What Does the Ultrasound Say?

Perhaps the saddest thing about America today is the palpable divisiveness at virtually every level and in every realm of our national life.  Internationally, I’m not sure President Obama could make it any worse, even if he tried.  It seems it is all reaching a crescendo, a boiling point, a breaking point, an explosive eruption.  Jesus described a coming time of terrible distress “wars and rumors of wars” and that, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.  All these are the beginning of birth pains.”   It’s time for the world to enroll in a Lamaze class.

Domestically, it hasn’t seemed this bad since the tail-end of the civil-rights movement with its attendant urban riots.  That period included the Harlem Riot of 1964, Philadelphia 1964 riot, Watts Riots of 1965, and the 1966 Hough Riots in Cleveland.   I can vividly remember 1966, as a six-year old boy, visiting my Aunt and Uncle’s place in Ohio.   A throng of rioters were marching down their street.  The adults had my cousins and brothers all huddled in the attic, while my Dad and Uncle armed with a hunting rifle and a shotgun kept watch out of the attic window.   

The following year, 1967, over 100 US cities experienced widespread rioting, including in Newark, Plainfield, NJ , Detroit, MI  and Minneapolis-Saint Paul.   After the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968, extensive rioting again occurred in cities across the country, most notably in  Chicago,   Washington, D.C.  , Louisville,  and  Baltimore.   

The other movement I distinctly recall from my youth was the anti-war movement.  Hippies protesting the Vietnam War turned against the government, their parents, and virtually all authority. “Never trust anyone over 30” was their code.  The police became “pigs.”  And who can forget their recruiting slogan and raison d’être, “Sex, Drugs, and Rock ’n’ Roll.”  Virtually every mall had a “head-shop” and record stores that served as a reminder and promoter of their counter-culture practices. 

Although the civil-rights and anti-war movements were both against the status quo that the US government represented, they never really converged as completely as one might have thought.  Even though Martin Luther King, Jr. was against the Vietnam War, he didn’t trust the hippies enough to fully embrace them.  Dr. King expressed this sentiment in a 1967 lecture at Massey College in Canada, “The importance of the hippies is not in their unconventional behavior but in the fact that hundreds of thousands of young people, in turning to a flight from reality, are expressing a profoundly discrediting view on the society they emerge from.”

Tragically, or perhaps ironically, we now see the worst of these two movements merged in one man -- Barack Obama.  He’s not alone. Many modern leftists of similar temperament come to mind, e.g., John Kerry, Eric Holder, Bill de Blassio and Hillary are all comparable.  They’ve sworn to uphold and enforce the law but know that won’t produce the outcomes they desire – so they find themselves conflicted, occasionally defending and enforcing it, other times condoning or demonstrating outright lawlessness.   They are expected to ensure tranquility and the common defense, but loathe the police and military that are charged with trying to achieve it.  They dare not admit there’s a war on – not even on poverty -- let alone admit they are the very reason we are losing it.

Martin Luther King, Jr., in decrying the “white moderate,” describes the character of these modern leftists to a tee, “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the {African-American's} great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the {African-American} to wait for a ‘more convenient season’.”  

I agree with Dr. King, as long as these leftist/moderate whites are in charge, they’ll continue to paternalistically dole out government largesse, as if that’s the solution -- in the hopes of coming to a more convenient season or their next election, whichever’s first. 

The contractions have started.

Fog or Confusion?

When a hand grenade lands in your midst, one of the surest ways to save your buddies (and become a hero), is to dive on it. The left has lobbed a grenade into our Armed Forces that no one dares dive on, no matter how much carnage it might prevent. 

That grenade rolling around in the midst of the Army nowadays is deliberately designed to feminize, neuter, emasculate and pacify our military.  The ongoing social tinkering is not designed to produce a Frankenstein – it’s designed to produce a Michael Jackson.  The left knows they can control Mike a lot easier than Frank.  And that’s their ultimate objective; “control” the military.  Control is their goal – not combat effectiveness.

The three main axis of advance for the left are; 1) force the homosexual issue, 2) force women into male roles/units, and 3) get rid of those bigoted and pesky Christians.  First axis – check, objective accomplished.  Second objective -- underway.  The third one, they can’t even admit it’s an objective.  The left knows that one who is committed to the King of kings won’t cave to their carnality. After all, it was Jesus himself who said, “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’”

What’s the big deal about male homosexuality in the military – it requires at least one of the two men involved to act like a woman.  Here’s what the Department of Defense regulation for decades said about it:  “Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage In homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission.  The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the Military Services to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among servicemembers….”   So exactly what has changed about human nature or the military mission (other than liberal politicians are in power, and Generals would rather get promoted than defend morality)?  

The collateral damage from the left’s grenade may only now be evident.  This month the Department of Defense released its annual Sexual Assault Report .  A Military Times article about the report opened with this, “Across the military, men suffered more sexual assaults last year than women…”  The report itself said, “From 2012 to 2013, there was an unprecedented 53% increase in victim reports of sexual assault.  In 2014, the high level of reporting seen in 2013 was sustained with 6,131 reports of sexual assault. This figure represents an increase of 11% over 2013 numbers.”  DoD's Dr. Nathan Galbreath explained, "Men, relative to women, are more often experiencing multiple sexual assault incidents throughout the year. They are at the hands of multiple offenders. These occur in daytime hours in their duty locations."  Exactly whose bright idea was all this again?

In 1896, Clausewitz described “The Fog of War” as, "the state of ignorance in which commanders frequently find themselves as regards the real strength and position, not only of their foes, but also of their friends."  Politicians now use the term to excuse and mask their poor decisions; blaming their blunders on a “fog” that was really brought about by their own ideological blinders.  The newest liberal “fog” is complete gender confusion on every front.   

To advance the left’s second objective the “women in Ranger school” experiment is underway.  If they can demonstrate that a woman can pass what has been called the "toughest combat course in the world" and "most physically and mentally demanding leadership school the Army has to offer"  there will be no reason to maintain the exclusion of women from any job or any unit. 

From 2000 – 2012, the historically male-only Ranger School graduation rate was under 49%.  The results thus far for the ongoing gender-bending class:  381 males and 19 females started the course; 184 men and eight women passed the initial four-day Ranger assessment.   All eight of the women and 69 of the males then failed the first of the three phases (Darby, Mountains and Florida).  Their second chance at the Darby Phase began 14 May 2015.   

Perhaps the only two things more confused than our Armed Force’s gender policies: Bruce Jenner trying to decide which restroom to use and the left trying to figure out how he could be a Republican.

 

One day a woman may become a “Ranger” -- but she’ll never be a man.  

May the fog lift soon. 

 

This article was published in the 20 May 2015 Upson Beacon.  Full disclosure.  I am a Ranger Class 13-87 graduate.  My son and I both served in the 75th Ranger Regiment.  I also served in the Ranger Training Brigade.   

The Coming Constitutional Clash

America is headed for a train wreck…you can see it coming if you look far enough down the tracks.  There was a small sampling of this coming wreck earlier this month in Garland, Texas.  The locomotive powering the American experiment – the US Constitution, has been chugging along for well over two-hundred and twenty-six years.  That freedom train is headed for a clash with Islam.  Not just radical, militant Islam, but “American” Muslims as well.

Our Constitution, in the very First Amendment, guarantees “freedom of religion” and “freedom of speech.”   Every member of the US Military takes an oath to “support and defend” that right and all other rights enshrined in that sacred document, “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  Our Christian founders knew these rights had to be enumerated to keep the federal government, and others, from dictating the manner in which people could worship, and to prevent the establishment of a national church like the Church of England. 

When someone exercises their First Amendment free speech rights in a way that offends Christians, the Biblical response is to, as Jesus half-brother James said, “Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance.”   Jesus put it this way, “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.  Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

How have some Muslims responded to something that offends them concerning their “Prophet”?  We’ve seen it in Denmark, Paris, and most recently Garland, Texas.  Those groups were only exercising what the US should consider, constitutionally protected, First Amendment free speech. 

Wenzel Strategies conducted a poll of six-hundred American Muslims (with a margin of error of less than four percent.)  When asked, “Do you believe criticism of Islam or Mohammed should be permitted under the Constitution’s First Amendment?” 57.8% said, “No.”  A clear majority do not believe the Constitution protects free speech with regard to Islam.  Perhaps because, in the same poll, over 32%, nearly one-third, said Shariah law should be the supreme law of the land in the US.  Is it confusion about the Constitution, or an underlying belief that Sharia trumps the Constitution?     

It’s one thing to have a philosophical or theological disagreement, it’s quite another to believe you should be killed over it.  When those same American Muslims were asked, “Do you agree or disagree that Americans who criticize or parody Islam should be put to death?” 11.5% of the American Muslims surveyed either agree (4.3%), or strongly agree (7.2%), that Americans who criticize or parody Islam should be put to death. 

Given that a majority of American Muslims don’t think criticism of Islam or their prophet is protected, and more than eleven percent thinks that offensively exercising one’s Constitutional right deserves death, just how big is the impending train wreck going to be?  Let’s use the study titled, “The American Mosque 2011″ by Ihsan Bagby of the University of Kentucky.  

Bagby reports there are 2,106 mosques in the US, more than double the 962 in 1994.  This doesn’t include groups not considered Islamic, e.g. Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam.  According to Bagby’s work, the states with the highest number of mosques are: New York (257), California (246), Texas (166), Florida (118), Illinois (109), New Jersey (109), Pennsylvania (99), Michigan (77), Georgia (69), and Virginia (62).  Based on his work Bagby projected 2.6 million “mosque participants,” up from 2 million in 2000.  Bagby extrapolates that if non-affiliated adherents were included the total “should be closer to the estimates of up to 7 million.”  

Using a conservative figure of three million American Muslims, there are roughly 1.73 million Muslims (57.8%) here that believe your First Amendment right does not allow you to criticize their religion.  That would also mean there are some 345,000 American Muslims (11.5%) that think Americans who do criticize or parody Islam should be put to death. 

The Center for Immigration Studies reports, “Immigrants from the Middle East are currently the fastest growing immigration demographic coming into the US” and predicts, “the immigrant population from the Middle East will double in fifteen years and triple by 2050.”  

The coming Islamic train crash is not with Christians, it’s with the Constitution.




This article was written before the recent Amtrak crash in Philadelphia and appeared in the 13 MAY 2015 Upson Beacon..

Our Father and Baltimore

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.   Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in Baltimore, as it is in heaven.   

I saw former Georgia Bulldog tight-end, Benjamin Watson, being interviewed a couple of times on the news this weekend regarding the recent Baltimore uprisings.  He is a very impressive and thoughtful gentleman.  Here is an excerpt of what he posted on his Facebook page:

“We have major problems as a nation. Yesterday Ferguson burned. Tonight ‪‎Baltimore burns. Tomorrow it will be another city in our homeland. Watching the coverage I’m hearing yet another version of a nauseatingly familiar narrative. Violence by police reciprocated by violence by the community, reciprocated by violence by police reciprocated by…. It seems fruitless to continue to analyze, condemn, and respond to these dreadful episodes. ‘Frustration, anger, tension boiling over, upset and unfortunate’ are words we hear from Baltimore residents. When it comes to law enforcement, race, poverty, education, immigration we always talk about fixing ‘broken’ systems….After each situation the more I am convinced that the love of God for our fellow brothers and sisters who were created in His image, is our only hope for reconciliation. But the only way we can even see him that way is if God illuminates our view and changes our thought process…I see a brokenness that only Christ can give us the wisdom and power to mend.”

I must say, I fully agree with Benjamin, Christ is the answer, because He is the way to the Father.  Jesus put it this way, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.  If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him….The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.  Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me…”

It is also earthly fathers that hold the answer to Baltimore and many of our urban problems.  Many are claiming that the problem in our urban centers is poverty.  Poverty is not the problem.  A lack of earthly fathers living up to their obligations is the problem – poverty is the result.  A 2012 Heritage Organization Report titled, “Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty” had this to say about the role of fathers and the God-ordained institution of marriage: 

“Child poverty is an ongoing national concern, but few are aware that its principal cause is the absence of married fathers in the home. Marriage remains America’s strongest anti-poverty weapon, yet it continues to decline. As husbands disappear from the home, poverty and welfare dependence will increase, and children and parents will suffer as a result.”  

Additional findings indicate that the benefits of fathers and marriage are not just monetary.  “Children raised by married parents have substantially better life outcomes compared to similar children raised in single-parent homes.  When compared to children in intact married homes, children raised by single parents are more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems; be physically abused; smoke, drink, and use drugs; be aggressive; engage in violent, delinquent, and criminal behavior; have poor school performance; be expelled from school; and drop out of high school.  Many of these negative outcomes are associated with the higher poverty rates of single mothers. In many cases, however, the improvements in child well-being that are associated with marriage persist even after adjusting for differences in family income. This indicates that the father brings more to his home than just a paycheck.”

 

 Those looking for an explanation to poverty and its associated problems would be wise to understand the troubles associated with single-parenting.  When single-parent families are compared to intact married families, the children are, “More than twice as likely to be arrested for a juvenile crime; Twice as likely to be treated for emotional and behavioral problems; roughly twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school; and a third more likely to drop out before completing high school.”    
 

Benjamin Watson is right.  For those who turn to Christ they can come to realize that God is, “A father to the fatherless.”  

Invasions, Assimilation, and Salt

For some reason, I have been gripped by the topic of “invasive species” for the last few days.    Down here in the south, the example of kudzu immediately comes to mind.  The UN Council on Bio Diversity defines an invasive species as, “a plant or animal that is not native to a specific location; and has a tendency to spread, which is believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy and/or human health.”  

 

The European Union uses the term "Invasive Alien Species."  One doesn’t need to be a recent graduate of our modern academic system to realize just how offensive and politically incorrect the term "Invasive Alien Species" could be.  In fact, two researchers, Robert I. Colautti and Hugh J. MacIsaac in a paper titled, “A Neutral Terminology to Define ‘Invasive’ Species” come to the aid of those oppressed aliens.  

Their paper’s abstract explains, “The use of simple terms to articulate ecological concepts can confuse ideological debates and undermine management efforts. This problem is particularly acute in studies of nonindigenous species, which alternatively have been called ‘exotic’, ‘introduced’, ‘invasive’ and ‘naturalised’, among others…”  Instead they, “propose a neutral terminology.”  Perhaps they should be called “undocumented species” or “uninvited, but welcome anyways species” or “refugee species.”  Some species were probably brought here by their parents, through no fault of their own – some might call that species a “dreamer” perhaps.

Dr. David Tilman finds, “Typically, an introduced species must survive at low population densities before it becomes invasive in a new location.”  Then there is a “tipping point” where the invasive species becomes a problem.  However, this doesn’t just happen; there are preconditions that make an ecosystem susceptible to invasion.  The Department of Agriculture insightfully explains, “Invaded ecosystems may have experienced disturbance, typically human-induced.  Such a disturbance may give invasive species a chance to establish themselves with less competition from natives less able to adapt to a disturbed ecosystem.”   In the case of the American ecosystem, that disturbance is the result of unconstitutional executive actions.

As PJ Media reports, “President Obama’s amnesty by edict has always been about adding new Democrats to the voter rolls, and recent action by the Department of Homeland Security provides further proof. Sources at the DHS report that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is reallocating significant resources away from a computer system — the “Electronic Immigration System” — to sending letters to all 9,000,000 green card holders urging them to naturalize prior to the 2016 election.”

 

And the invasion will continue unabated for the foreseeable future.  The Washington Examiner reports, “Legal and illegal immigrants will hit a record high of 51 million in just eight years and eventually account for an astounding 82 percent of all population growth in America, according to new U.S. Census figures.”  

The Center for Immigration Studies analysis of the new Census says, “These numbers have important implications for workers, schools, infrastructure, congestion and the environment…They also may have implications for our ability to successfully assimilate and integrate immigrants. Yet there has been almost no national debate about bringing in so many people..."

There was a President that unashamedly loved America; he described her using the metaphor Jesus used in His Sermon on the Mount.  In his farewell speech to the nation, Ronald Reagan said, “I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace…”

In that same speech, Reagan warned us that it was effectual assimilation that would prevent an invasion from leading to annihilation.  He cautioned, “An informed patriotism is what we want…are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world?...freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs protection.”  Social scientists define successful assimilation as “new members of a society become indistinguishable from members of the other group.”

  

Immediately before His “City on a Hill” illustration, Jesus told his followers, “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.”  

 

If our country is going to be preserved, Americans must pour on the salt.  No matter how irritating some might find it.

This column also appears in the 29 APR 2015 Upson Beacon.

Cage, Convert, or Kill

I am not a smart man.  I’m not just quoting Forrest Gump – I’m not a smart man, but I repeat myself.  Maybe that is why I appreciate simplicity so much.  The legendary artist, Leonardo da Vinci said, “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”   In fact, “simplicity” is deemed so important that it is one of the US military’s nine “Principles of War.”

The idea of guidelines for effectively conducting war goes back some 500 years before Christ, at least as far as Sun Tzu.   Machiavelli had his "General Rules" in the 16^th century.   Carl von Clausewitz wrote his version in the early 19^th century which is largely the foundation of what the US military employs today, or should.  

Military doctrine defines these nine principles as the, “the most important nonphysical factors that affect the conduct of operations.”  As you read each of these doctrinal definitions, decide whether or not they comport with President Obama’s employment of forces in our “overseas contingency operations” formerly known as the “global war on terror.”  (Parenthetical comments are mine.)

Objective -- Direct every military operation toward a clearly defined, decisive, and attainable objective.  The principle of objective drives all military activity towards the destruction of the enemy's ability and will to fight.  (Like an effective “Jobs program.”  That ought to keep those “violent extremists” too busy to fight.)

Offensive -- Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative.  The surest way to achieve decisive results is to seize, retain, and exploit the initiative. Seizing the initiative compels an enemy to react.  (See also:  “NOT leading from behind.”)

Mass – Concentrate the effects of combat power at the decisive place and time.  (Note – simultaneously telling the enemy your withdrawal plans when announcing additional forces can offset the benefits of this principle.)

Economy of Force -- The reciprocal of mass.  Allocate minimum essential combat power to secondary efforts. Never leave any unit without a purpose.  (Doing nothing can be very economical, until the enemy is at your door.)

Maneuver.  Place the enemy in a disadvantageous position through the flexible application of combat power.  Effective maneuver keeps enemy forces off balance by making them confront new problems and new dangers faster than they can counter them.  (Caution – promising “no boots on the ground” can cause the enemy to be injured by laughing at your lack of resolve/timidity.)

Unity of Command -- Necessary to applying a force’s full combat power.  A single commander directs and coordinates the actions of all forces toward a common objective and the most effective way to achieve unity of effort. (Note – can be undermined by embracing enemies, and undermining allies.  There has never been a more propitious time to unite the world; Sunni Arabs, Europe, Africa, and Israel all want to stop the spread of radical Islam and the Islamic State – the only thing lacking is a leader.)

Security -- Never permit the enemy to acquire an unexpected advantage. Security results from measures a command takes to protect itself from surprise, interference, sabotage, annoyance, and threat surveillance and reconnaissance.  (Antonym – Benghazi)

Surprise -- Strike the enemy at a time or place or in a manner for which he is unprepared.  Factors contributing to surprise include speed, operations security, and asymmetric capabilities.   (e.g. Obama enforcing a “Red Line” would be a surprise.)

Simplicity -- Prepare clear, uncomplicated plans and clear, concise orders to ensure thorough understanding and reduce confusion.  (I can say I’m confused -- the Obama administration is trying to strike a deal on nukes with Iran, but will not require that they renounce terrorism or the destruction of Israel?)

Analyzing the conduct of our ongoing military operations using these nine principles, “the most important nonphysical factors that affect the conduct of operations,” suggests, at least to me, it is a good time to revisit our National Security and Military Strategies. Or at least consider relieving/impeaching the Commander-in-Chief for dereliction of duty.

Here is a trustworthy warning:  anytime you hear Obama say, “let me be clear” or a politician say “comprehensive solution”, just know what’s about to follow is malarkey.  As Thomas Sowell said, “People who pride themselves on their ‘complexity’ and deride others for being ‘simplistic’ should realize that the truth is often not very complicated. What gets complex is evading the truth.”  The problem is not with our doctrine being too complex.

Regarding our ongoing war with radical Islam, which they’ve declared and Obama disavows, it seems to me there are really only three options:  cage them, kill them, or convert them. 

 

Truthfully, it’s pretty simple.

This article appears in the 22 APR 2015 Upson Beacon.