Thank God Such Men Lived

ThinkerMore than 1.3 million Americans have lost their lives fighting our nation’s wars. On Memorial Day this year, before the barbeque grill heats up, take some time to remember them. Following the counsel of General George S. Patton Jr. take a knee and a silent moment and thank God that such people lived.

It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived. – General George S. Patton Jr.

Do you ever feel bone tired? Not physically tired like you feel after working many days straight with little rest, food, sleep or the comforts of home as our Soldiers often do. I mean the bone tiredness you feel when you have pounded your forehead day after day because you cannot believe what is happening to your country or the lengths to which people will go to embellish their resumes for political gain. You want to reach out and grab the pasty-faced political imbecile by his fat cheeks and shake his big head and ask him just who the hell does he think he is! You want to ask him why, knowing the real sacrifice that American Veterans and their families have made, would you pretend to be one of them? Why would you play on their sympathies and the hearts of real Americans by claiming solidarity with these warrior souls? Why? I expect we all know the answer. Sadly, such conduct is so prevalent that speaking out against its perpetrators sometimes has about as much affect as spitting into the ocean. I am approaching bone tiredness on this issue, but we cannot allow even one voice go silent when it comes to condemnation of these charlatans.

You see, politicians learned long ago that military service, especially combat service, Veterans, their families and serving Soldiers all make great political props. Richard Blumenthal is just another example. I suppose some ego-centric people have a need to fill a perceived failure in their lives with such embellishment. Or, their character is so flawed that lying about who they are becomes second nature. Likely, they are trying to expunge their guilt for the extraordinary efforts they made to avoid danger.

What is even more insidious are people like John Kerry. The man started his political career by casting dispersions on Vietnam combat Veterans. None of lies were ever supported with any evidence beyond his fictional Genghis Kahn speech. The military, the war, Veterans of the war, all of that was cast by Kerry in the worst possible light because, for the times, it was the political prop he needed to launch his leftist political career. Years later, when our nation was again at war, he played up his questioned combat service as a great asset. He was a hero, complete with Swift Boat movies tuned up by Spielberg. War was popular again. Veteran’s status was good. He was a thrice wounded combat hero, but not one of those he accused of lopping off ears and razing villages. He needed that honorable combat service, the political prop, to help him become Commander in Chief.

John Murtha was real proud of his challenged service too. When it was politically expedient however, he had no compunction about labeling his Marine Corps brethren as cold blooded murderers. In a commentary I wrote in 2006, drawing on knowledge of Marines I have known, I told Mr. Murtha that I did not think he would amount to a pimple on a real Marine’s butt. I was called out on that by someone claiming to be a Marine. He said I had no right to say that about Murtha since I had never been a Marine. I was forced to apologize for promoting Murtha to the lofty rank of butt pimple.

Serving Soldiers, Veterans, their families, and especially those men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice deserve our undying gratitude. They do not deserve to be political props.

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13 (NIV)

© 2010

Nation of Immigrants

ThinkerWe are a nation of immigrants. Every discussion on the topic of immigration begins that way. That comes from the mouths of people generations removed from any true immigrants.

Assuming that everyone who comes here to live wants to be, when do we become a nation of Americans? When do we fold them into that great American melting pot. We have learned recently that stepping through the front door does not necessarily mean that everyone who does so wants to embrace his Americanism. That was not the case at Fort Hood nor was it the case in New York’s Times Square. That is our problem. It is a self-inflicted wound bleeding the life from us. In recent years, the bleeding has come in great spurts as if from a severed artery. There are reasons for it. If we do not apply a tourniquet, it is only a matter of time before America bleeds out.

At the forefront, we have allowed ideological to replace logical. Look at our national debt and energy problems. There is no logical reason for us to be where we are. Ideological utopian views are the cause. That mindset is why we insist that we are a nation of immigrants rather than insisting that we be a nation of Americans. Nothing much hinges on reversing that. Only our survival.

Political correctness is killing us. It has turned honesty and directness into ambiguity read as cowardice by the very people who want to destroy our country and everything it stands for. Illegal is undocumented. Terrorism is a man-made disaster. War is an overseas contingency operation. Islam is a religion of peace. We cannot scrutinize anyone who fits the profile of every terrorist we ever encountered. That is profiling and offensive. Dead Americans are apparently less offensive.

We like to misdirect our anger. There is nothing logical about that. If we kill radical Islamic terrorists, it will make them hate us more. Instead of directing our anger toward the source of the threat, we direct it toward our Soldiers through name calling and court martial. We criminally investigate our intelligence operatives who, at great risk to their own lives, must encounter the threat up close and personal. We direct our anger toward Arizonans, who tiring of drug dealers and crime and trying to protect themselves decide to enforce a federal law that the federal government refuses to enforce. The Supreme Court of the United States held up as Constitutional a law that says military service is not a right and that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The military, forced to comply with President Bill Clinton’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, becomes the villain.

It is offensive for school students to wear tee shirts with American flags on them on May 5 – in America. When wearing an American flag on any day is insensitive or insulting, how insulting and insensitive is it for the families of 9/11 victims, hell all Americans, that a mosque is being constructed at ground zero. A nation of Americans will respect the sovereignty of any nation, but stand beneath the flag of none.

Moral relativism has turned America gray. As a nation, we seem no longer able to draw a clear and distinct line between right and wrong, moral or immoral, good and evil. For years, the ideology has moved us from God toward Godless. It has moved us away from our foundation.

The ideology tells us that if, guided by the superior intellects running our country, we follow the European socialist model we will not become Greece. Our gut and simple logic tells us that we are instead on the express train to the Acropolis.

The utopian ideology tells us that if we bring all of the world’s different cultures and languages together in one place, open our borders and celebrate our diversity with hyphenated identities that we will somehow not become the Balkans. Logic tells us, no border, no language, no self-identifying culture, no America.

Nation of Americans or nation of immigrants?

© 2010

An Injustice of the First Order

ThinkerIs it unreasonable to expect the Dean of Harvard Law School to know that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) is not a discriminatory “military policy”, but is instead a policy and regulation instituted by President Bill Clinton when the Supreme Court upheld the law stating that military service is not a right and that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Isn’t it also reasonable to presume that a law school dean would understand that the military must follow the policies of the commander in chief despite their (or her) personal feelings about those policies? Apparently, Supreme Court Justice Nominee Elena Kagan was not aware that. Or, if she was aware, she believed that it was not compulsory for the military to obey.

Her approach to opposing DADT was also quite telling. She moved to ban recruiters from the Harvard campus because the “military policy” of not allowing open homosexual service according to her is, “a moral injustice of the first order.” Ms. Kagan apparently places personal ideology before compliance with the law (for the military DADT has the full affect of the law) – a dangerous attribute for a Supreme Court Justice. Dangerous for the country, that is. Her reaction shows that she believes that compliance with federal law is not compulsory if one disagrees with it ideologically. Maybe she should have moved to ban Bill Clinton from campus.

Why would Ms. Kagan direct her anger toward the military? Why not direct it toward the politicians responsible for DADT in the first place? I will tell you why. First, the military, like the state of Arizona, is enforcing a federal law that most liberals would prefer not be enforced. Secondly, liberals, like sharks, usually do not attack one another. To move their agenda ahead, they always need a villain and the military has always been a favorite villain for liberals. To repeal a law for which they are responsible, they must characterize it as something all liberals disdain, a “military policy.” It is easy to vilify a military that cannot speak out on its own behalf in such matters, especially when you lack the courage to take on the real culprits who you hope may someday appoint you to a high office.

Now Ms. Kagan is headed for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States and after the political posturing is done, she will secure the lifetime appointment to protect and defend your Constitution and the President will be one vote closer to a court packed with justices who support radical activism ahead of law.

“I will seek someone in the coming weeks with . . . an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law, and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people,” – President Obama

Did the President fulfill his own criteria for selecting a justice? There is no independent mind here. What is here is lock step liberal thinking in line with the President and his puppeteers. Record of excellence and integrity? Excellence is in the eye of the beholder. Integrity? If she were honest the target of her ire would be the people who wrote and passed the law she considers to have produced “a moral injustice of the first order” and not at those who are compelled to obey the law. A fierce dedication to the rule of law? Apparently not. A keen understanding how the law affects the daily lives of the American people? The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to ensure that our nation’s laws adhere to the provisions of the United States Constitution and not whether they are favorable to one group or another. Decisions must come down on the side of law. That is why Lady Justice wears a blindfold.

A Supreme Court Justice with an ideological approach to the law that takes precedence over the United States Constitution is most definitely an injustice of the first order.

JD at WorldNet Daily

© 2010

Christian Nation?

ThinkerLast year, about this time, the President decided that he would not have a National Day of Prayer observance in the Whitehouse. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. Other Presidents, Republican and Democrat, did not do it either. Around that time, he also stated during a press conference in Turkey, a Muslim nation, that Americans do not consider ourselves a Christian nation. In fairness, he went on to say that we also do not consider ourselves a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation, etc. I certainly disagree with that. We are not a country that is ruled under the tenets of a religion as are the Muslim nations for example who are governed under Sharia law, but we are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs and values. We are a nation that is predominately Christian and try as they may the progressives have not been able to beat that out of us. I believe we are indeed a Christian nation. In God We Trust anyone?

Every politician I have ever observed closely, at some point used faith as a political prop. Rare ones were sincere. The President has proclaimed his faith in Jesus Christ as recently as an Easter event at the Whitehouse. I do not want to get into a lengthy tit for tat about whether or not the President is Christian or believes that he is, that is something he will have to resolve before God someday as we all will.

There are some things that do not sit well with me. I try hard to be true to my faith, but like all of us mortals I often come up a little short. The important thing is that I know it when it happens and I try to fix it. There are some things that one simply cannot support and claim Christianity as his or her faith. One of the commandments for Christians is that you shall not commit murder. If you kill an unborn child, in my view, you have committed a murder. The question each of us must deal with is whether there is a difference between actually committing the act or creating and supporting laws that make the act legal in the eyes of men? That is another of those judgment day questions that is going to make it uncomfortable for some of us.

It was interesting that a month after the President decided that there would be no National Prayer day observance at the Whitehouse; he found room on his schedule to host a gay pride event there. Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council had his invitation to speak at a Prayer Day luncheon at Andrews Air Force Base rescinded. Although he was not going to address the subject in his prayer day address, he is a vocal opponent of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Mr. Perkins was a Marine Corps officer. He knows that it would not be correct to address such a political subject as a guest on a military base. Is it coincidence that his invitation was rescinded right after the State of the Union address where the President said he wanted to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?

Arguably the most well known name in the United States of America and possibly the world to Evangelical Christianity is Billy Graham. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association continues important work around the world led by Franklin Graham. The Pentagon disinvited Franklin Graham from speaking at the Pentagon National Prayer Day observance. What got Franklin Graham disinvited was speaking out against Islam, especially its treatment of women. You should know if you do not, that such a high profile and important Christian leader would not be disinvited from the Pentagon without the knowledge and concurrence of the Whitehouse.

Maybe the President is right. Maybe we are not a Christian Nation – at least in his eyes.

© 2010

Blame Game

ThinkerOne of my mentors when I was a teenaged Army Private was a Puerto Rican First Sergeant named Pedro Olivari. First Sergeant Olivari was nearing the end of a distinguished Army career when I knew him in 1972. His constant companion was a stubby cigar. That was well before the smoking police criminalized smoking indoors. He was a combat veteran of Korea and Vietnam. In Korea he was battlefield commissioned. He achieved the rank of Captain and commanded a company. As the Army often does, or did, following the strength buildup during the Korean War, there was a reduction in force. His Captain rank was not permanent so he was given the option to remain in the Army as an enlisted man, which to the Army’s benefit he did.

In the Army, you are always replacing someone. Sometimes, when things do not go as they should the temptation is to blame whatever the problem is on the guy you replaced. This was one bad habit Top Olivari would call you out on. It was nearly 40 years ago, but I am fairly certain that I first heard this illustrative story from him.

As a First Sergeant was leaving his job, he passed to his replacement 3 letters that were numbered 1, 2 and 3 and sealed in envelopes. He told his replacement if he encountered a problem and it was not going well for him he should open the first letter. It was not long before the new First Sergeant encountered such a problem. One evening while sitting alone and contemplating his problem, he opened and read the first letter. The first letter said blame this problem on the old First Sergeant and if it happens again open the second letter. It was not too long until the need arose to open the second letter. The second letter said blame the problem on the old First Sergeant and if this happens again open the third letter. Blaming it on the old First Sergeant became easier, a habit, so as soon as there was another problem he did not hesitate to open the third letter. The third letter contained a different message. It said write three letters.

Now I don’t know if George Bush left any letters for his replacement, but if he did it must have been a bunch of them.

%d bloggers like this: