Mother’s Day Proclamation

Sunday is Mother’s Day, which has often-forgotten antiwar roots.

One of the earliest calls to celebrate Mother’s day in the US came from Julia Ward Howe, a prominent American abolitionist, social activist, and poet, most famous as the author of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.”

In 1870, Howe’s issued the “Mother’s Day Proclamation” as a pacifist reaction to the carnage of the American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War.

It needs to be remembered:

Mother’s Day Proclamation

Arise, then, women of this day!

Arise, all women who have hearts,
Whether our baptism be of water or of tears!

Say firmly:
“We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country, will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs.”

From the bosom of the devastated Earth a voice goes up with our own.
It says: “Disarm! Disarm! The sword of murder is not the balance of justice.”
Blood does not wipe out dishonor, nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil at the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home for a great and earnest day of counsel.

Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace,
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God.

In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And at the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

Osama’s Legacy in the U.S (w/Photo)

Found this over at CopBlock.org, one of the most fearless law enforcement watchdog sites I’ve ever come across. This “standoff” was staged recently by the South Suburban Emergency Response Team (SSERT) in Oak Forest, Illinois in response to a call from a “concerned friend” that a man might be fixing to do himself in with a gun. Turns out the man in question wasn’t home, but watching the entire thing from a bar stool at Beggar’s Bar. Says Copblock, ” Who can blame him for not telling the police, ‘hey, I am down at Beggar’s Bar’ when he can see on T.V. that several heavily armed men and their itchy trigger fingers have come to do what at most should have been a ‘wellness check.'”

Employees at the bar finally called when the news showed the 50 officers surrounding the property breaking the windows and inserting pepper spray into the home.

More from CopBlock:

When it became apparent that (Mark) Fitch was not in the house the media began to call the whole thing a “hoax”, pinning the blame for the botched operation on Fitch, but even Chief Anderson explained that “He didn’t actually dupe us. He just was not in the house at the time when we thought he was based on the information – the best information we had at the time.” …..

…Despite the fact that even the Chief of Police has stated that Fitch did not commit a crime, the mayor and many residents want him to pony up for the cost of the standoff.  Estimates for the whole thing have been anywhere from $10,000-$75,000, mostly because of overtime pay for police officers.  Courts have rule over and over that the police have no obligation to protect someone, but bureaucrats like Mayor Hank Kuspa seem to think that when they do decide to respond to a call for help, even in the most ridiculous, over the top fashion, the person they were sent to help somehow has a obligation to pay for the cost of that response simply because he was not where the police believed him to be.

I suspect that their outrage is less about taxpayer’s money and more about the fact that the police looked foolish, not because of anything Fitch did, but because of their own over zealous use of their fancy toys.

Fancy toys indeed, the proliferation of which we have seen all over the country, in towns big and small, beginning during the Clinton administration when all that money started flowing through COPS (Community Oriented Policing) grants. It really surged with a vengeance after 9/11 — now law enforcement really had a reason to play Navy SEAL and G.I Joe. If you think it’ll ever go back to the way it was — 9/11 mastermind or no — we have a modest family home to sell you in Abbottabad.

We Got Him — Time to Bring the Troops Home

Even before we knew the details surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden, his demise was being hailed as the “end of an era.” The Global War on Terrorism, which we’ve been fighting for the last decade in several theaters simultaneously, has been defined in terms of catching and killing this iconic figure. Now that he’s dead – with the US reportedly in possession of the body – can we declare victory and go home?

Of course not. You didn’t think the Powers That Be would let us get off quite so easily, now did you?

In his speech to the nation, the President twice cautioned that this doesn’t mean the end of the fight, and the pundits have followed through, declaring that “of course” the battle isn’t over. Aside from all the chest-thumping and victorious howling rising from the crowds, and the politicians who delude them, the sudden absence of this devil figure — this looming spectral threat perpetually lurking somewhere in the shadows – leaves a gaping hole in the rationale for our eternal “war on terrorism.” A new devil will no doubt be found, but there aren’t many credible candidates, or at least none with the penumbra of menace surrounding the founder of al-Qaeda.

Bin Laden’s demise delivers a smashing blow to al-Qaeda – and, perhaps, a fatal one. For the succession to the leadership is now up for grabs, and this is one situation the jihadists have never had to face. Beheaded, the organization could very well be torn apart by an internal struggle, with various factions vying to claim the al-Qaeda franchise.

Even as we hear the familiar chants of “USA! USA!” and the talking heads on television assure us that this is the proof that we’re still No. 1, the political implications of this event do not bode well for the War Party.

A war-weary American public is preoccupied with issues of internal decline, and is no longer so easily frightened. The idea that we have to keep fighting in Afghanistan to destroy a leaderless and demoralized organization is not going to resonate. Al-Qaeda faces not only the death of its leader and founder, but the discovery of a massive organizational headquarters, no doubt filled with intelligence about the terrorist network, in effect has sounded al-Qaeda’s death knell. Sure, they may launch new attacks in an effort to show they’re still a force to be contended with, but these amount to the death rattle of the organization, as it splinters and falls to pieces.

What’s interesting is that the compound where bin Laden was hiding wasn’t in Waziristan, the “tribal” wildlands of Pakistan, but rather in Abbottabad, which is being described as an affluent suburb of Islamabad, the Pakistani capital. Although the President credited the Pakistanis with providing the initial tip that led to bin Laden’s death in a raid by US Special Forces, the fact that Abbottabad is known as a military town, the prime base of the Pakistan security forces – and that bin Laden was hiding in their very midst – is bound to cause friction between the two countries. The logical question is: how could the Pakistanis not have known? After all, the compound where bin Laden had taken refuge wasn’t exactly unobtrusive: eight times bigger than any structure in the area, and surround by extraordinary security – a high wall topped with barbed wire, no doubt manned by guards – it would have been hard to miss.

All that aside, however, the death of al-Qaeda’s founder, the author and chief perpetrator of the worst terrorist attack in US history, marks the end of what was, essentially, a war of vengeance. With bin Laden gone, the target of our rage is gone, and the desire for revenge sated. Our leaders are already telling us that this is no time to relax our efforts, but the missing  emotional charge of invoking the terrorist leader’s name will let much of the air out of War Party’s tires.

As a war-weary nation confronts the fact of its own bankruptcy, and faces internal problems the severity of which can no longer be denied, a war they told us was going to be “generational” at the very least is coming to an end – without anything really to show for it except the dead body of a single man, which we will now display to the world in a primitive demonstration of American power.

If the death of bin Laden can be counted a “victory” in the war on terrorism, then surely it is a Pyrrhic one. For all the chauvinistic posturing and the President’s invocation of the vaunted “unity” that supposedly blessed us in the wake of 9/11, the costs of pursuing and killing the terrorist leader have been dear. Bin Laden, in one of his messages, once boasted that he would bankrupt America, and indeed his prophecy is in the process of coming true. In response to 9/11, we launched two major wars and several less obtrusive military operations, rampaging through the Middle East and reaching deeply into Central Asia. It took us ten years, and trillions of dollars, to track down and eliminate a single man. Although we eventually got our man, who was the real winner in this battle?

In response to the events of September 11, I wrote a column entitled “Kill ’em — and get out!” Well, now we’ve killed him — and it’s time to bring the troops home, now.