A Military Member

Risk to Religious Liberty Recognized

2012-01-22T16:09:00.006-06:00

Last week I highlighted in a blog that defense of religious liberty is currently a priority of the LDS church.

Two headlines this past week relating to threats to religious liberty are worthy of your investigation:

Religious Liberty: The Latest Target of Obamacare by Grace-Marie Turner at National Review Online:

"The Obama administration announced today it will wait for a year (coincidentally until after the elections) before requiring religious organizations to comply with an Obamacare mandate that they provide coverage for contraception —including controversial drugs that can abort an early pregnancy". (full article)

Bishop Burton Joins Leaders to Promote Religious Freedom and Marriage by the LDS Public Affairs on their website:

"Last Thursday, Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, H. David Burton, joined 38 prominent leaders of different faiths in signing a letter advocating traditional marriage and religious freedom". (read letter)

Are so many of our religious institutions imagining a looming threat to free practice of religion, or is religious liberty truly put at risk by recent legislation and political agendas? You be the judge.

Pray for the USA

2012-01-08T22:33:00.004-06:00

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

While driving, I usually listen to talk radio on AM and driving my boys around to their weekend activities on Saturday was no exception to start with. However, predominant themes of national debt, constitutional sidestepping, and general political dishonesty brought about an unusual despair and frustration. I racked my brain but couldn’t see a way out of our national mess and ultimately began scanning the FM dial for some music to regain my sanity.

I’m a few years behind on my country music, so when I rolled across a weekly country countdown, I decided to catch up. Featured on the program was a song titled “Love Like Crazy” by Lee Brice, both unfamiliar to me. A line in the song’s chorus seized my attention:

“Never let your prayin' knees get lazy”.

These lyrics made me wonder whether or not Americans are engaged sufficiently in prayer and supplication for the Almighty to intervene and help us fix our problems. I had to admit that although I personally pray often, I do not often (enough) pray for my country, its leaders and its citizens. I wondered if across the board, god-fearing patriots are not pouring their hearts out sufficiently to bring down the blessings of heaven so needed by our nation.

I recalled how the miracle that was the creation of our constitution only occurred after our founding fathers sought divine intervention to overcome irreconcilable interests. Benjamin Franklin urged them to so humbly petition thusly:

“Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments be Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

“I therefore beg leave to move, that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of the City be requested to officiate in that service.”

History attests that shortly afterwards, the founders’ “irreconcilable” interests were reconciled, dramatically highlighting the limitations of men who’s “prayin’ knees [are] lazy” and the contrasting power of prayer.

I suspect that what our country needs is more prayer.

Matthew 7: 7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

Highlight: An Introduction to Religious Freedom

2012-01-05T20:11:00.006-06:00

“A free society committed to religious freedom and freedom of conscience means that all its members are vigilant in protecting the freedoms of each other. Maintaining this most basic of human freedoms and the harmony it brings is imperative for us all.” So concludes a recent article published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS). The article titled “An Introduction to Religious Freedom” is a “broad introduction for a forthcoming series of articles on religious freedom”. I look forward to reading the series.

Judging by the related links accompanying this article in the LDS Newsroom, educational emphasis on religious freedom is a current priority of the LDS church:

“Apostle Says Religious Freedom is Being Threatened” – 13 Oct 2009
"Religious Values in the Public Square" - 15 Dec 2010
“Apostle Emphasizes the Importance of Religious Freedom to Society” – 4 Feb 2011
“Selected Beliefs and Statements on Religious Freedom of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” – 4 Feb 2011
“The Case of Religious Freedom” – 25 May 2011
“Religion and Freedom” – 1 Jul 2011
“Elder Quinton L. Cook Delivers Speech on morality and Religious Freedom” – 16 Dec 2011

“An Introduction to Religious Freedom” first establishes that freedom of religion “is not simply the freedom to worship or to believe the way one chooses...neither is it just for religious people”, but rather it “is the human right to think, act upon and express what one deeply believes, according to the dictates of his or her moral conscience”. The article further states that religious freedom is “the preeminent freedom in the U.S. Bill of Rights... the first among other essential liberties ...often referred to as the 'first freedom'. It is characterized this way because it enables and protects other human freedoms, like freedom of speech. Indeed, the culture of liberty and peaceful democracy in the United States in large part emerged from its firm respect for religious freedom".

After a brief discussion on “Religious freedom and society” and “Mormons and religious freedom”, the article gets to heart of why this topic deserves the recent emphasis given it by the LDS church:

“Challenges to religious freedom are emerging from many sources. Emerging advocacy for gay rights threatens to abridge religious freedom in a number of ways. Changes in health care threaten the rights of those who hold certain moral convictions about human life. These and other developments are producing conflict and beginning to impose on religious organizations and people of conscience. They are threatening, for instance, to restrict how religious organizations can manage their employment and their property. They are bringing about the coercion of religiously-affiliated universities, schools and social-service entities. They are also resulting in reprimands to individuals who act in line with their principles — from health practitioners and other professionals to parents. In these and in many other circumstances, we see how religious freedom and freedom of conscience are being subtly but steadily eroded. And of equal concern, the legal provisions emerging to safeguard these freedoms are often shallow — protecting these liberties only in the narrowest sense. In many aspects of public life, religious freedom and freedom of conscience are being drawn into conflicts that may suppress them".

The article's conclusion leads off: “Religious freedom, or “freedom of conscience,” has long been the bedrock of democracy. Long buried and taken for granted, it is now an elevated concern. There is need for Americans ... to become reacquainted with this freedom and recommitted to it".

Amen.

Don’t assume someone else will preserve your “first freedom”. It will surely die the death of a thousand cuts if patriots fail to stay on top of current issues, identify where and how liberty is under assault, and unite together in its defense.

History of Political Correctness

2010-09-06T19:48:00.005-05:00

Video Summary: The working class having failed to bring about revolution under classical Marxism, a Marxist think tank sets out to develop a new class capable of doing so. The goal: complete destruction of western culture, believed to have thwarted the original revolution. They develop “Political Correctness” as the mechanism to curb the free speech messages of anyone in opposition to their goals.

Kagan Wrong For The Land Of The Free

2010-08-07T07:00:00.004-05:00

Wrong on so many levels.

One has to wonder what designs for America those who voted "yes" hold.

This speech against nomination is a little long, but well worth watching, lest we forget.

Romneycare: What's Happening in MA?

2010-04-12T07:28:00.004-05:00

For those of you who don’t follow Rush Limbaugh, you missed this insightful critique of Obamacare, informed by the fruits of Romneycare:

“Massachusetts and the health care plan they have is the role model, it is a miniature laboratory, if you will, for Obamacare. Even Democrats have described it that way. Insurance rates are going through the roof. The governor has imposed price controls. The insurance companies who asked for their rates to be raised are nonprofit companies, nonprofit. Today Massachusetts, tomorrow the rest of the nation. "This week it became impossible in Massachusetts for small businesses and individuals to buy health-care coverage after Governor Deval Patrick imposed price controls on premiums. Read on, because under Obamacare this kind of political showdown will soon be coming to an insurance market near you. The Massachusetts small-group market that serves about 800,000 residents shut down after Mr. Patrick kicked off his re-election campaign by presumptively rejecting about 90% of the premium increases the state's insurers had asked regulators to approve." They have to go get approval to raise their rates. Deval Patrick said hell, no, and started tarring and feathering the companies as part of his reelection campaign, same thing Obama has done is demonize these people. These are nonprofit companies.

"Health costs have run off the rails since former GOP Governor Mitt Romney and Beacon Hill passed universal coverage in 2006, and Mr. Patrick now claims price controls are the sensible response to this ostensibly industry greed," exactly what we were discussing yesterday. There is no greed in industry. These are nonprofits. They're trying to make enough money here to stay in operation in Massachusetts. The real greed can be found inside most Congresses and legislatures in these states. That's where the greed is. Not in the free market. "Yet all of the major Massachusetts insurers are nonprofits. Three of largest four -- Blue Cross Blue Shield, Tufts Health Plan and Fallon Community Health -- posted operating losses in 2009. In an emergency suit heard in Boston superior court yesterday, they argued that the arbitrary rate cap will result in another $100 million in collective losses this year and make it impossible to pay the anticipated cost of claims." And this gets even better. Stick with me. "It may even threaten the near-term solvency of some companies. So until the matter is resolved, the insurers have simply stopped selling new policies."

“They're not selling anything. That's their response. Now, let's extrapolate. In Massachusetts, the government can't take over for the insurance companies or doesn't want to. In the case of Obama, when this happens, as we predicted, as a lot of people predicted, when this happens in America's private sector, nationwide, that's when Obama will move in, if this happens, and get his single payer. When the insurance companies can no longer stay in business even if they're nonprofits, they're just gonna quit. That's the objective -- mark my words -- of the Obamacare problem. "A court decision is expected by Monday, but state officials have demanded that the insurers -- under the threat of fines and other regulatory punishments -- resume offering quotes by today and to revert to year-old base premiums." So the State of Massachusetts, "You're not selling policies? Fine. You better start quoting for people that want to buy, and you're going to quote last year's prices." And they talk about greed in the private sector?

"Let that one sink in: Mr. Patrick has made the health insurance business so painful the government actually has to order private companies to sell their products (albeit at sub-market costs). One irony is that Mr. Patrick's own Attorney General and his insurance regulators have concluded -- to their apparent surprise -- that the reason Massachusetts premiums are the highest in the nation is the underlying cost of health care, not the supposed industry abuses that Mr. Patrick and his political mentor President Obama like to cite." And they're actually acting surprised. They're stunned to learn that these costs going up are related to the price of health care. They say they're surprised. See, their template, their narrative has been the insurance companies are evil, they've been demonizing, they're raising prices without any regard for the consumer, raising prices without any regard for true market forces, they're just greedy. And now the attorney general and Deval Patrick all of a sudden learn, no, no, no, the cost of health care is just skyrocketing. And you'll hear why, this gets even better in just a moment.

"On top of that, like ObamaCare, integral to the Massachusetts overhaul are mandates that require insurers to cover anyone who applies regardless of health status or pre-existing conditions and to charge everyone about the same rates. This allows people to wait until they're about to incur major medical expenses," such as getting sick or right after they have the car crash, before they buy insurance. So they buy the insurance only when they need to, and then after the catastrophe has passed, they are selling, they're getting out, they're canceling the policies. "This week Blue Cross Blue Shield reported a big uptick in short-term customers who ran up costs more than four times the average, only to drop the coverage within three months. Last July, Charlie Baker detailed similar gaming at Harvard Pilgrim, the health plan he used to run. Between April 2008 and March 2009, about 40% of its new enrollees stayed with it for fewer than five months and on average incurred costs about 600% higher than the company would have otherwise expected."

“Well, bingo, this is perfectly allowed under Obamacare. The only difference here is if you don't buy the insurance -- there's a mandate that you buy it -- if you don't, you get fined. We know now the IRS will take the value of your fine, the amount of it, from your so-called IRS refund, your income tax refund. And then when you need the insurance, doctor tells you you got a bad problem, illness, or the minute you have the wreck call the insurance company and they have to insure you just like they have to in Massachusetts, at controlled prices. Well, this is what's causing prices to skyrocket in Massachusetts. This is why these insurance companies have asked the commission for rate increases from anywhere from eight to 32% and Deval Patrick said no way as part of his opening salvo in his reelection campaign. So the insurance companies, "We can't do business like this." They're nonprofits don't forget, so they stop selling policies. And the governor has ordered them to start quoting prices at last year's premiums. Well, folks, they can't stay in business this way. It's not possible. This is a 100% microcosm. This is just one of the many aspects that is rife throughout Obamacare.”

Read full transcript here.

Do We Have A Right To Health Care?

2010-03-21T09:53:00.003-05:00

I stumbled across an online debate wherein members of The Ornery American Forum offered some excellent arguments as to why Health Care is not a Right. I’ve selected postings from the thread to highlight some positions in the debate.

Forum member “G2” started the thread by posting an argument against health care being a right, written by Walter E. Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University. As part of his argument, Williams offers:

"If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations."

“JoshCrow”:

"The problem with this argument [Williams'] is that health is unlike any other aspect of human existence - it is necessary to be in good health to perform any other function one can even have a right to do."

“Pyrotin”:

"You can effectively replace 'health care' with 'police', 'fire departments', 'roads', 'national military services', 'civil courts', and many other public needs to see just how absurd that argument [Williams'] is."

“Jasonr”:

"I think the author's position is confined to debunking the notion that healthcare is a 'right'. I agree with him that healthcare cannot possibly be a right in the same category as speech, for example.

"It is perfectly possible and logically consistent for me to conclude that healthcare is certainly not a 'right' by any rational standard, yet support universal government sponsored healthcare. I don't even need to bother with the 'social obligation' language JoshCrow suggests. It's just good public policy. Support universal healthcare without all the touchy-feely 'healthcare as human right' BS."

"Pyrtolin":

"So basically, he's [Williams] picking a different meaning of the word [right], making a totally irrelevant semantic argument, and then using that to back his pretty much explicit assertion that it should not be publicly funded?"

"Jasonr":

"I'll tell you what. I'll support your 'right' to healthcare when you agree to support our 'right' not to have the english language mangled to suit a political agenda.

"Both of us probably agree that universal healthcare is a good thing. I'm all for socialized medicine too. Just can the namby pamby 'rights' nonsense."

"Adam" highlights the fallacy of calling Health Care a right:

“I feel that the concept of 'rights' is frequently divorced from its intended context, and thus, meaning. The original (for us), very deist exposition was as much a metaphysical observation as a political assertion. 'All men are created equal [explicit rejection of so called 'natural castes'], and as such are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, etc.' The phrase 'nature and nature's God' suggests that Jefferson's opinion regarding the nature of said creator differs greatly from theistic interpretations, but its actually beside the point. We exist, and naturally possess life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness. These are 'rights' in that we have them intrinsically. Government can't give us something we already, naturally have; they can, however, take it away. Thus, the Bill of Rights; a list of natural rights that the government promises not to touch.

"The most awful slaughtering of this concept is the theistic perversion that and entity 'God' gave us these rights, and that respecting them is a necessity because of divine will. However, calling healthcare a right is also in contradiction with the philosophical meaning of the word. Just as it shouldn't be warped into a theological appeal to authority, likewise it shouldn't be reduced to a simple 'something that's really important.'

"I could be persuaded to define healthcare as a fundamental duty of government, which would be equally significant, IMO. However, the concept of rights is valuable enough to protect it from political dilution, even for a cause I support.”

“G2” drives the fallacy home by taking the health care as a right rationale to its logical conclusions:

"...those calling health care a right are picking a different meaning of the word [and not Williams], making a totally irrelevant semantic argument, and then using that to back an explicit assertion that it should publicly funded.

"G2 has the right to travel freely. Many of you are arguing that if G2 did not have the funds to exercise that right, then G2 would have the authority to take it from you - most likely under the guise of taxation.

"G2 cannot be healthy without food. Does G2 have the right to take it from the grocery store without paying? Can G2 simply enter your home at will and raid your fridge to exercise my right to food? G2 has a right to that food, how can you deny it? Don't give G2 any crap about property rights, the right to live must surely trump the privilege of private ownership."

"Pyrotin" thinks it's o.k. and maintains we do just that:

"Like is the case of the publicly maintained roads that you'd most likely be using to travel? Or for many, the publicly subsidized transit systems without which they'd be unable to afford to travel to work?

"And thus we have public support programs like food stamps and WIC, which at least begin to make a dent in the fundamental problem, inadequate as they might be on the whole."

"G2":

"No. More like the car I need to drive those roads. G2 needs a car, without it the roads are pretty meaningless, yes? So you owe G2 a car.

"G2 would also like to go to some places that are pretty far away - like Hawaii and the USVI, no road to get there - but G2 has a right to travel to it. Therefore, give G2 the money for plane fare or provide G2 the aircraft to do it. It is G2's right and you should pay it.

"[WIC] is subsistence living with a significant stigma attached to it. G2 has a right to the food G2 prefers delivered in a dignified manner. G2 should simply have a credit card with US Government stamped on it so G2 can get the food he needs from whatever source he deems appropriate. Do not deny G2, or anyone else, his right to quality food and to be treated with a little human dignity.

"BTW, G2 also needs clothing and housing. Without those, G2 could not survive or at the very least would be at a significant health risk. G2's government card should pay for all those too being that G2 has a right to food, clothing and shelter (the basic necessities of life). And travel, don't forget G2's plane fare ... and a place to stay in Hawaii, so cough up for a hotel too. It doesn't have to be too nice, just near the beach.

"As everyone can see, there is no question that these things are G2's right. Nobody denies that. We're only discussing the details of its delivery now. G2 has a *right* to all of it and you all need to chip in to cover the cost. G2's right to these things trumps your right to keep what you earned."

I don't think anyone tried calling health care a right after that, although the thread continued for pages and pages.

Don’t let anyone get away with saying we have a right to health care.

The Health Care Bill Must Die Now

2010-03-08T17:49:00.006-06:00

Must Read! An excellent blog by Lori Ziganto entitled Government Health Care Is Not About Health Care; It's About Government, makes a strong case on why freedom loving Americans should completely reject any form of nationalized health care.

Patriots! Arm yourself with information and don't let this enslaving legislation pass. It is a dagger pointed at the heart of our liberty. I couldn't agree more with Lori's conclusion:

"The health care bill must die now. We can’t chance that anyone will have the fortitude or the ability to repeal it once it is in place. It will be too late. If we don’t, the once Shining City on the Hill will, tragically, lose its luster when it becomes the “Government approved Shine” only. We must ensure that The Shining City on the Hill will remain full of luster and not be irrevocably tarnished by a Government willing to suppress the rights of its people."

Say "NO" to Government Run Health Care

2010-02-27T07:38:00.004-06:00

"I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future." (Remarks by President Obama to a Joint Session of Congress, September 9, 2009)

Key points from Rep. Ryan (WI) on the current health care bill before the House of Representatives:

Our current entitlements are already suffocating state budgets and adding trillions in obligations we have no means to pay for.

The bill does not control costs; the bill does not control deficits.

The bill is full of gimmicks, smoke, and mirrors making it look cheaper than it is.

The true 10 year cost of the bill is $2.3 trillion.

The full 10 year cost of this bill has a $460 billion deficit; $1.4 trillion the next 10 years.

THE BILL PUTS GOVERNMENT IN CONTROL OF HEALTH CARE!

A Republic, If You Can Keep It

2010-01-17T05:24:00.006-06:00

In case you weren't aware, the U.S. Constitution established a republic, not a democracy. Here is a good article that explains the difference and how all democracies end up. Some of you may be surprised by the names you will find extolling the virtues of democracy.

Excerpts:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." And as British writer G.K. Chesterton put it in the 20th century: "You can never have a revolution in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution.

“Communist revolutionary Karl Marx understood this principle all too well." …

“Another champion of democracy was Communist Mao Tse-tung."...

“Still another champion of democracy is Mikhail Gorbachev, who stated in his 1987 book Perestroika that, "according to Lenin, socialism and democracy are indivisible.... The essence of perestroika lies in the fact that it unites socialism with democracy [emphasis in the original] and revives the Leninist concept.... We want more socialism and, therefore, more democracy.

“This socialist revolution has been underway in America for generations. In January 1964, President Lyndon Johnson boasted in a White House address: "We are going to try to take all of the money that we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the 'haves' and give it to the 'have nots' that need it so much." …

“The push for democracy has only been possible because the Constitution is being ignored, violated, and circumvented. The Constitution defines and limits the powers of the federal government. Those powers, all of which are enumerated, do not include agricultural subsidy programs, housing programs, education assistance programs, food stamps, etc. Under the Constitution, Congress is not authorized to pass any law it chooses; it is only authorized to pass laws that are constitutional. Anybody who doubts the intent of the Founders to restrict federal powers, and thereby protect the rights of the individual, should review the language in the Bill of Rights, including the opening phrase of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law...").”

Make Mine Freedom

2010-01-08T20:58:00.002-06:00

I'm posting this video on my blog for those of you who haven't already had the opportunity to view it.

It pretty much speaks for itself. Rarely does government offer us anything that doesn't come at the expense of liberty. Our citizens are easily seduced by the allure of more for less or something for nothing and are not as discriminating as they should be of the legislation and programs coming out of Washington.

Bottom line: When we allow government to grow and touch more aspects of our lives, our liberties shrink and we literally open the door more widely for the advance of absolute tyranny.

Freedom Requires Moral Citizens

2009-12-30T08:15:00.004-06:00

I know of people who contend that the road to America’s re-adherence to constitutional principles of government isn’t through the ballot box, but through the collapse of the Federal Government. I contend that the make-up of the Federal Government and their current style of governance isn’t the problem; it’s only a symptom of the problem. America’s collective proclivity to shun traditional religious influence is the problem, plain and simple. Until this problem is fixed, the demise of our Federal Government will only result in the birth of another one equally or more corrupt.

James A. Garfield, 20th President of the United States, offered the following which has the ring of truth to it:

“… the people are responsible for the character of their Congress [and Executive Branch].

“If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature... If the next centennial does not find us a great nation... it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”

I would expand this to say that America’s greatness is suffering not only because Americans failed to aid in controlling the political forces, i.e. were excessively apathetic, but more so because selfishness, greed, and immorality have spread widely across the Fruited Plain. America is walking away from God.

Our experience in America today validates John Adams' assertion that,

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

And James Madison's,

“Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.”

Our citizens have not always rejected religion. Cleon Skousen's book 5000 year leap discusses Alexis de Tocqueville's observations of our young nation in 1831.

"The philosophers of the eighteenth century explained in a very simple manner the gradual decay of religious faith. Religious zeal, said they, must necessarily fail the more generally liberty is established and knowledge diffused. Unfortunately, the facts by no means accord with their theory. There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only equaled by their ignorance and debasement; while in America, one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the world, the people fulfill with fervor all the outward duties of religion." (Pg 80).

Skousen explained Tocqueville's observation that the American clergy, while wholly separated from the government "collectively had a great influence on the morals and customs of public life. This indirectly reflected itself in the formulation of laws and ultimately in fixing the moral and political climate of the American commonwealth."

"Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever cease to be good, America will cease to be great." (Pg 84).

Unfortunately, America has been spiraling into the ignorant, debased condition Tocqueville described in the populations of unbelievers in Europe. A major factor in America’s collective rejection of virtue has been a concerted secularist campaign to re-label good bad, and bad good. In a Heritage Foundation speech, “How Modern Liberals Think”, Evan Sayet described perfectly the growing cult of "indiscriminateness". The strategy has been to make morally inclined people believe that,

"...indiscriminateness is a moral imperative, because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated… In order to eliminate [discrimination] the modern liberal has opted to become utterly indiscriminate."

I.e. we cannot tolerate any morality or religion in our public life because it results in someone saying certain public behaviors are WRONG and those who uphold such behaviors will be discriminated against. The ironic aspect of the cult of indiscriminateness is that advocates of morality end up being highly discriminated against for their beliefs.

We can see the success of this campaign around us. Sin is denounced increasingly less often and year after year the accepted standards of behavior in America sink lower. The declining civility in our society and the corresponding decreases in liberty are the fruit that this seed of indiscriminateness has brought forth.

In an online forum, Gary Jeffryes insightfully posted,

“If we choose pleasure over morality, morals decline. When morals decline, and the number of people participating in immoral activities increases, the number of people willing to hold politicians and educators responsible for their actions declines, because people who are immoral are disinclined to hold other people to a moral behavior, though they may gossip about it. They may gripe about it, but when it comes down to the crunch, the will do nothing about it because that requires righteous judgment and the unrighteous are less willing to condemn their own kind, but eager to condemn the righteous who's behavior is a shining light.

“So the immoral masses keep reelecting the same immoral politicians and things continue to decline as one group feeds the corruption of the other.”

The solution to re-secure our lost liberties is in more preaching, more faith based testimony, more exhortation to virtue and righteous living. Our nation must collectively return to our Creator, begin to obey His laws, and love our neighbors as ourselves. On these laws “hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matt 22:40).

If the majority again begins to live the Golden Rule, they will not accept legislators or presidents whose governance results in harm to others, when said governance is exposed for what it is (ballot box choices). They will pull their own weight and not attempt to live off the backs of their neighbors. They will eschew government entitlements and those who would deal them out. They won’t need excessive regulation to do the right things. They will eliminate the poor around them through voluntary acts of service and charity.

The solution in heaven is the same solution that we must pursue:

Revelations Chapter 12:

"7 And there was a war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. … 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony”.

Thanks For Your Service

2009-12-18T19:17:00.003-06:00

I witnessed another instance of Americans honoring our troops the day before yesterday. I was on my way home from a business trip on a plane with many Army Privates, traveling home in uniform for their holiday break from Basic Training. The airlines had just closed the cabin doors and a flight attendant began making announcements, including the variety of lunch boxes and beverages that would be for sale shortly after take-off. She then announced that there were many uniformed personnel traveling home for the holidays and that an anonymous passenger had purchased a lunch box for any of them who wanted one and that the airline was providing complimentary beverages to them as a token of appreciation for their service. This event prompts me to re-post a previous blog.

Quite often, fellow citizens from all over the country who don’t know me thank me for my service after discovering I serve in the military. Candidly, this embarrasses me. I don’t serve for honor or recognition or expect any thanks for what I do, and I admit that I don’t handle compliments well either. Nonetheless, the tremendous outpouring of support and appreciation directed towards service members by grateful compatriots is deeply touching and I dedicate this post to highlight a few personal examples and reciprocate a most heartfelt thanks to all who go out of their way to extend these sentiments.

The first time a perfect stranger ever thanked me for my service was on September 14, 2001. I had been on active duty for just over six years. My family was on vacation in California and September 11 still dominated our thoughts. President Bush had declared a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance and at noontime, Disneyland ceased all activity to observe a moment of silence. I didn’t know exactly what the implications of the attack meant for the military, but I knew there would be some. Evidently, I was not the only one; later that day, a mother and daughter thanked me sincerely for my service.

This experience is now common. Most of my military brethren report a similar trend. However, the surge of support has not just been limited to expressions of gratitude.

Sometime during my first week or two in Iraq, a couple of my Soldiers came into the shop, each carrying a US Postal Service Flat Rate Box (O-FRB1). I marveled that their families were so quick to send them care packages. It turned out that the packages were from one of the many, many organizations sending care packages to troops. Over the course of my tour in Iraq I saw hundreds and hundreds of these care packages distributed. I never had to buy toiletries by virtue of the abundance available from care packages. I can’t think of anything we went without. These packages contained everything imaginable: candy, chocolate, Twinkies, Oreos, chips, dips, cookies, crackers, summer sausages, snacks, knives, scarves, gloves, personal hygiene items, games, books, Christmas cards, Christmas trees, thank you letters…you name it, they sent it!

I regret that I didn’t write down all of the organizations, churches, schools, businesses, and individuals from which I saw a package or letter flow through. The list would be very long if I had. I would like to be able to thank each one by name. There were various Any-Soldier and Adopt-a-Soldier type organizations. Many church groups, community organizations, and schools also contributed. I read several books sent over by knife maker A.G. Russell. His boxes also contained pocket-sized copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution along with an assortment of products (not cheap) from his own business. A box arrived once that was full of handmade scarves. I will always cherish the one made by Marilyn A. Borros of Lakewood, Ohio that I drew from the box.

Finally, let me highlight the U.S.O. Besides sending care packages and entertainers to Iraq, they organized one of the most touching experiences of my life at the Dallas Fort Worth Airport. After deplaning, we walked through a long gauntlet of cheering airport workers and passengers on our way to customs. Departing customs towards the buses that would take us to another terminal, we walked through an even longer, more densely packed gauntlet of boy scouts, cub scouts, girl scouts, brownies, athletic teams, veterans, and many other locals. Applause thundered, cheers and thank-yous rang out, cameras flashed, flags waved, hands clapped our backs and shoulders, hands reached out to shake ours, gifts were pushed at us, personal cell phones were offered to make calls home, welcome back and thank-you banners were everywhere. It was all I could do to maintain my composure, and I lost it as soon as I was on the bus. I still choke up whenever I think of it. A young Soldier exclaimed as he walked onto the bus behind me, “I feel like a rock-star! This makes it all worthwhile.”

You citizens who extend your support to the troops have done more to support the war effort than you probably realize. Some people wonder why Soldiers continue to re-enlist despite long and multiple deployments – I don’t.

So to all who reach out and support us service members in your various ways, please accept my deepest gratitude and know that you’re efforts are not unnoticed and make a huge difference.

Merry Christmas.

Christmas is My Favorite Time of Year

2009-12-13T09:45:00.008-06:00

Cue one of my favorite Christmas songs sung by Kenny Rogers:

(Lyrics):
How wise the Wise Men must have been
To find the Child in Bethlehem.
He lives again and draws us near,
Christmas time is here.

A tail of love that never dies,
The laughter in the children's eyes,
The child in me is always there,
Christmas is my favorite time of year.

The mist of wonder lies under my tree,
The gift of memories is waiting for me.

The day will come and soon depart,
The spirit stays to hear my heart
With love for people everywhere,
Christmas is my favorite time of the year.

Christmas is my favorite time of the year.

Despite the unfortunate commercialization of Christmas, this time of year more than any other brings a greater degree of “peace on earth, good will towards men.” Christmas celebration results in more smiles, more public greetings, more acts of charity, and more worship. Christmas music, including the song quoted above reverently sung by Kenny Rogers, helps to bring about this increased spirit of love and its attendant fruits. A challenge in preserving liberty is getting more people to carry this spirit of love in their hearts throughout the year. Love is the foundation of all virtue and the public morality upon which our system of government rests.

Cleon Skousen treats this concept masterfully in his book “The 5000 Year Leap”. He first establishes that our Founding Fathers believed that “the only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law.” (pg 37.)

Natural Law according to the Roman Emperor Cicero is nothing more than “the Creator’s order of things.” (pg 39.) Skousen demonstrates that Cicero’s philosophy is in harmony with the Christian teaching that “all the law and the prophets” hang on the first and great commandment to love God, and the second greatest commandments to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” (Matt 22:34-40)

Cicero was conscious that love was a “mighty social bond.” He said that, “…virtues originate in our natural inclination to love our fellow-men, and this is the foundation of justice.” (pg. 43.)

“As one and the same nature holds together and supports the universe, all of whose parts are in harmony with one another, so men are united in Nature; but by reason of their depravity they quarrel, not realizing that they are of one blood and subject to one and the same protecting power. If this fact were understood, surely man would live the life of the gods!” (pg 46.)

After establishing what the philosophy of Natural Law is, Skousen gives evidence that the Founding Fathers “embraced the obvious necessity of building a highly moral and virtuous society.” (pg 46.) Public virtue in eighteenth century terms was a “willingness of the individual to sacrifice his private interest for the good of the community”, i.e. love and living the Golden Rule. He offers many quotes that show the Founders “universally acknowledged that a corrupt and selfish people could never make the principles of republicanism operate successfully.” (pg 50.) Two examples follow:

James Madison: “Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.” (pg 54.)

John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (pg 56.)

During this Christmas season, consider the increase in kindness around you, which as a corollary means an increased suppression of selfishness. Consider the public merit of this increased “goodwill towards men” and whether it results from the secular/commercial or religious aspect of the holiday. Consider whether or not our Constitution and liberty will be better off if efforts to remove Christ from Christmas, and religion (morality) from public life are successful. Finally, consider how well you individually contribute to or detract from keeping the spirit of Christmas alive throughout the year.

America's Drift Towards Socialism

2009-12-02T06:19:00.005-06:00

“America was built on the principle of faith in God, self reliance, the profit motive, individual action and voluntary charity. It was built by those who believed that the surest helping hand at was at the end of their own sleeves. These forefathers of ours shared one thing in common, an unshakeable faith in God and a faith in themselves. There are indications that America is moving away from the philosophy that made her the most prosperous nation in the world.” – Ezra Taft Benson

Domestic Enemies of the Constitution

2009-11-29T07:38:00.006-06:00

Connor Boyack wrote a blog last year that all patriots should read in full (found here).

Key Points:

1. All citizens have a duty to “maintain the integrity of the Constitution”.

2. Domestic enemies of the Constitution come in two flavors:

Political entities with agendas explicitly against the Constitution.
Anyone who supports/furthers ideologies that erode public morality/virtue.

Bottom Line:

Quote: “Whoever the enemy may be, what is important is that we 1) identify the individual or group, 2) demonstrate on what grounds they are opposing the Constitution, and 3) oppose their efforts through a counter-measure of our own. Indifference, apathy, or the benefit of the doubt do not help in supporting and defending the Constitution. If anything, seeing such widespread inaction likely emboldens the enemy and assures him an easy victory.”

Health Care - Promoting the General Welfare

2009-11-22T09:00:00.002-06:00

From the Center For Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI). “The Center for Medicine in the Public Interest is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and educational organization that seeks to advance the discussion and development of patient-centered health care.” (CMPI Website)

Our founders framed our government and intended it to be a limited government, recognizing as George Washington cautioned that government is “force” and “like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." The video above aptly illustrates the dangers of governmental involvement in free society. Unfortunately, many politicians point to the general welfare clause of the Constitution as justification for expanding government into increasingly more areas of our lives, the latest attempt being a national health care system.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (read here)

In 1792 while arguing against a bill sponsored by general welfare government expansionists, James Madison provided the historical context of the general welfare clause. A Founding Father himself, his authoritative remarks refute any notion that the general welfare clause was intended as a “catch all” authority for government to do anything it deems as good for the population in general.

"There are consequences, sir, still more extensive, which, as they follow dearly from the doctrine combated [government expansion to promote the general welfare], must either be admitted, or the doctrine must be given up. If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.

"The language held in various discussions of this house [House of Representatives] is a proof that the doctrine in question was never entertained by this body [Congress]. Arguments, wherever the subject would permit, have constantly been drawn from the peculiar nature of this government, as limited to certain enumerated powers, instead of extending, like other governments, to all cases not particularly excepted." (read more here)

Citizens, whenever government presents a governmental solution to problem sets in our society, please consider the realities presented in the Health Care Hoops video when deciding whether or not to support it.

Rejecting the Right

2009-10-12T00:46:00.004-05:00

“We would not accept the yoke of Christ; so now we must tremble at the yoke of Caesar.” -Bishop Fulton J. Sheen.

A premise of this blog is that our constitutional liberties can only be preserved on the foundation of a moral citizenry. As Patrick Henry put it, “No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles”. Accordingly, I view philosophies and ideologies contrary to moral discipline, and those who espouse them, as threats to and enemies of the Constitution.

I want to highlight two speeches, one religious and one secular, which tied the degradation of our society to an effort to eliminate discrimination between right and wrong. I highly recommend everyone find time to watch both speeches. You can view, listen, or read the first speech entitled “Morale Discipline” by Elder D. Todd Christofferson in its entirety (15 min) here. You can view the second speech entitled “How Modern Liberals Think” by Evan Sayet in its entirety (48 min) here.

Elder Christofferson defined moral discipline as “self-discipline based on moral standards”. He posits that, “In the end, it is only an internal moral compass in each individual that can effectively deal with the root causes as well as the symptoms of societal decay. Societies will struggle in vain to establish the common good until sin is denounced as sin and moral discipline takes its place in the pantheon of civic virtues”.

Mr. Sayet’s speech describes some of the political and secular circumstances that exist in today’s society that result in just the opposite. He details a modern philosophy that brands any government, society, or even individual who denounces sin as bigoted. This philosophy, he says, attempts to eliminate discrimination between good and bad, right and wrong, or behaviors that lead to success versus behaviors that lead to failure in society.

Quotes from the speeches follow below (emphasis mine). The first quote from the Wall Street journal wasn’t directly quoted in either speech, but was included as a footnote to Elder Christofferson’s speech.

Wall Street Journal on Societal Decadence:

“Sin isn’t something that many people, including most churches, have spent much time talking about or worrying about through the years of the [sexual] revolution. But we will say this for sin: it at least offered a frame of reference for personal behavior. When the frame was dismantled, guilt wasn’t the only thing that fell away; we also lost the guidewire of personal responsibility. . . .

“The United States has a drug problem and a high-school-sex problem and a welfare problem and an AIDS problem and a rape problem. None of this will go away until more people in positions of responsibility are willing to come forward and explain, in frankly moral terms, that some of the things that people do nowadays are wrong” (“The Joy of What?” Wall Street Journal, Dec. 12, 1991, A14).”

Elder Christofferson on Societal Decadence:

“The societies in which many of us live have for more than a generation failed to foster moral discipline. They have taught that truth is relative and that everyone decides for himself or herself what is right. Concepts such as sin and wrong have been condemned as “value judgments.” As the Lord describes it, “Every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god”(D&C 1:16).

“As a consequence, self-discipline has eroded and societies are left to try to maintain order and civility by compulsion. The lack of internal control by individuals breeds external control by governments. One columnist observed that “gentlemanly behavior [for example, once] protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior. . . .

“Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become.”

“In most of the world, we have been experiencing an extended and devastating economic recession. It was brought on by multiple causes, but one of the major causes was widespread dishonest and unethical conduct, particularly in the U.S. housing and financial markets. Reactions have focused on enacting more and stronger regulation. Perhaps that may dissuade some from unprincipled conduct, but others will simply get more creative in their circumvention.3 There could never be enough rules so finely crafted as to anticipate and cover every situation, and even if there were, enforcement would be impossibly expensive and burdensome. This approach leads to diminished freedom for everyone. In the memorable phrase of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, “We would not accept the yoke of Christ; so now we must tremble at the yoke of Caesar.”

“In the end, it is only an internal moral compass in each individual that can effectively deal with the root causes as well as the symptoms of societal decay. Societies will struggle in vain to establish the common good until sin is denounced as sin and moral discipline takes its place in the pantheon of civic virtues”

Elder Christofferson on Intelligent Use of Agency:

“…[I] have heard a few parents state that they don’t want to impose the gospel on their children but want them to make up their own minds about what they will believe and follow. They think that in this way they are allowing children to exercise their agency. What they forget is that the intelligent use of agency requires knowledge of the truth, of things as they really are (see D&C 93:24). Without that, young people can hardly be expected to understand and evaluate the alternatives that come before them. Parents should consider how the adversary approaches their children. He and his followers are not promoting objectivity but are vigorous, multimedia advocates of sin and selfishness.

“Seeking to be neutral about the gospel is, in reality, to reject the existence of God and His authority. We must, rather, acknowledge Him and His omniscience if we want our children to see life’s choices clearly and be able to think for themselves. They should not have to learn by sad experience that “wickedness never was happiness”.

Evan Sayet on Modern Liberalism:

“[Modern Liberalism] is diametrically opposed to that which is good, right or successful”.

“[Modern Liberalism] sides with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure rather than the ones that lead to success”.

“The modern liberal looks back on [the history of] human civilization and knows only one thing for sure, that none of the ideas that mankind has come up with, none of the religions, none of the philosophies, none of the ideologies, none of the forms of government – none have succeeded in creating a world that is devoid of war, poverty, crime, and injustice. So they are convinced that since all of these ideas of mankind have proved to be wrong, the real cause of war, poverty, crime, and injustice must be found, can only be found, in the attempt to be right.

“If no one ever thought they were right, what would we disagree about? If we didn’t disagree, surely we wouldn’t fight. If we didn’t fight, of course we wouldn’t go to war. Without war there would be no poverty, without poverty there would be no crime, without crime there would be no injustice. It’s a utopian vision, and all that’s required to usher in this Utopia, is the rejection of all fact, reason, evidence, logic, truth, morality, and decency.”

“The best way to eliminate rational though [or] the attempt to be right, is to work always to prove that right isn’t right, and to prove that wrong isn’t wrong.”

“[Modern Liberalism’s] one criterion for truth, beauty, honesty, etc, etc, is does it tear down what is good and elevate what is evil. Does it tear down what is right and elevate what is wrong. Does it tear down the behaviors that lead to success and elevate the ones that lead to failure so there is nothing left to believe in.”

Sayet on a Cult of Indiscriminateness:

“The way the elite do this is by teaching our children, starting with the very young, that rational and moral thought is an act of bigotry. That no matter how sincerely you may seek to gather the facts, no matter how earnestly you may look at the evidence, no matter how disciplined you may try to be in your reasoning, your conclusion is going to be so tainted by your personal bigotries, by your upbringing, by your religion, by the color of your skin, by the nation of your [7th] great grandfather’s birth, that no matter what your conclusion is, its useless, it is nothing other than a reflection of your bigotries; and therefore the only way to eliminate bigotry, is to eliminate rational thought.”

“[The rising generation is] raised to believe that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative, because it’s opposite is the evil of having discriminated… In order to eliminate indiscriminateness the modern liberal has opted to become utterly indiscriminate. The problem is, of course, that the ability to discriminate, to thoughtfully choose the better of the available options, is the essence of rational thought [or as Elder Christofferson put it, ‘the intelligent use of agency’].”

Socialism: The Core of the Health Care Debate II

2009-10-03T08:10:00.010-05:00

“…no true American can be a socialist or a communist or support programs leading in that direction.” -- Ezra Taft Benson, American Heritage of Freedom

In my recent blog, "Socialism: The Core of the Health Care Debate", I discussed how the unconstitutional principle of re-distribution of wealth is the selling point of a nationalized health care system, naively accepted by some well meaning individuals and embraced by the greedy. I also mentioned that many politicians champion health care reform to increase their political power by making the citizenry increasingly more reliant on government solutions and increasingly less reliant on themselves. I read an article today by Roger Hedgcock with a title I may well have used for my blog, "Health Reform is Spelled F-O-R-C-E". The article reminded me of additional reasons to eschew national health care.

If America socializes our health care, public costs will drive health care decisions, not individual choices or desires.

The government will eventually determine when “end of life” medical care is cost prohibitive, or wasteful and pointless. (See video where President Obama implies that individuals are incapable of making good “end of life” decisions; that government must save them from evil medical practitioners who will milk them dry by loading their elderly parents up with needless tests.)

Health care costs will cause Federal regulation to expand into a broader range of activities since nearly everything affects health in some way or another. For example, it is conceivable that the Federal Governement will try to regulate the likes of McDonalds out of business for nutritional reasons. It is conceivable that they will force doctors to perform abortions and euthanasia on demand.

Roger Hedgecock writes:

“When you cut through the different bills working their way through Congress, cut through all the speeches, all the charges and counter charges raging in the debate on health insurance "Reform"---at the bottom line is governmental force. A shift of power and money and choice from the citizen, taxpayer, and patient to Government.…

…The same mentality that led President Clinton to blurt out that taxes were good because "we know better how to spend your money than you do" is evident today in the arrogant attitude that only this behemoth increase in government power can save us from our inability to provide health care to ourselves and our loved ones.”

Beware of this Pandora's Box, America!

An Educated and Moral Citizenry Needed to Preserve Liberty

2009-09-20T07:59:00.004-05:00

I first saw this picture on the Drudge Report. It shows what the Washington Mall looked like after the crowds attending President Obama’s inauguration departed. (What happened to the Woodsy the Owl campaign to “help keep America looking good” anyway?) Dumbfounded, I was saddened to see this evidence that increasingly more of our citizens do not live by the Golden Rule, expecting others to serve them and clean up their messes. Am I making too much out of this? Does this not really indicate anything about the basic values held by those capital litterbugs? I'll let you be the judge.

I use this introduction to tee up some of my favorite quotes from wise men who expounded on the links between public morality, education, and the preservation of liberty:

“No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.” – Samuel Adams in a letter to James Warren, November 4, 1775

Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles. – Patrick Henry

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

“It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

“Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.” – George Washington in his farewell address.

“Too many Americans have lost sight of the truth that God is our source of freedom—the Lawgiver—and that personal righteousness is the most important essential to preserving our freedom. So, I say with all the energy of my soul that unless we as citizens of this nation forsake our sins, political and otherwise, and return to the fundamental principles of Christianity and of constitutional government, we will lose our political liberties, our free institutions, and will stand in jeopardy before God.” – Ezra Taft Benson, October 1979

"We are involved in an intense battle. It is a battle between right and wrong, between truth and error, between the design of the Almighty on the one hand and that of Lucifer on the other. For that reason, we desperately need moral men and women who stand on principle, to be involved in the political process. Otherwise, we abdicate power to those whose designs are almost entirely selfish." – Gordon B. Hinckley in "Stand a little Taller", pg. 15, July 2001

The Immutable Law of the Harvest Dooms Social Programs

2009-09-13T07:48:00.004-05:00

Brian Mecham of Latter-Day Conservatives.Com brought a wonderful speech to my attention. In 1966, Elder Howard W. Hunter brilliantly exposed many fallacies of socialist theory through the light of the Law of the Harvest. Liberty was under assault in 1966 and still is today. I highly recommend that all defenders of liberty read "Law of the Harvest: As a Man Sows, So Shall He Reap". The speech is full of truths to inject into our modern day debates on the proper role of government.

I’ve chosen just a few choice quotes to leave on this blog. The full speech is available HERE.

“… there appears to me to be a trend to shift responsibility for life and its processes from the individual to the state. In this shift there is a basic violation of the Law of the Harvest, or the law of justice. The attitude of “something for nothing” is encouraged. The government is often looked to as the source of wealth. There is the feeling that the government should step in and take care of one’s needs, one’s emergencies, and one’s future.

“…as my friend…became a slave to his own ignorance and bad habits by refusing to accept the responsibility for his own education and moral growth, so, also, can an entire people be imperceptibly transferred from individuals, families, and communities to the Federal Government.”

“If you deprive a man of his right to fail in the righteous use of his property, you also deprive him of his right to succeed. If you remove from a man his right to “go to hell,” you likewise remove his free agency to go to heaven. Satan’s entire philosphy is based on a “something for nothing” philosophy: salvation without effort – a free gift…”

“In a very real sense, the true Law of the Harvest was restored – the law of justice, the law of mercy, the law of love. It was restored in a free country under the influence of a God-inspired Constitution which created a climate of freedom, opportunity and prosperity. The basic virtues of thrift, self-reliance, independence, enterprise, diligence, integrity, morality, faith in God and in His Son, Jesus Christ, were the principles upon which this, the greatest nation in the world, has been built. We must not sell this priceless, divine heritage which was largely paid for by the blood of patriots and prophets for a mess of pottage, for a counterfeit, a false doctrine parading under the cloak of love and compassion, of humanitarianism, even of Christianity.”

“What can you do here and now? First, resolve to live the Law of the Harvest and realize that this will involve a price, and with some that price will be very, very heavy. Then go to work, resisting temptation, overcoming bad habits, and developing the good habits of an upright character, …

“Like the light set on a hill, like the leaven of a loaf, you will influence for good our entire country and help preserve this great Republic and its inspired Constitution and its great climate of freedom.”

TIM HAWKINS: The Government Can

2009-09-08T00:20:00.004-05:00

Thanks to my friend Paul Trujillo for bringing this video to my attention. Tim Hawkins, comedian, political satirist, highlights wonderfully what our constitutional form of government ISN’T supposed to be, but what our present day government IS becoming.

Think about it patriots. If it is so, it's because we allow it to be.

SOCIALISM: The Core of the Health Care Debate

2009-09-07T21:37:00.012-05:00

Being stationed overseas sometimes makes it challenging to keep abreast of the latest political and social debates and developments back home. I spent some time this Labor Day weekend catching up on the health care debate in congress. It appears that the proponents of nationalized health care are on the ropes, so patriots need to maintain the momentum and defeat their cause. There are many well meaning citizens in our country that support nationalized health care because no one has yet laid bare the real issues and exposed the fallacies in the health care debate. Nationalized health care is not charitable, is calculated to increase dependency on government, and significantly erodes the freedom established by our Founding Fathers, furthering our nation’s decline towards the absolute despotism of a socialist government.

The prophet Ether wrote, “…when ye shall see these things come among you …awake to a sense of your awful situation, for it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies;" (Ether 8:24-25).

The big fallacy, I mean lie, perpetrated in the health care debate is that since it is good to take care of the poor and needy, a public health care system must be good. This is the same argument used in the War in Heaven – Satan’s position was that he could bring to pass a great good if no one had free agency and he forced them to keep the commandments. Satan spoke of lofty goals, but power and control were his real goals.

Nationalized health care is about force and control – granting more power to the government to forcibly take the fruit of one person’s labor, and control it’s disposition. This is not charity. Jesus commands men to follow his example and be charitable, but allows them the freedom to choose.

Watch the following clip and think about the main points that Milton Friedman attempts to teach Phil Donahue’s audience:

Clip Summary:

There is a difference between greed and self interest.

Socialism has failed to deliver on its promise to eliminate poverty to every nation who embraced it.

More people rise out of poverty when societies are free and citizens rely on their own industry instead of government doles.

There are no “angels” in our government we should trust any more control or power to than our constitution grants them.

The prophet Ether warned that, “… whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed;” (Ether 8:22).

Some of our citizens support the idea of nationalized health care because they haven’t adequately considered the Christian implications of forced charity. Others do so because they want power and gain – power over someone else’s money for their gain. Many ignore the commonsense realities of the law of the harvest and desire to get something for nothing, or more for less. Many that are currently on the government dole desire to stay on it, and not earn their own way. Many politicians want to increase their political power by making the citizenry increasingly more reliant on government solutions and increasingly less reliant on themselves. Most disturbing to me are the many that desire to divorce their aging parents with their health care problems and force society to pay for them. This in turn creates many who realize that they have not provided for their own future healthcare needs, cannot rely on their own offspring to tend to them in their waning years, and therefore desire that government forcibly take money from others in society to pay for what they and their thankless children cannot or will not.

Patriots should ensure that the debate on nationalized health care is centered on our national decline towards the despotism of socialism. The core of the issue has always been about greed, lusting for control over the fruit of another's labor; in a word, socialism. Wherever this greed exists, we should expose it and not allow someone to camouflage it with altruistic platitudes.

Attitudes of Public Servants Are Telling

2009-06-18T10:41:00.008-05:00

Power goes to the head.

James Madison agreed in the following statement: “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."

As did Joseph Smith: “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.”

Statements such as the following from Barbra Boxer made recently during a committee meeting give me the idea that power has gone to her head, and that her motivation for public service was never to serve the public:

“Do me a favor. Could you say ‘senator’ instead of ‘Ma'am’? It's just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it, yes, thank you." (Watch video here: Real Clear Politics Video )

How did the citizens of California end up with such an arrogant senator? James A. Garfield, 20th President of the United States, offers the explanation:

“… the people are responsible for the character of their Congress.

“If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature... If the next centennial does not find us a great nation... it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”

Lose Weight by Eating More Donuts

2009-02-07T20:01:00.003-06:00

Hat Tip to PHXG at redstate.com

A facetious Senator Fred Thompson highlights the absurdity of the government's plan to stimulate our economy.

Someone stop the madness, please!

Congressman Moran on Declarations of War

2009-02-07T19:34:00.002-06:00

I have been engaged in dialogue lately with fellow conservatives, mostly third party and independent types, on the Constitutional Party Platform on Defense. Among other things, I took issue with the allegation that the President of the United States assumes authority the Constitution does not give him to deploy forces without a declaration of war from Congress. To summarize my argument, it takes special appropriations to fight a war and Congress makes those appropriations (not to mention passes resolutions authorizing the use of force), therefore there is no illegal assumption of authority. Shame on Congress if they don’t declare war, but our separation of powers remains intact. During the debate, I shared the following account with them. I recommend that everyone share it with their own congressional representatives.

Congressman J. Moran (KS-R) was a guest speaker on January 13, 2009 at the Command and General Staff College. He spoke for attribution, unlike the majority of our guest speakers. During Q&A, one of the students stood up and asked (paraphrasing), “Is congress ever going to declare war again or are we going to keep fighting without ever declaring war?” (The last time the United States declared war was World War II.)

His response was very thoughtful. First, he laid the background for his answer with a discussion on the role of the Commander in Chief (CIC). He admitted that the Constitution is not definitive on exactly what authority the CIC of the Army has and by no means are congressional representatives in agreement on their opinions. If the Army is not going to do anything until congress declares a war, there is not a need for a CIC, the generals just take the Army to war after congress declares it. There are members of congress that think the executive branch has authority to do something with regards to troop movements, the limits just aren’t clear. In the end, there is a struggle between the two branches of government to find a balance.

Then he gave a very candid and seemingly sincere (he is a politician after all!) answer to the question. He admitted that no one in congress wants to declare war because it is politically unpopular. It is easier to just let the executive branch be responsible. He elaborated on this a bit and then told us of some soul searching that he has done over the course of the “Iraq War”. He was one who voted for the authorization to use force in Iraq and has mulled that decision over in his mind quite a bit since then. He concluded that he would never again vote for an authorization to use force. He will either do his Constitutional duty, pushing for a declaration of war, which commits the entire nation to the cause, or not.

Fellow student, MAJ Richard Wellman gave a rundown of Congressman Moran’s visit in a blog, which included the following:

“He stated that he felt Congress has been remiss on how it handles its constitutionally mandated authority to declare war. The representative feels that Congress should make the hard decision to declare war instead of taking the easy way out by just authorizing the President to use force in the open-ended manner that has been occurring under the Bush Administration.”

Find a complete rundown of Congressman Moran’s comments here.

I think Congressman Moran came to the correct conclusions and has made the right decision. It certainly is consistent with our Divine Constitution. Only time will tell if he follows through or succumbs to political pressures. Regardless, I think all of our representatives owe us introspection on their own congressional involvement in recent “wars”. Maybe Representative Moran’s example can begin a congressional migration back towards adherence to constitutional standards and authorities. We should all urge our respective representatives resolve now to approach the next war in like manner.

[Originally published at redstate.com]

MACHO SAUCE: Where Did This Come From?

2009-01-29T17:27:00.005-06:00

I do not know how well known Alfonzo Rachel is, but I had not heard of him until last night. I would not be surprised to learn that he has been a pop icon for the past few years. If so, at least I'm not alone. A friend of mine at work had not heard of him either. Therefore, I am compelled to draft a quick post in case any of you have also missed the Macho Sauce experience.

Zo, as Alfonzo goes by, is a self-styled “Christian Conservative Republican” who seeks to educate the public on the merits of conservatism through very clever and funny, amateur videos. His scripts both entertain and educate, even if sometimes oversimplifying complex social issues. The ring of truth resounds in his dialogue. Two themes that I heard loud and clear in his videos were Liberty and Limited Government, and as such, I consider him a valuable ally in the defense against domestic threats to the Constitution.

For those who have yet to sample Zo’s work, I am embedding a video below. I especially enjoyed his analysis of how portions of the Libertarian agenda, such as legalizing of drugs and prostitution, will realistically increase the size and scope of government, something the Libertarian agenda is decidedly against.

"We’ve got a 50% divorce rate in America and you want to legalize prostitution. You’ve got little kids watching their mommies and daddies break up, but that’s not good enough for you. You don’t want them broken up, you want their families burned to ashes! Oh, no! Now we’ve got a single mom, dad’s out of the picture, who is she going to be looking to to supplement that income? Bigger Government.”

I also appreciated this quote :

“George W. Bush and the United States Military has kept you safe for the past eight years…”

This last quote I highlight emphasizes the fact that grassroots efforts can make a difference in politics. Ultimately, supporting and defending the Constitution comes down the collective efforts of those who care about it.

“The best chance that MachoSauce Productions has, ain’t Fox News, it’s you.”

ENJOY!

(Hat Tip: photoman59 at covertconservatives.com)

A Lesson on Apathy from Britain

2009-01-17T20:36:00.011-06:00

or, Why I’m a Member of the NRA and Concern Myself with Politics

I understand this video is old, but I had not seen it before tonight. Chances are it is also new to some of you. It teaches lessons on our Second Amendment liberties that also pertain to our liberty in general. It demonstrates the evil fruits of citizen apathy and the fallacy of placing trust in government. Apathy is clearly a domestic enemy of our Constitution that we must fight.

In the words of the narrator, the Brits have only “themselves to blame for government policies that threaten their way of life, their security and the future of democracy in Britain.”

In the words of a Brit: “It’s a disgrace really. We’ve seen these fundamental liberties, eroded in the last 20 odd years in England, all sorts of legislation that should never have appeared.”

Another Brit: “We’ve been apathetic for years and now we are paying the price for it”.

A warning from Britain: “Learn from our experience and don’t give an inch. Your Constitution matters. Your Freedom matters”. “Don’t be apathetic, get out there and fight.”

My two cents: Government offers safety, comfort, and prosperity in exchange for taking away our liberties and expanding their powers. Rarely do they deliver and even when they do, the price was too high. Will we be seduced like our brethren across the Atlantic? Politicians promised safety. Citizens went along quietly as legislators eroded their liberties. Judge the results for yourselves and ask yourself if you are guilty of apathy. If so, do something about it.

(Hat Tip to BladerunnerXP on Covertconservatives.com)

Get Involved in Politics

2009-01-15T22:42:00.010-06:00

[This post contains many links. My appologies if some of them become inactive over time.]

My first post of this blog explains that the goal of my blogging is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. It occurs to me that a post encouraging and enabling my family and Mormon friends to be actively engaged in the political process would serve to support that goal. Although my family and Mormon friends are the primary targets for this post, any civic-minded reader may find it useful, especially the collection of links towards the end.

I recently became aware that some Christian churches encourage their members not to participate in the political process based on their interpretation of the bible. Some references they cite are: John 18:36 (Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world); Matt 6:10 (we are waiting for the kingdom of heaven); 2Cor 4:4 (this world is Satan’s kingdom); Matt 6:24 (no man can serve two masters); Psalms 133:1 (participation in politics sows discord); Acts 5:39 (since God sets up rulers, by voting we may inadvertently be fighting against God); and Rev 18:4 (we are told to come out of Babylon and partake not of her sins).

The purpose of this post is not to debate various interpretations of the bible with regard to our civic duties. Suffice it to say that my church's interpretation of the bible does not require political neutrality and/or inaction on the part of followers of Jesus Christ. Later day revelation and living prophets have been clear on the matter. To review what our church teaches with respect to our civic duty, watch the short video below and read D&C 134. Read also D&C 98:6, 10.

The LDS Newsroom features an article on the church’s political neutrality policy. Consistent with the references above, the article discusses the role that citizens should play as “responsible citizens” and uses language such as “including becoming informed about issues and voting…” and “[engaging] in the political process.” Note the word including which denotes that the activities mentioned are not an exhaustive list.

The political process is much more than just voting in elections, yet I suspect that for the majority of our society, that is the only level of involvement. Worse, some or many of these cast their votes without arming themselves adequately with information on the various candidates and issues. Founding father James Madison wrote:

”A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”
–Letters and other Writings of James Madison, vol. 3 (276).

Statesman Daniel Webster observed:

”If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office,the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made not for the public good so much as for the selfish or local purposes.”

Finally, consider whether or not Thomas Paine was thinking of a biennial trip to a voting booth when he used the word “fatigue” in the following quote:

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."

Here are some ways that I recommend everyone be involved in the political process:

Study the Issues
Know how congress works
Contact your elected representatives
Attend town hall meetings & Watch debates
Write letters to the editor
Initiate or sign petitions
Get connected with likeminded people

The internet makes involvement in the political process through these activities easier than ever. The following websites will be of benefit to anyone who wants to be more involved in the process, but isn’t sure where to start. Even individuals fairly active in the political process may find additional resources and enablers among these links.

Study the Issues
Townhall.com features an “Issues” menu with links to various content relating to many issues. NRA-ILA provides valuable information pertaining to Second Amendment issues. A specific Google search (e.g. “Autoworker’s Bailout”) is also a simple way to begin researching and studying issues.

Project Vote Smart is a site where you can research the voting record of your elected officials. Many other organizations track voting records for their members. While you may not affiliate yourselves with their groups, don’t hesitate to utilize their free online resources if you run across them and find them beneficial. For example, I discovered that the John Birch Society provides some user-friendly, voting information on their website.

Many political organizations rate elected representatives on how they vote compared with their organization’s agenda. Examples include Citizens Against Government Waste and the American Conservative Union.

THOMAS "was launched in January of 1995, at the inception of the 104th Congress. The leadership of the 104th Congress directed the Library of Congress to make federal legislative information freely available to the public. Since that time THOMAS has expanded the scope of its offerings" to include many features and resources for those who wish to research congressional activities.

Know How Congress Works
A good starting point is to read the Constitution. Google (e.g. “how congress works”), Wikipedia, and Citizen Lobbying Kit are also good references.

Contact Your Elected Representatives
If you know the name of the representative you want to contact, a Google search (e.g. “Senator Brownback”) will provide you a link to the representative’s personal website. There will be a “Contact Me” link or some other such link on the front page that will open up a straightforward form with which to send an email. You can find these websites and add them to your favorites or bookmarks for future use.

If you don’t know the name of your representative or senators, try Congress.org. On their pages you will find a query window to enter your home zip code into. This search will bring up a list of all of your elected representatives. By clicking on each representative, you will have access to valuable information about each one, including an option to contact him or her via email.

You can also search for your congressman and senators on the official U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate websites.

Most people forget the positive re-enforcement aspect of communicating with elected officials. This is as important as letting them know when we are displeased with their actions or are urging them to vote this way or that. If you’re lucky, “ata boys” will make up the bulk of your correspondence with your elected representatives.

Write to Publications
The days of sending a letter to the editor or Op Ed to a newspaper via snail-mail are almost gone. Email is too easy and Congress.org makes it even easier. They provide a clickable map of the United States which will in turn list most if not all of the local newspapers and provide forms with which to email letters to editors, etc to the newspaper of your choice, or several at the same time! Townhall.com offers a similar service.

This just scratches the surface of what is available to assist us in fulfilling our civic responsibility to be engaged in the political process. If nothing else, I encourage everyone to become adept enough to fire off an email to an elected officials in a matter of minutes if occasion arises. Read the tips included in the Citizen Lobbying Kit. Consise messages are best. I firmly believe that our representatives need to hear from us often and freedom will benefit if they do.

Isn't Spreading the Wealth Christian?

2009-01-10T17:15:00.003-06:00

Increasingly often, I run across individuals who mistakenly believe that the underpinnings of socialism are the Christian values of love and charity, i.e. taking care of the poor and needy. Invariably, they are good, well-intentioned individuals and it almost pains me to burst their bubble. I don’t know what percentage of people who support liberal agendas do so misguidedly, but a concerted effort by conservatives to educate and convert them is in order. The underpinnings of socialism are the non-Christian values of greed and control.

“But, didn’t Jesus teach that we should give to the poor?” Yes, here is what he taught:

Matt. 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Furthermore, he taught that giving to the poor should be a personal and private act.

Matt 6:2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet …3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

Alms by definition are voluntary contributions. At no time did Jesus suggest that anyone should be compelled to give to the poor, or that his followers should forcibly take from one person in order to provide for someone less fortunate. Rather, voluntary acts of charity are to spring from love -- love towards God, and love towards neighbors. Note again in the following passage that Jesus gives no hint of coercion or force:

Matt. 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom… 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me…

37 Then shall [they] answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?...

40 And the King shall answer … Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Jesus’ ideal of giving to the poor is very different from the socialist doctrine of taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots. One doesn’t have to be a Christian to appreciate the differences. Furthermore, socialism is not only antithetical to Christian values, it is also incompatible with the principles of our Constitution. The following is one of the best descriptions of socialism that I’ve ever read and highlights the underpinning values of greed and control:

"Socialism... is the theory and practice of coercive collectivism. It is the evil fruit of greed for other men's possessions and greed for control over other men's labor.

"This greed for goods and power is as old as man and as widespread as the human race. It goes by many names, disguised in many forms, as men think up many excuses for robbing and ruling their fellows.

"Socialist theory is a modern excuse, an elaborate rationalization for this greed and for the organized looting and despotism it seeks to achieve. But its materialism, its collectivist point of view, its reliance on violence and coercion, even most of its economics, are as old and as common as sin.

"It holds out to men the hope that they may reap where they have not sown. It teaches that man is the creature of his environment, and that he may be happy and good if he gets enough wealth, regardless of how or where. All that is needed, says the Socialist Tempter, is to bow down and worship the Socialist State, turning over to it authority and power to take wealth where it finds it and to direct labor as it wills. Just a little class hatred, a little lying propaganda, a little violence on the picket lines, a little suppression of adverse critics, and a few generations of compulsory education in Socialistic thought, then surely we shall see the bright new day of equality, peace, brotherhood, and freedom! So says the Socialist." - Dr. V. Orval Watts, Political Economist, quoted by Ezra T. Benson, December 10, 1963, BYU Speeches of the Year

Socialism is about greed and control, not love and charity. We need to get the word out and set the misguided straight. We must aggressively counter what I perceive to be a growing trend to accept the principle of re-distribution of wealth.

[cross-posted at redstate.com]

Christmas truce of 1914

2008-12-25T15:43:00.011-06:00

The Christmas truce of 1914 as detailed in a thought provoking article (read here) featured on Veterans Today touches on a few topics that are near and dear to my heart:

The morality of national and military leadership

Justifications for war

The role of media during wartime

The power of faith to bring about reconciliation

Just a few excerpts and comments:

"…during the Christmas season of 1914 ... the soldiers themselves called a truce and, had it not been for intervention by the higher authorities on both sides, World War I might have ended…[BUT] Steps were taken to preclude further Christmas truces."

WWI hostilities continued until 1918 because leaders apparently were not open to a peaceful way forward in 1914. I wonder how many lives the 1953 ceasefire in Korea saved because the leaders in that conflict were willing to stop fighting?

"… There were visits directly to the trenches by high-ranking officers, even generals. From the German side came a report that the men were redressed by an officer who ordered the men in the foulest of language to start shooting, saying, "Fire, or we do — and not at the enemy!" The men in this case reportedly spent that day and the next firing their rifles, but deliberately firing above the opposing troops... "

Our nation can only harness the maximum capabilities of our most effective combat system, the Soldier, if he really believes in the cause for which he is fighting. Our causes must be just.

"…the military leaders tried to keep the news of the truce from spreading. Despite these efforts at truth suppression, word of the truce did leak out…though not in time to maintain the truce and allow for analytical minds to assess the necessity of the war. … This was a case of information control over military information for political purposes to keep the people from learning that a significant portion of a war had come to halt on its own..."

Undoubtedly, a free press in the warzone carries great risks to the military's operational security. However, this example in WWI highlights the valuable role the media plays in keeping the military accountable to their civilian masters and politicians to their electorate.

"…In 1999, the Christmas Truce of 1914 was commemorated by a small group of re-enactors who, after spending a few nights in makeshift trenches in the area near Ploegstreert Wood, left behind a wooden cross. That wooden cross has since been fortified with a cement base by some of the local people and now stands as the only monument to the Christmas truce of 1914. This is a sad ommentary on how governments build many monuments supposedly to honor military veterans, but somehow seem to do so in ways that glorify war. Perhaps there will be a 100th anniversary reenactment in 2014. I would like to suggest that a fitting monument would be that of three soldiers in German, British, and French uniforms of that era bearing gifts of tobacco, chocolate, and sausages — a modern reference to the wise men who visited the Christ child bearing gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. "

There is no glory in war, that’s for sure. Any nation would do well to try goodwill and forgiveness many, many more times over aggression.

Enjoy this related clip from YouTube.

(cross posted at redstate.com)

Phenomenal Support To Troops

2008-12-24T08:57:00.007-06:00

Although I intend most of my blogging to center Constitutional themes, inevitably occasion will impress me to offer up a thought or two with a military theme. This entry is one of those exceptions.

After making my first post at REDSTATE.COM, Kenny Solomon posted a comment thanking me for my ongoing service and commitment. Quite often, fellow citizens from all over the country who don’t know me thank me for my service after discovering I serve in the military. Candidly, this embarrasses me. I don’t serve for honor or recognition or expect any thanks for what I do, and I admit that I don’t handle compliments well either. Nonetheless, the tremendous outpouring of support and appreciation directed towards service members by grateful compatriots is deeply touching and I dedicate this post to highlight a few personal examples and reciprocate a most heartfelt thanks to all who go out of their way to extend these sentiments.

The first time a perfect stranger ever thanked me for my service was on September 14, 2001. I had been on active duty for just over six years. My family was on vacation in California and September 11 still dominated our thoughts. President Bush had declared a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance and at noontime, Disneyland ceased all activity to observe a moment of silence. I didn’t know exactly what the implications of the attack meant for the military, but I knew there would be some. Evidently, I was not the only one; later that day, a mother and daughter thanked me sincerely for my service.

This experience is now common. Most of my military brethren report a similar trend. However, the surge of support has not just been limited to expressions of gratitude.

Sometime during my first week or two in Iraq, a couple of my Soldiers came into the shop, each carrying a US Postal Service Flat Rate Box (O-FRB1). I marveled that their families were so quick to send them care packages. It turned out that the packages were from one of the many, many organizations sending care packages to troops. Over the course of my tour in Iraq I saw hundreds and hundreds of these care packages distributed. I never had to buy toiletries by virtue of the abundance available from care packages. I can’t think of anything we went without. These packages contained everything imaginable: candy, chocolate, Twinkies, Oreos, chips, dips, cookies, crackers, summer sausages, snacks, knives, scarves, gloves, personal hygiene items, games, books, Christmas cards, Christmas trees, thank you letters…you name it, they sent it!

I regret that I didn’t write down all of the organizations, churches, schools, businesses, and individuals from which I saw a package or letter flow through. The list would be very long if I had. I would like to be able to thank each one by name. There were various Any-Soldier and Adopt-a-Soldier type organizations. Many church groups, community organizations, and schools also contributed. I read several books sent over by knife maker A.G. Russell. His boxes also contained pocket-sized copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution along with an assortment of products (not cheap) from his own business. A box arrived once that was full of handmade scarves. I will always cherish the one made by Marilyn A. Borros of Lakewood, Ohio that I drew from the box.

Finally, let me highlight the U.S.O. Besides sending care packages and entertainers to Iraq, they organized one of the most touching experiences of my life at the Dallas Fort Worth Airport. After deplaning, we walked through a long gauntlet of cheering airport workers and passengers on our way to customs. Departing customs towards the buses that would take us to another terminal, we walked through an even longer, more densely packed gauntlet of boy scouts, cub scouts, girl scouts, brownies, athletic teams, veterans, and many other locals. Applause thundered, cheers and thank-yous rang out, cameras flashed, flags waved, hands clapped our backs and shoulders, hands reached out to shake ours, gifts were pushed at us, personal cell phones were offered to make calls home, welcome back and thank-you banners were everywhere. It was all I could do to maintain my composure and I lost it as soon as I was on the bus. I choke up whenever I think of it. A young Soldier exclaimed as he walked onto the bus behind me, “I feel like a rock-star! This makes it all worthwhile.”

You citizens who extend your support to the troops have done more to support the war effort than you probably realize. Some people wonder why Soldiers continue to re-enlist despite long and multiple deployments – I don’t.

So to all who reach out and support us service members in your various ways, please accept my deepest gratitude and know that you’re efforts are not unnoticed and make a huge difference.

Merry Christmas.

(cross posted at redstate.com)

Against All Enemies

2008-12-23T18:07:00.002-06:00

‘I, …, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.’ (US Code: Title 5, Part III, Subpart B, Chapter 33, Subchapter II, Sec. 3331)

This is the oath I took when commissioning as a Second Lieutenant in 1995 and three times since in conjunction with promotions. I tend to agree with Abraham Lincoln who opined that no “transatlantic military giant” would ever invade our country and take over our government. Rather, he said, “if [danger] ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” (Lyceum Address, January 27, 1838)

I’m sure that many who took the oath of office often ponder on the concept of a “domestic enemy” to the Constitution. Thus far, the Army has never called on me to support and defend the Constitution against a domestic enemy. I imagine that insurrection or rebellion of some kind will be the only conditions under which they will do so. However, I’ve come to the conclusion that an armed insurgency will not likely spring up within our borders, at least not during the remainder of my military career.

Yet, the Constitution has always been in need of supporting and defending against fellow citizens who wittingly or unwittingly erode its foundations through political and/or social action. As a citizen first, pledging allegiance to the flag, and a duly sworn defender of the Constitution second, I have attempted to do this my entire adult life. Now, with this same end in mind, I join the blogosphere.

Our Constitution is built on the premise outlined in the Declaration of Independence that all people “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” If our Creator intended us to enjoy these rights, it follows that depriving or taking away any of these same rights is an evil pursuit. At least this should be the logical conclusion of anyone who has faith that a Creator did in fact endow us with certain unalienable rights.

The bible details a strategy used by Michael and his angels to prevail over evil pursuits: “ And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels…And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.” (KJV Revelation 12:7-11)

I follow the same strategy, as I understand it, in my efforts to defend the Constitution from all enemies. First, I strive to follow the will of my Creator according to the dictates of my own conscience and importune Him that the blessings of liberty will endure in this land. Second, I unabashedly profess my belief that our Constitution is divinely appointed and that all political action must be consistent with the preservation of our aforementioned unalienable rights. Again, I am initiating this blog as another means to accomplish this. Finally, I am ready to die in defense of the Constitution if it comes to that, and have already sworn to do so.

I’m sure that there are many domestic enemies of the Constitution who purposefully pursue its demise. Lacking a crystal ball, I doubt I will be able to name many of them. Regardless, I don’t have any illusions that my efforts can bring about a change of heart in such, whoever they are. Therefore, my purpose is add my voice to what Samuel Adams described as the “…irate, tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men,” to motivate the persuadable portion of our population to embrace Constitutional principles recognize what actions endanger them.

The direct result of Constitutional erosion is a decrease of liberty. Our Constitution will never collapse all at once, but rather by degrees. As frogs boiled alive by slowly heating up water, so can Americans find themselves serving a despotic government unless wide-eyed patriots resist all efforts that will weaken the Constitution and fight to repair damage already inflicted upon it. As a defender of freedom, my writings will center mostly on themes relating to our divinely established rights. These fundamental concepts undergird our form of government and are an important lens through which to evaluate the issues of our day: e.g. abortion, national defense, self-defense, social programs, expansion of government, and even foreign policy.

I urge all defenders of freedom to demand Constitutional justification for all political action, existing policy and law. Likewise, where justification does not exist, I urge you to demand that your representatives take action to abandon or reverse such measures. Further, I recommend that you make every effort to center all political discussions and debates on Constitutional principles. In military terms, we call this Mass, Economy of Force, and Simplicity.

(cross posted at redstate.com)