Christmas and the Foundation of Law

Merry (belated, I know...) Christmas everyone! Yes, you can actually still say that, believe it or not. I'm not here though, to harp on the needless "controversy" over the proper greeting to use pre-December 25th. In a nutshell, I think "Happy Holidays," "Season's Greetings," etc.---as a politically correct substitute, that is---are silly, since everyone knows what you're talking about anyway. If you're one of those ridiculous individuals who get offended, then grow a thicker skin! It's two well-meant words referencing an international holiday for crying out loud, so stop being a complete wacko or wimp (or both!).

Was that harping? Anyhow, the bigger issue, as many have recognized before this writer, is the basic freedoms involved in the censorship of Christmas---most importantly freedom of speech and religion. The whole Christmas-in-public issue is way bigger than just the phrase, and this single issue is in turn just one of a panoply of issues that are affected by these two of the most controversial elements of American freedom. I feel as if I would like to address both of these issues comprehensively, but I'll be honest and admit it's difficult to know where to begin. Since I personally dislike politicizing Christmas, though, I'll start from the broader side of the issue.

Freedom of religion and speech, perhaps more than some freedoms, seem to me to be two of the most closely connected of the fundamental American freedoms. This connection, is, admittedly, mostly one-sided, but still important. What is freedom of religion without a corresponding right to express it when and where you please? Given the many, and often twisted, definitions of these freedoms, I think it would be useful to define a few terms first. What is freedom of religion? Freedom of religion, as established in the United States Constitution, is the freedom of individuals to worship as they please without fear of government intervention, or discrimination from their fellow citizens. The government is also prohibited from establishing a state religion. What the Constitution does not provide for is any sort of "wall of separation" between religion and the government. The Constitution may say no to state-established and run religion, such as many of its authors were familiar with in the Anglican Church of England, but it does not prohibit the interaction of faith and public office. The whole "wall of separation" idea was invented by Thomas Jefferson (who was not an author of the Constitution) in a private letter to a group of Baptists he was trying to convince to support him. Contrary to this, many of the founders, and many of the most prominent statesmen in our nation's history, has been convinced of the importance of faith and of seeking the guidance of a Higher Power while they held office---and of doing so publicly. I can't speak for them, but from what I have read and studied of early American history, I can't help but think that many of the greatest men in our history would have been frightened, even horrified, by the modern idea than in order for government to be the government of all, it and its members must offend none by public religious professions, displays, or references. This is not what religious freedom is about! In fact, by insisting that government be religion-free (and I think it is fair to point out that most of these protests are directed against the Christian faith in government) the ACLU-types are actually restricting that very free exercise of religion that the Constitution is meant to protect.

The second freedom, the freedom of speech, is bound up in a brotherhood of controversy with the first. This freedom has been exploited to cover as wide, maybe a wider, range of controversial behaviors as any. I won't go into a case history here---that would be a bit long and more than a bit discouraging. But I do want to say this: the First Amendment to the Constitution was meant to ensure that the citizens of a new nation had the right to express their feelings, beliefs, and convictions publicly or privately without fear of being persecuted in any manner for their words. When considered against the backdrop of history, where words against a king were considered treason, the expressed ideas of freedom were likely to get you arrested, the straight-forward meaning of this protective clause is obvious.

So, this is the base of the issue, what now? Well, remember that the Christmas issue is just a part of the controversy surrounding the public expression of religion. It has become fashionable over the past few decades to hold forth the idea that government and religion must be separated. As I mentioned above, this concept has been pushed forward despite the original intent of the very laws that are cited in its defence. Whether it's Christmas, Easter, the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, an expression of faith by a public figure in a public function, or the application of religious principle to a question of policy, concerted efforts have been and continue to be made to drive religion from government. This is of great concern to me because, first of all, it undermines basic American freedoms---the freedom of religion and the freedom of individuals and groups to express that faith. In other words, government establishment of non-religion is just as bad as establishment of religion. Second, these attempts affect the very foundation of our government system. This system is founded upon a bedrock of law and order that is itself influenced strongly by religious faith and principle. But can't we be flexible, you ask, and adapt to the modern age, where we are less interested in religion and more diverse in religious beliefs besides? My answer is no. If you attempt to twist the foundation, or worse, remove the bedrock, you will threaten collapse to the whole. I don't wish to sound like an alarmist, predicting the end of society if we stray but a little, but I refuse to back away from the importance of recognizing, and most definitely not repressing, the foundations of our country.

I have been recently reminded of this important issue by a study of 19th century Russian history. Edward Crankshaw's excellent and highly readable work, The Shadow of the Winter Palace, is valuable for many reasons, not the least of which is that it brings light for the student of history to an often dark, yet extremely important period in Russian history which led up to the fall of the monarchy and the establishment of a system which haunted the world through the last century and continues its influence to this day. What I wish to point out, however, is the lack of understanding in Russian society of the need for law, and more importantly of the basis of law. Like many monarchical societies, the word of the Tsar was the only law of the land. There were regulations and orders, yes, but there was no foundational system of law like that which we all too easily take for granted in America. And corresponding to this absence, there were no religious principles that would allow the majority an understanding of the basis and need for law. There was Orthodoxy, yes, but as Crankshaw points out, the priesthood was often as corrupt and secular as their contemporaries in government. The religion itself was for far too many nothing more than a form, a means to an end. Crankshaw explains this void very clearly while speaking of the early revolutionary A. I. Herzen. He writes that "Like so many Russians he [Herzen] did not understand what law was about....In Russia the law itself, the very principle of law, is and always has been widely regarded with suspicion." He goes on to say that this distrust did not rise so much from the ways in which the law can be perverted, but "partly from the traditional understanding that the Tsar himself can be the only maker of laws and, at the same time, stands above all laws, [and] partly from an aspect of anarchic spirit to which the deliberate cult of autocracy was developed as an antidote..." This "anarchic spirit" was to manifest itself in violent fashion in the next century as the ugly specter of Communism. And this was what struck me most forcefully as I was reading---one of the many problems that manifested itself in Communism was its stringent official adherence to the code of atheism. I have always viewed this as a repression necessary for the survival of Communism; religion was a threat to be suppressed. But in reading The Shadow of the Winter Palace, I realized that religious repression was not primarily a symptom of Communism, but more importantly, that its absence was a root enabler of the conditions that led to the rise and acceptance of Communism. This is because it was the absence of foundational moral beliefs that created the general Russian suspicion of the rule of law. As Crankshaw points out, even the rejection by religious (Orthodox) Russians of any merit in Western (Roman/Protestant) faith was extremely harmful, because "they rejected, without comprehending, the concept of the rule of law which they equated with arid and hypocritical legalism." (emphasis mine) What Crankshaw does not delve into, but which I believe is vital, is why these concepts (law and the Western faith) are so intimately linked. The rule of law is founded on principles that draw their very being out of the principles of religion. The ideals that all men are equal, that there are absolutes of right and wrong, that there is original sin, and therefore a need for a government system, are all drawn directly from the pages of the Christian faith---from the Bible. Without these and other foundational principles, attempts to create the rule of law artificially fall into just the sort of hypocrisy and legalism that many Russians despised and feared. This is very nearly (at the most basic level) what happened in Russia. Once the Tsar was removed, the government fell into the hands of those who promised a form of law, and delivered---not the true rule of law---but the misuse of law and power to subject a people to an ideology.

Western law is not, of course, perfect. America and her Constitution are not perfect. But it's worth pointing out that in a world of "banana republics," America has for over two hundred years enjoyed by and large the rule of law, order, and peaceful transfers of power between governmental administrations of widely differing viewpoints. This is directly attributable to the foundation, not just of law, but of the principles which inform that law, upon which the country is founded. Through looking at the Russian example, I guess I've come around the long way to point I was making before---you cannot today hope to deny the religious heritage of our country or prohibit its free expression, even in government, without risking the structure of the country as a whole. The lesson that I wanted to draw from Russia is that you cannot expect a society to embrace the rule of law without a basis in the religious faith that serves to establish that law. To deny this is to doom a country to fall in one form or another into the same fate as Russia for much of the 20th century.

So in the end there is much more involved in the "Merry Christmas" controversy than just recognizing December 25th and the surrounding "holiday" season for the holiday that the whole celebration is really about---we all know it's Christmas. The lesson for the conservative politician, whether Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or any other faith is that our freedoms of religion and speech are far more than just peripheral matters that sit in the shadow of "bigger" battles of the likes of taxes and national defence. Recognizing the importance of religion in the public sphere, whether you follow it in some form yourself or not, is not an option. Our country was founded upon the precepts of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition, and to deny them is to deny our country the very essence of the foundation that it needs for future stability and growth.

"Mount Obama" ?

Well, care to take a nice vacation and visit a historic mountain this winter? Escape from the cold (whatever happened to global warming by the way?) and take a trip to the West Indies island of Antigua and climb Mount Obama! What?! Good question, but it's true---apparently the prime minister down there is so inspired by the "historic" victory of an American presidential candidate, that he wants to rename his island's highest mountain---all 402 meters of it---Mount Obama. Really? I mean, come on, the guy hasn't even been coronat-....oops, inaugurated...yet, and he's already got at least one elementary school, probably two, named after him, and now a mountain in the West Indies? Not, by the way, that I'd be particularly impressed by being named after a 402 m hill in a country that the vast majority of Americans couldn't even point out on a map, but still... The point is, the whole aura of the jokingly termed "Messiah's" historic election is really going too far. Sure, if Obama has a successful one- or (God-forbid) two-term presidency, even if that's by liberal standards, I can understand naming a school or two, a highway, even an airport after him---Bush #1 got that, after all. But let me say very clearly that merely being the first black man to win the U.S. presidency does not qualify any person to be adulated to the extent that Barack Obama has been. Now, the obvious objection to my objection is that if it had been a black Republican who got elected, I would be saying the same things about my candidate. Truth be told, I would be a lot more excited about most Republican president-elects than almost any Democrat. But when it comes down to it, my goal is to hold to the standard so clearly enunciated by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: the ideal that every person would be judged by the "content of their character," not the color of their skin.

And this is really where my concern lies. I could honestly care less about a mountain in a two-bit West Indian island nation. But I do care when many Americans, and apparently a few people around the world, start to honor a man for success that he has not yet achieved. Sure he got elected, but so could any young, charismatic Democrat given the circumstances of the past election. And yes, he is the first black president, but when it comes down to leading a successful government---so what?! The thinking person should be far more concerned about his execution of the office down the road, not what he looks like. Like King implied, this should be the ideal of the equality movement, but sadly, it has devolved into a struggle where people are still judged by the color of their skin, not the content of their character---it's just the reverse of the oppression that King faced, and it's just as bad for progress toward the goal of true equality.

Just the other day I watched the film Glory Road, which I highly recommend as both a good movie and a good lesson about true triumph in the struggle for racial equality. The film tells the story of a college basketball coach in Texas who was the first in the country to start and sub black players only during an NCAA championship game. The story is more than one of the steps in the long course toward racial equality, however. The story is one of a coach who was determined to win, and who stepped outside the lines of the way things were done in order to find the very best talent and craft a team that could do so. His team did not win, however, because it had a coach with the moral courage to start black players, admirable as that was. It won because it had a coach and eventually an entire team that was devoted to hard work, constant practice, and playing fundamental basketball. As might be expected in the time frame of the sixties, especially the sixties in the South, the team faced criminal discrimination and hate, but they chose in the end to pull together to work together---black and white---for victory. In the end, it was not about proving that they had the right skin color to win, it was about proving that they had the mental toughness and physical talent to win, regardless of color.

Barack Obama's election was another step in the what has been a long course toward a country that does not discriminate based on the color of a person's skin. I understand the significance of this step. But I will only respect Barack Obama as a president and a leader when he begins to prove, as president, that he has the wisdom and courage to lead and defend our country. Who knows, maybe Barack will be worthy of a mountain someday---but let him prove himself worthy by the manner in which he governs first. The largely unthinking, persona-based adulation of the masses means nothing when it comes down to leading a country, and I can only hope that this sad, odd level of hero-worship---a far cry from responsible civic duty---will one day be based on something solid. While I imagine that I will rarely agree with President Obama's policies, I am willing to respect him as leader---but he must earn that respect, from me and from every American.

Change in D.C.?

Well, change is underway in Washington. Change from one administration to another at least. The promised change in Democratic politics however, has not materialized. The idea that Barack Obama would actually change the way politics are run in Washington was a nice one, but apparently nothing more than that. I honestly didn't expect that it would happen---politics are politics after all---but still, Obama's cabinet so far seems to be largely a recycling of the Clinton administration. There was a lot said during the campaign about John McCain becoming Bush's third term, but post after post, name after name, so far the Obama administration is looking Bill Clinton's third term. Obama's defence is that looking for Democrats with experience without Clinton ties is impossible, and to a certain extent, he's right. Two things, however, cause this to ring just a little hollow. First of all, if the experience for difficult times can only be found in Washington, why did Obama campaign on continued promises of the change and fresh voices that he would bring to government? Second, I don't know about liberals, but I can think of plenty of conservatives that I would love to see in Washington who don't have ties to the current administration. Why can't the new team in D.C. do the same? I think the basic reason is that the message of change was an empty one all along along. Yes, there will certainly be change...change from a moderate conservative government (in the executive branch at least) to a very liberal one. But the change that Obama talked about is not going to happen. I'll give him this: if he wants to get the most liberal government possible in the shortest time possible, he's following the best path. The people he's bringing have been on the outs (in one way or another) for eight infuriating (for them) years, and with the chance to bring their ideas back into power, they will work hard and ruthlessly to implement their liberal agenda.

And this is what is really important. We are not headed to an era of moderatism, bipartisanship, and national success, at least not by any conventional definition. The era of radical liberalism has begun instead, and it is up to conservatives to limit the damage that Barack Obama and a Democrat-controlled Washington can do. We must both inform the people around us of the realities of issues like economics and national defence, and stand in opposition to the policies that the Democrat party attempts to implement.

Those Liberals...

As published in the PatriotPost Monday (11/17) Brief, this quote from Burt Prelutsky paints an humorously accurate picture. As a conservative, have you ever felt like this? I know I have!

"I think I tend to give liberals the benefit of the doubt. I happen to believe they are so besotted by their emotions that they can't help painting themselves into indefensible corners. To blame a liberal for lying and blatant hypocrisy would be as heartless as blaming an alcoholic for drinking. In fact, I suspect that, like alcoholics, liberals suffer from a chemical imbalance. Otherwise, how would you explain the enormous gulf between what they say and what they do? For instance, how often have we read newspaper editorials arguing for Affirmative Action in schools and in the work place? In most cases, those pieces are not being written or edited by members of a racial minority group. So, if they were sincere, shouldn't these journalists clear out their desks and surrender their jobs to somewhat less qualified, but far more deserving, blacks and Hispanics? Or consider, if you will, how consistently liberals object to tax cuts. They prattle on incessantly about how much the wealthy benefit, ignoring the logic that if there's a 10% reduction across the board, it figures that the person who pays more will save more. But, when liberals blather about the inequities of tax cuts, you realize they actually believe that if a millionaire saves fifty thousand on his tax bill, the guy who only earns, say, thirty grand-a-year should get the same return! ... So, while I acknowledge that liberals can be as loyal and steadfast as cocker spaniels, I have found it is nearly impossible to paper-train them." --Burt Prelutsky

Also from the same edition of the PatriotPost, a similar but more serious piece from David Limbaugh. Liberal hypocrisy is stunning at times in its magnitude and its blindness to the logic of real life. This is what we face as the political minority over the next few years, so just remember: the fight will be tough, but we are ultimately combating an inferior political ideology.

"As one liberal academic administrator said in justifying his Draconian action in suppressing a Christian viewpoint, 'We cannot tolerate the intolerable.' This self-blinding, superior mindset explains how liberals can accuse conservatives of racism for their legitimate political differences with Barack Obama while demeaning, with racist epithets, Condoleezza Rice or Clarence Thomas. It's how they can mock conservatives for being close-minded while unilaterally declaring the end to the debate on global warming because of a mythical consensus they have decreed. It's how they can demand every vote count and exclude military ballots. It's how they can glamorize Jimmy Carter for gallivanting to foreign countries to supervise 'fair elections' and pooh-pooh ACORN's serial voter fraud in their own country. It's how they can threaten the tax-exempt status of evangelical churches for preaching on values, even when the churches don't endorse candidates, but fully support a liberal church's direct electioneering for specific candidates. ... It's how they can oppose the death penalty for the guilty but protect the death penalty for the innocent unborn. ... If you believe the left is tolerant, open-minded and democratic, you're in for a rude awakening." --columnist David Limbaugh

Dittos from this blogger to Prelutsky and Limbaugh.

Moving Forward: the Future of Conservatism Post-Election '08

Well, here we are one week post-election already, and yes, the results you saw Wednesday morning last week are, unfortunately, still true: Barack Obama is president-elect and the Democrats have increased majorities in Congress. There are some things that time does not heal, including, in the short term at least, election results. America has to live until at least 2010 with a Democratic government. The question that conservatives must face is how we will live with it. To be quite honest, in the days following the election, I have experienced an odd combination of excitement and disappointment. The disappointment is natural, given the fact that America has elected to place the control of her government in the hands of those who will undermine the freedom that our country has long stood for. The excitement is for the opportunity that the conservative movement has to take our party back to the principles upon which it was founded, which made it great under Reagan, and which brought it to power in the midterms of 1994. Those same principles can bring the Republican party to victory again in 2010. Republican moderatism has failed, and it now falls to true conservatism to lead a revival.

This revival is being discussed around the conservative movement, from Rush to Gary Bauer to bloggers like myself. I think that we hold a two-fold vision. The first part of our vision is of standing as the resistance to the liberal policies that we will witness over the next 2 years at least. Make no mistake, we must take seriously the task of standing up to the "change" that the Democratic party will attempt to bring, because this change threatens grave damage to America. We must commit to an intelligent and respectful opposition of the agenda of the majority party. I emphasize intelligence and respect because we must show ourselves better than the liberal opposition of recent years, which has all too often resorted to ad hominem attacks and incessant whining. We stand against liberal policies because we know that they are wrong, because we know why they are wrong, and because we can articulate these facts. And while we will be respectful of those in power, we must never confuse this with the idea of appeasement for any reason. Neither the "historical" nature of this election, nor any supposed mandate of power compels us to cooperate with this administration. Only when the best interests of American and the principles of liberty are advanced should we do so. We must also remember that there will almost never be any reciprocity in compromise. As William Buckley, Jr., said, "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."

The second part of this vision is what I have related above---the revival of the Republican party through Reagan conservatism. Regardless of what some have recently said, Reagan is not dead. The principles that he articulated and implemented so successfully are still living principles today. This is because they go back farther and deeper than Reagan. They are not based on the ideas of one man; they are the principles that this country was founded upon, and flow from the Judeo-Christian worldview and the vision of freedom expressed by the those who risked all to ensure that American came into being. The founding fathers of this country were not successful in creating the greatest free country in the world for no reason: they succeeded because they and succeeding generations knew that there were basic principles necessary for the success of government of, by, and for the people. As we look to reconstruct the Republican platform over the coming months, I envision a platform that has as its foundation the three "unalienable rights" that are the cornerstone of the Declaration of Indepence: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It is these liberties, enumerated in and protected by the Constitution, that form the roots of conservative thought. A platform that embraces them by promising to protect all forms of human life, to guarantee the basic American freedoms expressed in the Bill of Rights, to ensure that government is restrained to Constitutionally limited and and legitimate roles, to maintain fiscal responsibility, to allow Americans to pursue happiness uninhibited by the burden of excessive taxation, and to vigorously defend American freedom both at home and abroad will be a successful platform.

Of course, one of the questions that arises is why the American people will embrace such a platform after we have just seen them elect a socialist leader. There are several reasons why I believe that that is still a great opportunity for the success of conservatism in America today. First of all, look at the historical record. In 1976, Americans elected Jimmy Carter, a liberal much like Obama; however, only four years later, Ronald Reagan began his historical presidency. In 1992, a different moderate Republican lost to a rising young liberal with a message of hope and change. Two years after they elected Bill Clinton, however, Americans chose to accept the Contract with America, and a conservative Republican platform won Republicans control of Congress for the first time in forty years. And in 2000, George Bush was elected over the liberal populist platform of Al Gore in a rebuttal to the Clinton legacy. Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 because many individual politicians, and the elected party as a whole, had lost their conservative moorings. Americans did not reject a conservative platform in last week's election, they rejected a party led by a moderate that had failed repeatedly to stick to conservative principles. Second, it must not be forgotten that Democrats in recent years, including 2008, have often run on platforms that incorporated conservative elements, although with a liberal twist. Barack Obama, for example, repeatedly promised tax cuts for a large number of Americans. We know that his promises are false either directly or indirectly, but nevertheless, the principle that we should get to keep more of the money that we earn is attractive regardless of who says it.

Third, and very importantly, the Republican party has failed in not just the practice, but also in the articulation of conservative principles. During the primaries running up to the nomination of the Republican presidential candidate, a lot of conservatives, myself included, were happy that John McCain was doing badly in the early going, and then concerned when he began to pick up steam, and finally apprehensive when he was nominated. The reason for this? We knew that he was not conservative, something which his campaign message reflected. When given the choice, the majority of Americans chose a rhetorical message over a record of leadership, and I think that a lot of that choice had to do with the fact that the message that accompanied John McCain's record was not consistently conservative. Ronald Reagan is remembered as a great communicator not just because he was down-to-earth, warm speaker, but because he stuck to a consistently conservative message and articulated it in a way that anyone could understand. That is what our party must do again if they are to win back the support of the electorate and a share of power in Washington.

My message to you today is not one of defeat, but is instead a rallying cry to press forward to victory. As Winston Churchill told the people of Britain during their darkest hour, so I say today---we will never surrender, and we will confront liberalism wherever it rears its head. Columnist Tony Blankley summed up our mission thus: "If we conservatives can make our case, the election of 2008 will be a blip, just a kick-the-bums-out election. If Obama makes his case, he may have moved the center of political gravity to the left for a generation. Every conservative man and woman, to battle stations"!

Veteran's Day

As a future member of the U.S. Marine Corps, this week of November has a doubly special meaning, with the Corps' birthday on Monday, and Veteran's Day today. Both occasions hold a mix of celebration and solemn remembrance. Celebration for the greatest fighting organization on the face of earth and for the service of thousands of veterans of all our armed forces. Solemn remembrance for the great sacrifices that men and women have made for over two centuries to preserve to preserve our country and freedom around the world. Appropriate for both days is the the birthday message of the Commandant of the Marine Corps, whose words evoke not only the tradition, fighting spirit, and mission of the Marine Corps, but also speak to the mission in which our armed forces are now engaged: the defense of our country against the threat of Islamic terrorism. And regardless of the specific threat, this mission of defending freedom is what the thousands of veterans of our armed services have fought and died for. For this, I say "thank you" to our country's veterans---may your sacrifices never be forgotten. Semper Fidelis.



Video source: Marines.mil

My endorsement of John McCain

Statesmen? or Politicians?

[Here is a blog that I actually wrote several weeks ago, but never got around to publishing. Enjoy.]

One statement has had more influence on my views of political involvement than almost any other. My late great-aunt Alice Morrison once said (referring to weak-kneed senators in Washington), “They need to stop being politicians and be statesmen again.” What she meant was that instead of pandering to political interest groups, and looking out for their own electability, our elected leaders needed to be a lot more concerned with doing what is right for their country and constituents. This has also always meant that for me, the only ways that I want to get involved politically is as a citizen first and always, and as a citizen statesman second. In other words, if I ever run for political office, it will be as private citizen taking a step to serve his fellows, not as someone who has preened himself for a political role.

As in a lot of areas, however, it seems to me that a lot of politicians today don't share in the least my ideas of political service and leadership. Too many politicians today don't care about statesmanship, but rather about how they're looking for the next election. This means memorizing the right sound bite lines, rather than telling it like it is. This means sneaking pork into bills to win favor and votes back home, rather than voting for what's right (and Constitutional!) for America regardless of the polls. This means using the title of “Representative” or “Senator” as a stepping stone in a personal career, rather than fulfilling a responsibility to serve their constituents and America.

This troubling tendency is nowhere more evident than in the current presidential contest. The President, more than any other American political figure, has the responsibility to be a statesman and leader, and yet, there is one candidate in this campaign who has built a good deal of his campaign and popularity on creating a celebrity image. Barry Obama has built an entire campaign on an empty “rockstar” image and empty promises of “hope” and “change”. He refuses to offer solid ideas, and seems unable to nail down a position on many of the issues that matter to Americans. His inadequacies and flip-flops have been documented by many others more competent than I, so the main reason I mention him here is that he is the ultimate example of a mere politician, an anti-statesman, so to speak.

John McCain, on the other hand, is someone whom I would trust with the reins of leadership. From his service in the Navy to his career as a senator, he has displayed traits that indicate the ability to serve his country as a competent president. Some question his soundness on certain conservative principles, but although I share those concerns to an extent, I would far rather have a real leader with whom I disagreed than a fake leader with whom I shared total idealogical harmony. And since I can fully support Senator McCain's positions on many of the issues that matter most to me, such as GWOT, taxes and pork, and life; I am proud to support him---the only statesman running for president.

(With gratitude to my Aunt Alice, rest in peace.)

War: politicized

The campaign headlines today revolved a good deal around the publicity battle that John McCain and “Barry” Obama are waging. With Obama's high-publicity trip to the Middle East, McCain has had to fight to retain a place in the news. I don't know that I've expressed it here before, but I am often frustrated by the way in which the Global War on Terror has been reduced to a political byline, useful for headlines and posturing, but not taken seriously. Of course, this happens to a lot of issues during campaigns, but to me, GWOT is so much more important that the usual planks of taxes, energy, healthcare, etc.---it is a battle for American safety and world peace against Islamic terrorism. This is not 4-dollars-a-gallon that were talking about, it's an enemy wants every American dead! And even worse, the politicization of the issue is demeaning to the service and sacrifice of thousands of American servicemen. This is what really angers me. Our guys---my future brothers in arms---are fighting and dying to protect our freedom, and yet they are reduced to pawns in the political war. And pawns, no less, that one side believes should retreat before a “checkmate” is attained against our enemies abroad! I don't want to say that this diminution of the military effort is intentional in all cases, because it is almost impossible to avoid coming across that way when the discussion of the issue is so frequent. One side of the campaign however (you know which one) could care less about victory or the American serviceman, and is interested only in how to use the war as an occasion of political pandering.

With this in mind, I just want to remind everyone to keep in mind the boots on the ground in this battle. Please pray for their safety and for victory! And remember also that for every Marine, Soldier, Sailor, and Airman playing a role in GWOT, there are family and friends back home who know that any day a chaplain could pay them a dreaded visit. Pray for them too. This post is dedication to two of our warriors: Pete Rensema, U.S.A; and Barrett Craven, U.S.M.C.

A fuel perspective

A good day to you, folks! These are the first words typed on my new laptop, a nice Gateway that I picked up for a good price at Newegg.com . I’ve been impressed so far with the graphics and other capabilities of the machine, now to see how well the keyboard works! One benefit already is that I’m lying bed writing, rather than sitting at a desk!

One thing I’ve been thinking about lately is gas prices (who hasn’t?) and their effect on the average American life. The manager of the gas station/convenience store where I work part time was working out back in the stockroom with me the other day and said something to the effect that he would just as soon stay behind the scenes because up front, “all you get is people complaining about the gas prices. They figure that because we take the money, that somehow we’re responsible for the prices.” This is just one minor example of what I can only describe as an ignorant attitude on the part of a majority of Americans regarding current high gas prices. Phil Gramm said recently that we have become a “nation of whiners.” He was demonized by the media and even some conservatives for suggesting that the current recession is largely a mental one, but I agree in large part with what he said. From liberal politicians and media figures on down, there is a lot of whining and finger pointing going on that fails entirely to address the root causes of the low economic times that we are dealing with. It’s been said before (and better) by many others, but I’d like to say it again: the only way to truly solve our economic woes is to let the free market and deregulation of energy production naturally correct the problem! More government interference will not solve anything---but this is precisely what far too many in our “nation of whiners” want---a quick “fix” that ignores long-term consequences.

I am encouraged, though, by what I see and hear from many of the everyday Americans around me. One of my co-workers in particular takes a real beating at the pump---spending about half of his paycheck just to get to work. When you’re making not much more than minimum wage, and have only a hundred or so a week after buying gas, it’s really hard to save or get ahead at all. My friend, however isn’t really bitter---doesn’t whine and complain. Instead, he’s looking for a place to live closer to work, and is constantly optimistic about working, making money, and solving his fuel bill problem with his own two hands, rather than asking a politician to solve it for him. I think that a lot of Americans are like that---hardworking and willing to make do when times are tough.

I think what it comes down to then, on the political front, is the need for a leader who is willing to encourage them to do just that. A leader who will say, “Americans, we have a problem, but it’s up to you to fix it with American produced fuel, and with sensible conservation and alternative energy sources. What I will give you is less government interference in the form of taxes and regulations, and I will keep the government out of the energy subsidy business---letting the free market determine the most efficient path to energy production instead.” I don’t know where a leader like this is to be found (on the presidential scale at least) in a day when promises of government help are more and more the norm, but I trust that such a leader will be found for America in the near future.

Independence Day

Well, Independence Day has come and gone, so this post is a bit belated, but so was about half of my personal celebration, so I don't feel too guilty. I viewed (for the first time), the film Ike: Countdown to D-Day (starring Tom Selleck) last night and I was impressed overall with the quality and message of the film. My biggest gripe was the very negative portrayal of Gen. George Patton, whom I admire despite his admitted character flaws. Other than that, however, I enjoyed the depiction of Gen. Eisenhower's masterful coordination of the D-Day invasion. It reminded me of a couple of very important things about a war effort such as the one in the European theater. First, as "Ike" stressed in the film, such an effort requires that one commander exercise supreme authority over the planning and timing of the operation. Without such authority, as the film showed very well, the D-Day operation would have dissolved into chaos with warring generals and egos bickering over methods and power. Second, such authority must be exercised with great tact. Eisenhower wisely refused to allow his name and face to be paraded before the world, knowing that if he was to exert any control over the many generals under his command, he could not compete with them for public attention. Countdown also showed the blend of exerting operation authority and allowing input from subordinate commanders that is and was necessary for military success. Third, I was reminded of the fact that a commander in wartime is often a lonely man. "Ike" had friends in several of his subordinate generals, but he was alone in bearing the weight of making his final decisions regarding the execution of the invasion. And he was also alone in bearing not only the responsibility for the results, but also the responsibility for the thousand of lives that he was sending into harm's way.

To many today, war is, sadly, just a game, or even just a threat or method to be used to impose one nation's will on another. But as Countdown showed, it is much more than that. As Gen. W.T. Sherman put it, "War is hell." It is hell for the private who bleeds on the ground, and it is hell for the general who bears the responsibility for sending him there. Countdown shows this well, but it also shows that such hell is still sometimes necessary. As Eisenhower said several times in the film, Europe needed to be freed, and despite the sacrifice incumbent upon such a decision, he was willing to make it for the greater good.

This Independence Day weekend, let us all remember that freedom is truly never free. My thanks and prayers go out to all those who sacrifice to defend it.

Back again...!

Well, it's been awhile but I have managed to get back on the keyboard at last after quite a long dry stretch. School and work, along with more than a few time management lapses have intervened to keep me from writing. However, I hope to do better over the remainder of the summer and the next school year. Between the upcoming election in November, and my life and work, I should have plenty of material. Speaking of life and work---I have never intended this blog to turn into a personal journal, and it won't, but I will try to work in more things that I learn from day-to-day life, rather than just focusing on public news and events. I may also decide to blog on my upcoming (God-willing) training and duty with the U.S. Marine Corps. Once again, not so much on a personal level, but more to give an account of service for those who want to know what USMC officers go through while preparing for and fulfilling their duties. I think that posts will also generally end up being shorter, but hopefully much more frequent (than they have been recently.) That's all for now!

True courage, real love

I read a truly moving story today from the UK's Daily Mail via FOX News. I ask that you take the time to read the full story, with photos, here. A British lady named Lorraine Allard was four months pregnant when she discovered that she had advanced bowel and liver cancer. She had two options: one, abort her baby and begin chemotherapy immediately to save her own life, or two, do nothing until her unborn son was developed enough to survive on his own. Mrs. Allard chose to wait and delivered her 25-month-old son Liam on Nov. 18 of last year. He is responding well to care and appears to have every chance for a healthy life. Mrs. Allard, on the other hand, died on Jan. 18, having only held her son a few times her final struggle against the cancer destroying her.

I really don't know what more I can add to that story. I'm not really an emotional type of guy, but I can tell you that this story brought moisture to my eyes. This woman clearly showed the greatest love that any person can, essentially laying down her life for another. My prayers are with her family, and may Lorraine always be remembered as an example of great love and moral courage in the face of the choice between life and death.

Security in a Global War

Most Americans are cognizant of the fact that the United States Military is currently engaged in the "war in Iraq," but I think that far fewer realize that Iraq is merely one battle in a global war on terrorism. GWOT, as Army parlance terms it, is also called the Long War, an apt title, considering that this conflict whether "hot" or "cold" has been going on for years, and will continue for the immediately foreseeable future. Winning this war is not a simple matter of sending ships, warplanes, tanks, and troops into a theater of action, and creaming whoever opposes us. If it was, GWOT would almost certainly be of relatively short duration, a short chapter in the history of American military might---witness, for example, the ease and speed with which American forces defeated the regime of Saddam Hussein in the beginning phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Instead, as the continuing battles in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown, we are fighting an enemy that cannot be brought "to terms" or simply crushed by overwhelming conventional military might. We face an enemy that rises from, and hides and operates within, civilian populations, that has no regard for human life or any "rules of warfare," and who, simply put, will never surrender and cease operations until either their jihad against the West succeeds or they are eliminated from the face of the planet.

Thankfully, in this case, eliminated does not necessarily refer to killing every potential or even current terrorist around the globe. While it will certainly involve the use of deadly force on a regular basis, terrorism must also be fought on the economic and diplomatic fronts, and, as has been said before me, in "the hearts and minds" of the people whose countries and/or religion produce the vast majority of terrorist combatants. The importance of this was recently brought to my attention by the recent controversy over comments made by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates about the methods currently being used by our NATO allies to prosecute the fight against terror in Afghanistan, another important (and currently much ignored) front of GWOT. The main thrust of Gates' complaints was that NATO troops are not properly trained in counterinsurgency tactics and, specifically, often overuse heavy (large caliber) firepower when combating terrorists in urban and suburban settings. This, of course, leads to more civilian casualties, which increases local resentment of and opposition to NATO and U.S. forces, which leads to both less cooperation from local civilians and to higher incidents of terrorist violence. My attention was drawn to this issue through the excellent article "A Flip of the COIN" by Steve Schippert at Threats Watch, which I would strongly urge my readers to read as well. The point of the article, with which I agree, is that although this issue does have to do with training in and methods of combating the terrorist insurgency, the bigger issue is one of the will of the nations involved to prosecute the right kind of war. As Mr. Schippert says, "the extensive employment of - or “overreliance on” - such weapons [heavy weaponry] and tactics reduces the casualty risk of the assaulting force demonstrably. The relative safety afforded assaulting NATO forces in using such ‘standoff’ weapons is also politically enticing for domestic leaderships at home in Europe. And therein lies the true rub: Political Will v. Most Effective Tactics."

The overall point which I would like to draw from this discussion is this: America is involved in a long, non-conventional war in which the only military force that she can truly rely on is her own. This is something that I believe far too few American realize, and therein a great danger lies for the upcoming election. Americans must consider the fact that, short of what I believe would be a miracle, the commander-in-chief that they elect will for the duration of his term lead America and the rest of the free world in the continuing confrontation with Islamic terrorism. This means that first of all the leader that Americans choose must realize that winning GWOT is far more than just winning the battle in Iraq, or even disarming Iran. Catchphrases like "I will pursue Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell" do NOT constitute a strategy for victory. A patriotic and appealing moral and temporary tactical victory---yes. But a permanent milestone in winning GWOT---no. Instead, a successful commander-in-chief must be ready to lead a long and sometimes uncertain struggle, and he must be willing to face unpopularity at home and abroad for doing so. He must also be willing to strengthen our military to wage this war. While our forces are undeniably the best in the world, current force levels are also inadequate for the difficult global task that they face. As the previous discussion shows, it is also a task that, with exception of one or two (and possibly no) allies, they must face alone. A proper view of national defence must also take into account the need increase the size of our military.

As previous posts show, I am a supporter of Fred Thompson for the Republican nomination and the presidency, and I believe that he presents the best choice to fulfill the extremely difficult role that I have just described. He knows and understands the enemies and the war that we face, he is a leader who will confront those enemies without wavering, and he is committed to expanding and strengthening our military to meet these challenges. If there is anyone who reads this article who has not read Senator Thompson's White Paper on "Revitalizing our Armed Forces" I strongly urge them to do so and consider whether this is not the kind of leader that they wish to stand at the helm of the American military in the years and conflicts to come. I pray for America's sake that such will be the choice of voters both now in the primaries and also in November.