Aside From the Truth

I can’t imagine anyone being more unqualified for the job Barak Obama now holds. If all his liberal antics, inane narcissistic behaviors, and partisan herd building were to magically go away he still wouldn’t be deserving of steering the nation that leads the free world. Apart from his inexperience in leadership and management the conduct most unsuitable for him as President is his noticeable inclination to contest the truth.

No one wants to call him a liar, but what other expression is acceptable? What about fraud, fake, pretender, impostor, hypocrite, or phony? According to Snopes.com the first 100 days he was in office the President perpetrated no less than fifty “untruths.” Now after more than ten months he persists in deviating from the record. His most recent uncorroborated statement came in Tuesday night’s address to the nation concerning more troops for Afghanistan.

While shamelessly taking another jab at the previous administration this president obliquely proclaimed “Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.” This straight-faced pretension drew the ire of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, heretofore publicly silent, who said, “The President’s assertion does a disservice to the truth and in particular to the thousands of men and women in uniform who have fought, served, and sacrificed in Afghanistan.”

The former Secretary asked Congress to review the claim to “determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied.” Although Obama dithers with regards to decisions, apologizes for the acceptable, and bows before the undeserved, he seems to be quite experienced in duplicity. Rumsfeld, said the claim was a “bald misstatement” that cannot go unanswered. Perhaps he meant bald-faced lie.

The Manhattan Declaration

On July 4, 1776 the Second Continental Congress adopted a statement announcing the independence of the thirteen colonies, then at war with Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence proclaimed the American colonies to be independent states free from British rule. On November 20, 2009 another declaration was published. This statement does not assert freedom from rule, but freedom under rule. The Manhattan Declaration informs civil authorities that those who sign will adhere to their convictions and “under no circumstance abandon their Christian consciences.” The truths revealed in this declaration may not be self-evident, but are Spirit manifested, held dear, and avowed to have proceeded from their Creator.

The Manhattan Declaration was drafted by Dr. Robert George – Princeton University, Dr. Timothy George – Samford University, Beeson Divinity School, and Chuck Colson – founder of the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview. The writers begin with a brief reminder of the propensity for Christians to “defend the weak and vulnerable” and to give determined effort to “protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society.”

A combination of Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, the group is united to “reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good.” The proclamation also stands as a call for citizens, whether believers or not, to join in defending these truths which include (1) the sanctity of human life, (2) the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and (3) the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

There are no new truths in this declaration. But in response to the existing cultural assault these statements are reaffirmed and published for the good of society and the resolution of human dignity. Signers of the Manhattan Declaration are committed to honoring these truths fearlessly, in all circumstances, and regardless of the consequences as they pursue life and liberty.

Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue

Friday the 13th kindles fear in many people. According to Stress Management Center and Phobia Institute in Ashville, North Carolina, an estimated 17 to 21 million people are affected by a fear of this day. Although several theories exist as to the origin of the superstition and the extent of its impact, no one claims to have empirical data that Freaky Friday actually does anyone harm. That is until Friday, November 13th 2009 – the day Attorney General, Eric Holder announced that he will try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators in a New York City Courtroom. On this day, Friday the 13th may well be remembered as the day its superstitious claims prove to be valid after all.

The Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights affords certain privileges and rights to the citizens of this nation. Among them, and with regard to crime, the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the right insuring a citizen can’t be compelled to be a witness against himself. These and other protections are designed to guarantee due process for the good of the people of this great land. The Citizen and his welfare is the primary concern for which the Constitution is given.

Consider the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

Clearly, the framers had no intention of granting these rights to citizens of other nations, nor could they, for only in America could this Constitution be guaranteed, extended, and preserved. These five terrorists acted as illegal combatants in an undeclared war. They wore no uniform and were authorized by no country. For these and other reasons they have no rights under the Geneva Conventions, International Law, or the Constitution.

The idea of bringing 9/11 terrorist into the United States for prosecution is arguably the worst decision this administration has made to date and the people of America have said so. According to a recent Rasmussen poll 51% of Americans oppose bringing the KSM gang into the country for trial while only 29% favor the move. Similarly, a CNN poll determined that 64% of Americans prefer them to have a military tribunal while 34% prefer a civilian trial.

There seems to be no end to the irresponsible decisions this administration is willing to make. The promise to close Gitmo, the push for financial suicide in health care reform, and the groveling bows to leaders in Saudi Arabia and Japan to name a few do not encourage much hope for a nation promised “hope and change.” Last Friday was the last of the Friday the 13ths this year. Whether its events prove unfortunate is yet to be seen. Perhaps a Tuesday in some upcoming Novembers will bring the real hope and change we so desperately need.

The Audacity of the Pen

Like many Americans I was shocked and deeply saddened by the cowardly and terrorist massacre of 13 U.S. troops and the wounding of 30 others last week at a military base in Texas. As reports of the sequence of events unfolded and the alleged facts of the case came to light my disbelief grew. Like many I asked "How could this happen"? Ft. Hood is a military base. Where were the thousands of soldiers? Where were their weapons? Why didn't someone do something? Then came the greater shock: the sad, sobering, and horrifying answer to my questions. Army Regulation 190-14. With the stroke of a pen, the sword of the armed forces was forced down.

In March of 1993 President Bill Clinton signed into law Army Regulation 190-14 prohibiting personnel on U.S. Military bases from carrying or possessing firearms unless they have direct law enforcement or security duties. This irrational act began a new era of "gun free zones" all over the United States and set the stage for potential acts of criminal and terrorist operations.

What? Did the intellectual prowess of the President lead him to think that the very men and women who leave home and family, train for combat, and risk their lives day and night to protect our country would not qualify as safe carriers of weapons? That these very people could not be trusted to possess and secure firearms while not in a combat zone? Seriously? Are you kidding?

The thinking and subsequent action of producing and enforcing Army Regulation 190-14 defies logic. Has it not been known for eons than law abiding persons abide by the laws? That only the bad guys could care less about some regulation # whatever? Please!

Consider further the idiocy of the scenario. Upon induction into the armed forces recruits are sent to basic training for a period of not less than eight weeks and up to 12 weeks for some branches. Here, they experience a combination of physical training, field exercises, and classroom time that equips them with the basic tools necessary to perform their duties throughout their tour.

After basic training most recruits move into AIT or Advanced Individual Training where they receive additional instruction and experience necessary to execute their particular military job. But wait, there's more. As professional soldiers, troops are encouraged to continue their education and skill enhancement through military provided ongoing training opportunities. Areas of study include tactical, technical, physical, and leadership development. Simply put, these guys are capable of anything that comes their way.

And what might come their way? Well, depending on the theater it could be anything from uniformed enemies in declared war zones such as was seen in both World Wars, The Korean War, and Vietnam to exploding cars, motorcycles, bicycles, and crazed suicide bombers, dressed in dessert drab, burqas, or even infant wear. The truth is our soldiers are required and prepared to defend and protect at any given time for any and every reason.

If there is anybody, anywhere in the world that we should want to be armed and ready at anytime or anywhere for any event that might occur it is the U. S. Military. Now I'm all for second amendment rights. I even believe every capable citizen should be trained in firearm safety and should be licensed for concealed carry, but that's another story. But most certainly American troops should be armed at all times, even on bases within our borders.

At Ft. Hood, no one was armed. In fact the crazed gunman shouting "Allahu Akbar" knew no one was armed because he experienced the same training and exposure to laws and policy as everyone else. It is the very knowledge that gave him the ability to plan and audacity to walk into a group of America's finest and start emptying rounds into human beings - taking human lives. Like John F. Kennedy once said, "In a time of turbulence and change, it is more true than ever that knowledge is power." Especially in the absence of weapons.

Thank God for local police woman Sgt. Kim Munley. Within minutes of the beginning melee she responded. Having been directing traffic prior to the confusion, she rushed into the building and confronted Hasan as he rounded a corner. Four shots from her weapon ended the atrocity. Though wounded by Hasan, Sgt. Munley was able to shoot back. There is an obvious moral to this story: the only way to confront a gun is with another gun - an equalizer. It is the very reason the greatest military in the world issues weapons to every troop. They defend us, they protect us, and when necessary they fire back.

If it were not for the death of the 13 victims, the pain and suffering of their families and the wounded troops the irony of that dreadful day at Ft. Hood would be laughable. But there is death, there is suffering, and it's not funny. So how do you explain that a gunman could come onto a military base - one that is home to a portion of the greatest armed force on earth - and cause such destruction? How do you explain that a tough, but petite policewoman with a single firearm was needed to come to the God sent rescue of those men and women trained to defend the entire nation from such heinous crimes against humanity?

In Act II of the play "Richelieu," by English playwright Edward Bulwer-Lytton, the Cardinal Richelieu said, "...The pen is mightier than the sword." This famous line written for the 1839 performance was spoken by the Cardinal because as a priest he could not challenge the monk (Joseph) to combat. And now 170 years later, the story remains to an extent true. However, in the case of Ft. Hood and Army Regulation 190-14 the mighty executive pen forced the sword down, and caused those who are trained for combat to rely not on weapons with which they have qualified, but on the unsubstantiated hope that evil will play by the rules.

Middle of the Road

The important thing about having a blog, as with all communication, is having something important to say. Keeping things pithy might also be a plus. So, let me begin with a quote by Mark Twain: "Truth is more of a stranger than fiction."

Last week I was on the road to visit a friend and attend his mother's funeral. While I was cruising down the highway in the center lane I began to think about how similar driving in the middle of the road is to politics and theology.

The traffic on the right rarely threatened my safety or forced me to change my position. However, any troublesome movement seemed to always progress from the left.