of the Constitution and it's Representative Democracy............................................ do the world a favor and get an education you sound like a fool.........................................You said..."As for WWII at Normandy, the rag-tag little Canadians had a little section of beach to secure and they secured it. As apposed to the Big & Mighty US Army which new equipment and vehicles, of which would only make sense to have had two larger beach heads to secure, but did not secure"......................................................So you just said the Nazis won the battle of Normandy....Ha Ha Ha...Your a first class asshole..................................Well of course Dieppe was bad planning, MORON, that's the whole point....Jesus what a fool you are.

Chuck

jaycanadian's picture

Sorry, I forgot to address

Sorry, I forgot to address the Madison & Representative Democracy issue, as I prefer to fully give my answer to other people's posts. .......... So here goes ... Federalist No. 10 (Federalist Number 10) addresses the question of how to guard against "factions," or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. Madison argued that a strong, large republic would be a better guard against those dangers than smaller republics - for instance, the individual states. .......................... Madison championed a republic, BUT only advocated for a representative democracy as a chose, over an opposed direct democracy, as he feared this would place a danger to individual rights in order to protect what he viewed as individual liberty from majority rule, or from the effects of such inequality within society. .......................... ** Madison, as quoted - “Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." ......... I hope this clears up my position and adresses your answers. ... Thanks.

chuck1al's picture

@jaycandaian....Just what did

@jaycandaian....Just what did you clear up?..... Also why was BUT advocated in all caps, did you think you had something. Ha Ha Ha.................................................................. Republicanism in the United States A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. This is known as representative democracy. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828. It was a novel meaning to the term; representative democracy was not an idea mentioned by Machiavelli and did not exist in the classical republics.

Chuck

jaycanadian's picture

That 'BUT' - has in reference

That 'BUT' - has in reference to your post above ...... "NO THAT IS NOT what I am saying, read the Federalist paper #10, if you even know what they are, you MORON,........... James Madison and Thomas Jefferson where the main architects of the Constitution and it's Representative Democracy". ...... Again, I do not understand the name calling, BUT I can only presume that was the way you were raised. ...... I shall simply take the righteous road and explain a true picture of historical fact. .................. Madison may have coin the phrase, but he only advocated for a representative democracy as a chose, over an opposed direct democracy. ...... He knew that democracy was dangerous and had a half-life, of which ends badly. ................. I do not think I can explain it more clearly -- maybe you need to fully read Madison's position again. ... Example - it would be like me choosing to be shot to death, over being burnt at the stake -- these are choses available, but I would much rather to died in my sleep, at a 109. .......................................................................... Also, as some pointed issues to be brought forth ........ In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." ...... A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group. ...... Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. ...... Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. ...... The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance. ...... The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. ...... The Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. ...... In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable. ...... Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626] ...... Finally, it is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom.

chuck1al's picture

@jaycandaian--............. I

@jaycandaian--............. I think this should put to bed your misinformed opinion of the USA's form of government..................Republic (redirect from Republic democracy) differs from that expressed in the United States Constitution which ... United States: This is known as representative democracy . ...............................................................................Politics of the United States during World War II The United States maintained its Representative Democracy government structure throughout World War II Certain expediencies were taken within the existing structure of the Federal government, such as conscription and other violations of civil liberties, and the internment and later dispersal of Japanese-Americans. Still, elections were held as scheduled in 1944........................................................Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people, as opposed to autocracy and direct democracy....................................................................................................While there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy',equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution................................................................................................... In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a central attribute...........................................................................Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. However, it is also possible for a minority to be oppressed by a "tyranny of the majority" in the absence of governmental or constitutional protections of individual or group rights. An essential part of an "ideal" representative democracy is competitive elections that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are considered to be essential, so that citizens are adequately informed and able to vote according to their own best interests as they see them. It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of individuals to participate freely and fully in the life of their society. With its emphasis on notions of social contract and the collective will of the people, democracy can also be characterized as a form of political collectivism because it is defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives................................................................................Democracy has its formal origins in Ancient Greece, but democratic practices are evident in earlier societies including Mesopotamia, Phoenicia and India. Other cultures since Greece have significantly contributed to the evolution of democracy such as Ancient Rome, Europe, and North and South America.The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages and the Age of Enlightenment and in the American and French Revolutions. Democracy has been called the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the globe. The right to vote has been expanded in many jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups (such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group), with New Zealand the first nation to grant universal suffrage for all its citizens in 1893. Democracy is often confused with the republic form of government. In some definitions of "republic," a republic is a form of democracy. Other definitions make "republic" a separate, unrelated term.

Chuck

jaycanadian's picture

As to the reference that

As to the reference that during, WWII at Normandy, the rag-tag little Canadians had a little section of beach to secure and they secured it. Which using your logic would mean the Canadian won the Battle of Normandy, over the Germans. But that is not what I wrote -- to be clearer, the US Army had two beach heads to secure, but did not secure, on the D-Day, but a few days later. While the Canadians secured their target and started the march to Berlin. ........ You do realize that name calling, is the first sign of a weak mind. As for Dieppe ... the attacking force consisted of 5,000 Canadians, 1,000 British, and - oh my GOD, 50 United States Rangers. I shall let the numbers talk for themselves. And by the way, don't call me Jesus or Shirley, for that matter.

CRW's picture

@chuck I can't tell, but it

@chuck I can't tell, but it looked like Jaycanadian was mocking the US and this post. It also looked like ShawninMO was doubling down by appearing to take it "seriously." This is why I hate text based communications....

@Jaycanadian -> what side of this issue are you on? Please be plain.

jaycanadian's picture

Let me be clearer. Any and

Let me be clearer. Any and all government agencies should be free of 'supported' religion. If a soldier wants to wear a cross, star of David and/or lucky rabbits foot, is his personal right, as I see it, long with him reading whatever religious books. To 'support' any religion by action or in this case in-action of raising a 13 foot cross, singles out some, be 1 soldier or 1000 soldiers, either way it brakes the unity of the whole. As for the USA versus Canada -- I am half mock & half serious, at most, I was pointing out the Canadian soldiers have accomplished a lot with very little, in the way of equipment and confidence of our Allies. As for corruption -- all governments are corrupt, for the single reason of their services are mandatory and provided at the barrel of a gun (be it real or invisible). As for WWI & WWII, the fact is the USA had newer, better, equipment & vehicles, of which contributed to their ability to kick more German asses. What got my goat was the snipe/propaganda issue of that the USA saved Canada and the Allies from doom -- I believe that the USA save more Allied lives by shortening the length of the wars, by their involvement. So, I hope my position & intentions are clear.

shawninMo's picture

Now that's the spirit. Canada

Now that's the spirit. Canada is closer for those that can only afford the bus.

I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.

chuck1al's picture

shawninmo....Why would anyone

shawninmo....Why would anyone want to go to the frozen waste land, its just a puppet of the USA.

Chuck

CRW's picture

Hmmm.... Sarcasm followed by

Hmmm.... Sarcasm followed by sarcasm? Love it or leave it. That's the spirit. Blind jingoism followed by a loud thump of the bible. Yup... that's what we need in the US. It has worked so well so far. Since only half the world hates us and cheers our decline, there's still half to go. Instead of the minutemen and patriots as our national mascots, we should change it to "crusaders." --> -sings loudly- !!Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before. Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe; forward into battle see his banners go!!!

jaycanadian's picture

Hey, if there wasn't any

Hey, if there wasn't any sarcasim in the world, the world would be a boring place. ..... Sarcasism keeps the wits sharp & quick. Also, it can make for such a better read.

shawninMo's picture

His comment was such a load

His comment was such a load of crap, that was all it deserved.

I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.

jaycanadian's picture

"a load of crap" said the

"a load of crap" said the witless man. ................... Maxims of Law - 'Many men know many things, no one knows everything.', 'It avails little to know what ought to be done, if you do not know how it is to be done.' & 'He who questions well, learns well.'

shawninMo's picture

So proposing that american

So proposing that american christian soldiers will "soak the ground by crucifying everyone who disbelieves" is "questioning well"?

I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.

chuck1al's picture

shawninmo....read my reply to

shawninmo....read my reply to jay...I repudiated everything false statement he made.

Chuck

Jerome McCollom's picture

Why is it that the Christian

Why is it that the Christian rightwing cannot understand that if the government is not endodrsing, promoting and stating their religious beliefs and religion is true, that does not mean they are being persecuted and having their rights trampled on. I am an atheist and a humanist. Where is the government stating my views are correct? Where is the government putting up atheist symbols (yes, there are some) on hilltops? Where is the government stating, "in no God we trust" on the currency? It's not and I don't want them to, either. There is no right, at all, none, dada, zip, nein, to put up a giant cross on a military base, because you want to. To even believe you have a right is absurd. Now, areas can be open up to a public forum but what are the odds these people who put up this cross would be fine with a Muslimm, atheist, Buddhist symbol on this hilltop. If you said, none or even a negative number because it would be lower than none, you would be right.

Jerome McCollom

chuck1al's picture

Percy Jackson has been

Percy Jackson has been blocked and banned for being a TROLL.

Chuck

edwinalyd's picture

There are definitely a whole

There are definitely a whole lot of particulars like that to take into consideration. That may be a great point to bring up. I offer the thoughts above as normal inspiration but clearly there are questions just like the one you bring up the place the most important factor can be working in honest good faith. I don?t know if greatest practices have emerged round issues like that, however I'm sure that your job is clearly recognized as a good game. Each girls and boys feel the impact of just a moment’s pleasure, for the remainder of their lives. Home Buisness enterozoa Rimonabant fda tapioca Ergophobia

Close x
Don't Miss Out! |
Like us on Facebook?