Our New Politicized Leftist Military

Many of you probably know that I spent quite a few years in the uniform of our nation’s military. It all started in 1962 when I attended the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and spent a year in the Army ROTC. Then I managed to fool a lot of seemingly important people and obtained a congressional appointment to the United States Naval Academy. I actually survived four years there, and was finally handed a BS degree and a commission as a Navy Ensign. I spent the next 11+ years as a naval aviator, but then resigned my regular Navy commission and entered the Naval Reserve. For the next 15 years I served in a variety of reserve commands, and was blessed to serve as a commanding officer of three different commands. Eventually I retired from the reserves as a Navy Captain in 1994.

Among the reasons for leaving the regular Navy in 1978 was the presidency of Jimmy Carter. His gross incompetence had a horrendous effect on the very Navy in which he once served. President Carter was an embarrassment to me and really to anyone who served in the military during those four years. He was actually an embarrassment to the entire nation even though many Americans were far too ignorant (aka, stupid) to realize they should have been embarrassed. The Reagan Revolution of 1980 was a refreshing change that had a near miraculous impact on our nation’s military. The result was the remaking of our military and a surge in the morale of every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine. It was a marvelous thing to witness. 

My, how things have changed. I believe President George Bush began the descent by his determination to do the impossible, to convert Muslim nations to some form of Western democracy. Such a effort was, of course, doomed to failure, and our nation suffered the loss of far too many lives and spent too much treasure.The true villain, however, was President Barack Obama. Obama “reformed” the senior officer corps of the U.S. military by ensuring only easily manipulated officers would rise to senior levels in the military. The result, of course, is the presence of such incompetent, “woke” fools as our current Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley. 

Believe me, the vast majority of flag officers (i.e., those who are generals and admirals) are no different from General Milley. If they were any different, they would have resigned in protest. But they cling to their high-ranking positions, hoping for lucrative, post-military positions in what President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex.” How right he was. For 15 years now our most senior officers  have been groomed to cave to the political realities of our expanding far-left political leadership. The U.S. military today is in a state of flux. The leadership is politicized, but those they lead are still non-political warriors who actually take their oath to support the Constitution (not the President) seriously. I won’t try to predict what will happen, but can only hope that we will experience (and vote for) a change in national leadership that will once again restore our military to its Constitutional mission of defending our nation from its true enemies.

The Bishops’ Choice

With a Biden/Harris administration imminent, many of our bishops have thankfully come to realize that they will not be able to continue their longtime flirtation with the Democrat Party. If the most recent statement by Archbishop Jose Gomez, President of the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), is any guide, maybe some of our bishops now know that the Democrats are no longer all that friendly to the Church. Indeed, the friendliness of those once-favored politicians, one that seemed so sincere, was nothing other than masked hostility. Anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, and the rejection of all things Christian is often declared openly by prominent Democrats without fear of reprisal by others in the party or by the mainstream media. 

Sadly, though, the bishops seem somewhat confused. Just days after the election, Archbishop Gomez encouraged the nation to come together "in a spirit of national unity" and then congratulated Joe Biden:

"...we recognize that Joseph R. Biden, Jr. has received enough votes to be elected the 46th President of the United States. We congratulate Mr. Biden and acknowledge that he joins the late President John F. Kennedy as the second United States president to profess the Catholic faith. We also congratulate Sen. Kamala D. Harris of California, who becomes the first woman ever elected as vice president."

But then, about a week later, Archbishop Gomez made a somewhat less enthusiastic statement, beginning again with a glance back to the Kennedy years:

"For only the second time, we are anticipating a transition to a president who professes the Catholic faith. This presents certain opportunities but also certain challenges."

He then addressed the perceived positives of the future Biden administration:

"The president-elect has given us reason to believe that his faith commitments will move him to support some good policies. This includes policies of immigration reform, refugees and the poor, and against racism, the death penalty, and climate change."

Here we encounter a litany of Democrat talking points, even though their policies only make things worse. How often do the bishops focus on the root cause of illegal immigration and condemn the leadership of the corrupt and authoritarian regimes that drive immigrants to our borders? Instead, they condemn our leaders who only carry out our nation’s laws.

The socialism being toyed with by so many Democrats is nothing more than a great equalizing mechanism that lowers everyone to the same impoverished level. The greatest poverty-reduction program is a growing and healthy free-market economy, one that provides employment and opportunity and doesn’t ship jobs overseas. 

As for racism, the Democrat Party supports the nation’s most inherently racist activity, for abortion is the leading cause of death in the nation's black community. Planned Parenthood, after all, was founded by a professional racist, Margaret Sanger, who desired nothing less that the eradication of all those lesser races. African American support for abortion is simply suicidal.

Unable to avoid the elephant in the room, the Archbishop continued by calling attention to Biden's policies on abortion:

"He has also given us reason to believe that he will support policies that are against some fundamental values that we hold dear as Catholics. These policies include: the repeal of the Hyde amendment and the preservation of Roe vs. Wade. Both of these policies undermine our preeminent priority of the elimination of abortion."

He then went on to mention other concerns about policies supported by Biden:

"...restoration of the HHS mandate, passage of the Equality Act, and unequal treatment of Catholic schools."

To refresh your memory, Obama's HHS mandate required the health insurance of religious organizations to include contraception, abortifacients, sterilization... (remember the Little Sisters of the Poor?). The Equality Act prohibits discrimination of homosexuals and others, even by religious organizations. A Catholic school should be able to hire only teachers who accept Church teaching on such issues as homosexuality and trans-genderism.

Abortion, of course, has long been a divisive issue, although for many bishops and priests the slaughter of the unborn was simply one small piece of the “seamless garment” representing all life issues. For too many years, abortion, if not tolerated, was at least overlooked so long as the bishops’ Democrat friends toed the line when it came to capital punishment, immigration, healthcare, and a host of other issues. Many bishops still follow this path. Cardinal Gregory of DC and Cardinal Tobin of Newark both come to mind.

Do you recall the enthusiasm among so many Catholic clergy when President Obama was elected. Obama sounded so thoughtful, so charitable, so socially just, so in tune with Church teaching on all the important things. Yes, his words told a wonderful, bright story of hope and change, but his actions...well, over time they pointed to something far darker. It took them a while, but some of the bishops eventually saw that the Democrats’ vision for the nation and the world is a future in which Judeo-Christian “values” – i.e., the truth -- will be strongly suppressed by a wiser government.

Of course, “truth” was another word missing from the Archbishop’s statement. Archbishop Gomez is instead almost apologetic. In a kind but concerned way, he apparently hopes that Joe Biden, the candidate who advertised his Catholic faith at every opportunity, will come to accept Church teaching. That, of course, is highly unlikely because his party’s key social policies openly reject that teaching. And one thing we know about Joe: he is first and foremost a Party man.

It will be interesting to observe how this relationship between bishops and president evolves. “This is a difficult and complex situation,” Archbishop Gomez reminded his colleagues, and then did what every bureaucrat does: he decided to form a committee, a working group “to emphasize our priorities and enhance collaboration.”

Good luck with that. One would think just focusing on the truth and holding Catholic politicians responsible when they reject the truth would be good enough. Are there bishops who think otherwise?

Oh, and don't think I believe the Republicans will save the day and support the Church. There may be a growing number of pro-life Republicans but they, too, are politicians and time in Washington tends to change folks. They simply hate to leave.

As the Psalmist reminds us:

Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help [Ps 146:3].

Certainly, as disciples of Jesus Christ, we must work together to carry on God's saving work in the world, while always remembering it is God's work, not ours. And God's work is always very good.

Kerry at the Convention

Good heavens! I thought John Kerry had taken his wife’s dowry and completely retired to his little mansion on Nantucket where he could contemplate his lifetime of public failures. But no, just as he did back in his Vietnam days, he resurfaced and made headlines. Of course, as a young officer on swift boats in the Mekong delta, all John Kerry did was convince his peers that his primary mission was to shop for medals. These were the same medals he publicly tossed away at that antiwar rally while he cozied up to Ho Chi Minh’s favorite actress, Jane Fonda, and told nasty lies about his comrades in arms. But then, just when you thought he was permanently out of sight, John appeared at the virtual Democrat convention to speak fondly of himself, of Barack Obama...Oh, yes, and of Joe Biden. 

A Protesting John Kerry

As he has throughout his political career, Kerry told several whoppers last night. The biggest? He reminded the nation how he and Obama, and presumably with the blessing and moral support of Joe Biden, "eliminated the threat of an Iran with a nuclear weapon." This was, of course, a lie and Kerry knows it. If he doesn't, he's a bigger fool than most of us think. The agreement with Iran -- a, non-binding, unconstitutional agreement since it did not receive Senate ratification as a treaty -- asked Iran only to delay its development of nuclear weapons. It certainly did not "eliminate the threat." In return for this meaningless delay, Obama-Kerry removed all sanctions and gave the murderous Iranian regime a huge pile of untraceable cash subsequently used to finance terrorist activity throughout the Middle East and elsewhere. The result of the agreement? Iran continued to develop nuclear weapons and delivery systems while supporting worldwide Islamist terrorism, and did all these wondrous things thanks to funds provided by U.S. taxpayers. Aren't we proud?

This appeasement of Iran brought to mind a comment by Winston Churchill, the statesman most despised by President Obama:

Another lie involved his claim that the Obama administration put together that multi-nation coalition to destroy ISIS. Yes, there was a coalition but it had little effect on ISIS, and certainly didn’t “destroy” it. In fact, by pulling out of Iraq, the Obama administration turned the “J-V Team” into the Varsity that went on to control large parts of the Middle East and extend its terrorist activities. It took the aggressive anti-ISIS policies of the Trump administration to destroy ISIS. And how about Libya, Mr. Secretary of State? Oh, yeah. I guess that debacle occurred under your predecessor, the equally incompetent Hilary Clinton. All that “leading from behind” can be a real challenge if the folks in front decide to go in a different direction. Like Russia invading the Ukraine and taking over Crimea while the US watched and did nothing to help. How did Obama put it to Russian President, Dimitri Medvedev, back in March of 2012? “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” And two years later, after that election, Russia invaded.

There’s also Kerry’s ludicrous claim that the Obama administration stopped Ebola before it became a pandemic. Talk about apples and oranges. Unlike COVID-19, that was airmailed to us and the rest of the world thanks to the policies of the Chinese Communist Party, Ebola was pretty much confined to parts of West Africa. I believe there were less than a dozen U.S. cases. 

Rewriting history is always a dangerous game, especially when those who lived it are still alive and can refute revisionist claims. 

Political Correctness

Among modern man's more puzzling traits is his seeming unwillingness to name that which is trying to destroy him. It's a particularly dangerous trait since it even goes so far as to disguise its own name. We are urged to call it "political correctness" which has both an innocent and positive ring to it. But political correctness really has little to do with true politics, and because it is inherently deceiving, it is far from correct. In truth it is nothing but a lie. 

I've always believed that all lies have their origin with Satan and his flunkies. He is, after all, the father of lies, as Jesus reminded those who refused to accept Him:

"You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies" [Jn 8:44].

How many today accept these words of Jesus? How many accept that Satan even exists? I'm reminded of that line from the movie, The Usual Suspects, when Kevin Spacey's character Verbal says: "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist." This revelation didn't originate in Hollywood, but is actually found in the book of Revelation:

"The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it" [Rev 12:9].

Yes, he "who deceived the whole world" continues to deceive, and has many willing to help him. The idea of political correctness, indeed even the actual term, was a clever semantic innovation by Stalinists in the Soviet Union in the 1920s. Its purpose, then and now, is to bully and/or brainwash the public in order to squash debate on any subject that might undermine the state's ideological foundation. For the communist this includes virtually every subject imaginable, from art to science, from architecture to engineering, from philosophy to politics, and, yes, even religion. We don't call them totalitarians for nothing. 

Because atheism is among the basic tenets of communist ideology, that original political correctness and its modern descendants strive to eliminate all things religious from the public square. Christian values are particularly troublesome to authoritarian and totalitarian regimes because of Christianity's embrace of freedom, the freedom of the individual to choose the good. This, of course, runs afoul of the state's desire to control every aspect of the citizen's life. 

In a totalitarian state political correctness can be enforced rather easily: the government need only exert its extensive state power through education, forced re-education, imprisonment, or even execution. But in a constitutional republic like the United States, the application of political correctness demands a more subtle approach. By flooding the educational establishment with ideological fellow travelers, the state can control the thinking of future generations. Other tactics include publicly accusing violators of being homophobic, racist, sexist, or any other convenient "ist" that connotes hatred. Once applied by the elites and their allies in the media, these labels tend to stick, and go on to ruin reputations and remove the targets and their ideas from the public discourse.

Progressives also target constitutional protections, particularly those supported by our Bill of Rights. They ridicule the Constitution as another old document, or as President Obama said in his 2017 farewell address, "It's really just a piece of parchment" and presumably no longer applicable to the lives of modern Americans. For progressives it must instead become a "living document," one demanding constant change so it can reflect our society's evolving norms. I also recall when Barack Obama echoed this interpretation by stating, "The Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism." Such thinking, of course, makes the Constitution as written by our founders irrelevant.

Many see political correctness as essentially harmless, but I suggest it becomes truly dangerous when those who exercise state power adopt it as their governing attitude.  Just look at the record of the police in the U.K. In the 12 months ending in March 2008, the police in the U.K. made 1.5 million arrests, while nine years later, in the 12 months ending in March 2017, they made only 780,000 arrests. Now this might lead one to believe that this almost 50% decrease in arrests resulted from a corresponding decrease in crime. But this assumption would be wrong...very, very wrong. Although arrests were down by 48%, crime increased drastically. In just the past year violent crime in the U.K. increased by almost 20%, rape by 22%, knifings by 26%, and in a nation where gun ownership is almost non-existent, gun crime increased by 27%. Similar increases were reported for both burglary and robbery.

Why so few arrests in the face of so much crime? The answer is simple. Instead of solving real crimes, the police have focused on "hate incidents" and "malicious communications." In London, which by the way is now more dangerous than New York City, arrests for making offensive online comments rose 53%. And so freedom of speech, once a cherished right among the British, gets crushed by political correctness...and so do peoples lives.

St. Michael, protect us...from ourselves.

One Thing After Another...

We seem to live in an odd world in which the strange has become normalized.  

Shakespeare, just another dead white male. Consider the University of Pennsylvania (or simply "Penn," as it prefers to be called). Penn is an Ivy League school that commands big bucks for offering its students, in the words of the Penn administration, "an unparalleled education informed by inclusivity, intellectual rigor, research, and the impetus to create new knowledge to the benefit of individuals and communities around the world." I suppose that means they promise some sort of education to their students. To confirm both the inclusivity and intellectual rigor of a Penn education, activist students -- apparently a horde of frenzied English majors -- tore down a portrait of William Shakespeare, whom they dislike, and replaced it with a photo of Audre Lorde, whom they esteem. Lorde, it seems, is a black, lesbian poet who quite probably, like her student devotees, believes she is far more relevant than the Bard. 

The head of Penn's English Department, an academic named Jed Esty, decided that the portrait should not be returned to its former place of honor because Shakespeare, a white male, was the antithesis of diversity. And for those of you who might be paying for a child to attend Penn, listen to what else Professor Esty had to say:

"Students removed the Shakespeare portrait and delivered it to my office as a way of affirming their commitment to a more inclusive mission for the English department...We invite everyone to join us in the task of critical thinking about the changing nature of authorship, the history of language, and the political life of symbols."

The problem for the few thoughtful students at universities like Penn is that to succeed they must parrot this gibberish in their papers and on their exams. Failure to do so would be seen as symptomatic of reactionary uniformity, the opposite of the progressive diversity (paradoxically, a diversity that demands conformity) the school hopes to instill in its charges. You can read more about this incident at Penn here.

Wounded but not healed. After the terrorist attacks of 9-11, the U.S. Congress provided $7 billion in compensation to the families of the victims of the attacks. Each family received an average of $1.8 million. I mention this here not because I disagree with the compensation but simply to make a comparison with the following.

Ten years ago, Dusty Kirby, a Navy corpsman serving with the Marines in Iraq, was severely wounded by an Iraqi sniper. The bullet shattered his jaw and caused serious damage to his mouth. Even after a life-saving surgery and 30 subsequent operations Dusty remained in excruciating pain and suffered from brain injury and PTSD. He could not chew food, speak normally (he'd lost 1/3 of his tongue), or smile since he had almost no teeth left. 

Then, after almost ten years, Dusty turned to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation an organization that, through its affiliate Marine Assist, arranged for specialized reconstructive surgery at New York's Lenox Hill Hospital. The result was miraculous. The surgeons repaired his jaw and later provided a completes set of dental implants. He can smile, eat and speak. Here's a news story on this young hero.

To me the sad thing about this story is that Dusty Kirby, a Navy corpsman whose service was dedicated to healing wounded Marines, had to turn to an outside organization to receive the healing he needed. These surgeries were not paid for by the United States government who apparently did not consider it important to return this young man to normalcy.

We can pay $1.8 million to the families of 9-11 victims who sadly were in the wrong place at the wrong time, but then treat our warriors horribly. These underpaid men and women return again and again to the war zone, placing their lives on the line to ensure our security. The very fact that the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation, Marine Assist, and many other similar organizations have to exist is a scandal. 

And what about our senior officers and Defense Department officials, you know, the folks whose job it is to care for the people under their command? Do we ever hear them screaming about the poor treatment wounded veterans receive? How many have resigned in protest? How many have taken the case to the public? 

Obama and Israel. Look at a map of Asia and Africa. Draw a line from Turkey south to Somalia and then expand that line into a large rectangle that stretches eastward to Pakistan. Within that box there's one democracy, Israel. All the rest are either military or theocratic dictatorships. They are all Muslim majority nations. And they all hate Israel. By the way, if you're using a map printed by the Palestinian Authority, you won't find Israel on it.

The United Nations, an organization made up largely of nations ruled by thugs, passed its latest anti-Israel (actually anti-Jewish) resolution and for the first time the United States failed to exercise its veto. Our ambassador instead abstained, which it the same as voting 'Yes' since it yields an identical result.

We therefore sided with the terrorists and the nations that support them. This, of course, is nothing new for our president who just thinks the world of his friends who run Iran, the same nation that his own State Department claims is the world's leading supporter of terrorism.

Rouhani and Obama Celebrating

I'll write more about this at a later date. Let me just say that January 20th can't come soon enough.

Carrie Fisher, R.I.P. I really don't pay too much attention to show biz types, their work, their lives, and their deaths. But I was especially saddened to hear that Carrie Fisher died today at the age of 60 after suffering a major heart attack last week aboard a United Airlines flight from London to LA. 

Because Fisher became ultra-famous as a teenager in her role as Princess Leia in the first of the Star Wars movies, most of us probably never accepted the fact that she had aged along with the rest of us. I know I'll always see her as the young, spunky, intergalactic heroine she played so well. 

Princess Leia, Armed and Dangerous

The daughter of two genuine Hollywood celebrities -- actress Debbie Reynolds and crooner Eddie Fisher -- Carrie Fisher suffered much during those 60 years. Drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, strained and shattered relationships all contributed to a deep sadness that seemed to plague so much of her life. 

But it's important to realize that she was more than an actress who reached her peak of fame 30-40 years ago. She was also an extremely talented writer. I'm not a big fan of Hollywood fiction (or non-fiction), but I truly enjoyed her autobiographical novel, Postcards from the Edge, which I suspect was an honest and painfully humorous depiction of the humanly dysfunctional film industry. She wrote a number of other best-selling novels and was in demand as a screen writer and fixer of scripts. 

I'm sure she will be missed by those who knew and loved her. I pray that the Lord receives her with mercy. Rest In Peace.

The President, the Plutocrat and the Socialist

Just a recommendation to read Victor Davis Hanson's latest on President Obama and Donald Trump.

Here's the link: Two of a Kind

...and another by Kevin D. Williamson on Bernie Sanders' strange brand of socialism:

 Sanders a National Socialist?

Off to College...or not

Not long ago President Obama suggested that as a nation we provide free education for anyone who attends a community college. For the president this program would be an extension of the K through 12 public education available to all Americans. We'd simply be adding another two years of public education and providing our young people with a higher education head start.

Sounds good...until we look into it more deeply. The first question that comes to mind is "What will it cost?" We can be sure of one thing: like every government program the cost will always be grossly underestimated. Believe me, the per-student costs of a community college are substantially higher than that of your local public elementary, middle or high school, and once the government starts to foot the bill for all those additional students, the costs will skyrocket. Why do you think the cost of a college education has grown at a rate that far exceeds the rate of inflation? Once the government got into the student loan and grant business, our institutions of higher education came to realize the sky's the limit. At many colleges and universities the amenities provided to students rival those of expensive resorts. And today the typical college professor enjoys a most comfortable salary. Full professors average near $100,000 while entry-level assistant professors typically earn close to $70,000. Not bad for what many educators consider a part-time job.

About 20 years ago I worked at a private Catholic college. One morning in early May, as waited to pour my first cup of coffee in the faculty lounge, I asked a tenured professor of English if he were looking forward to the summer. His response, "Oh, yes indeed. I always enjoy the summer. I go from doing nothing to doing absolutely nothing!" Was he joking? Of course, but not completely. He arrived every morning before his first class and left immediately after his last class. He spent most of his time between classes in the faculty lounge. He had taught the same courses for years, perhaps decades, and quite likely hadn't had an original thought since becoming a tenured professor. In fairness, he was certainly not typical of that college's professors, but neither was he alone in his attitude. My point is that many educators are paid very well for very little work.

Another, perhaps less obvious, objection to the president's plan relates to its benefits. What will it accomplish? In other words, will it really achieve anything worthwhile? The prevailing wisdom states unequivocally that if someone wants to succeed in our society today he must get a college education and earn a degree. I admit I once thought the same, but not any longer.

Virtually all public and too many private colleges and universities no longer mandate the kind of liberal arts studies that result in a well-educated graduate, an adult ready to assume the responsibilities of a good, productive citizen. When I graduated from high school (over 50 years ago), every leading college and university required students to complete a course in the development of Western Civilization. Today very few, if any, of these schools do so. (See the National Association of Scholars report: The Vanishing West: 1964-2010.) Many of these institutions have also eliminated foreign language requirements, as well as mandatory courses in subjects long considered an essential part of a liberal education. The study of history has sadly become history, and we wonder why so many seemingly educated young people cannot name the nations we fought in World War II or in what century the Civil War took place. But even more disturbing they are completely ignorant of the roots of our American experiment. I suppose this is to be expected since in most institutions the few remaining liberal arts courses have been tainted by an extreme form of political correctness that does nothing but promote leftist ideology. And for this the student's parents and the taxpayers pay big bucks.

Too many of today's 22-year-old college graduates are poorly educated and unqualified for the rapidly changing job market. They know all about micro-aggression, discrimination, the wonders of multiculturalism, and the irrelevance of dead white males, but know virtually nothing of the real world in which they must compete.

If a young people were to ask me today for career advice I'd probably suggest that they would be better off spending their scarce resources -- their time and money -- learning the skills of one of the many trades in such high demand. A few years ago I might have suggested a stint in the armed forces where they could learn not only valuable technical skills but also the basics of leadership and management. Sadly, today's military is at the forefront of political correctness and I'd be hard-pressed to recommend it to anyone. No, today I'd suggest that a young person consider becoming a welder, or an electrician, or a computer programmer. Indeed, good coders are highly sought after (and highly paid) by companies who couldn't care less whether or not their employees have college degrees. (It's remarkable how many of these firms were started by college dropouts.) 

Even better, I'd suggest they develop a long-term plan to achieve entrepreneurship, to start their own company, and learn the necessary financial and management skills. Additionally thanks to the Internet, anyone can round out their education by studying the liberal arts online and do so at their own speed while avoiding the ideologues of the left. This, too, I would recommend.

I'd also remind them that their most important task in life is to love God and neighbor, to find their way to salvation. And, trust me, you don't need a college degree to do that.

Political Weakness

Thousands come together for the 2015 March for Life

Otto Von Bismarck, who famously defined politics as "the art of the possible," was a perfect example of the ideologically flexible politician who could turn on a dime to achieve his desired political ends. (One is reminded of former President Bill Clinton.) As opposed to our current ideologically inflexible president, who seemingly cannot abide the thought of compromise with anyone who opposes him or his ruling ideology, our Republican congressional leadership prefers compromise even when it is politically unnecessary. 

Observing what happened on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, the psalmist's warming comes to mind: "Put not your trust in princes..." [Ps 146:3] Too many pro-lifers seem to believe that our politicians will eventually come to the rescue and stop the slaughter of innocents, a slaughter that now exceeds 50 million unborn children In the United States alone. As several hundred thousand pro-life advocates marched in Washington, the House Republican leadership caved by pulling a pro-life bill that polls have shown would be supported by a significant majority of Americans.

The bill would, in essence, have prohibited infanticide, the murder of unborn children after the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. Instead the House passed a significantly watered-down bill prohibiting the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, something already prohibited by the Hyde Amendment. Time and again our president has declared his support for unrestricted abortion. He believes that abortion must be permitted at any time for any reason, no exceptions. He even supports the post-abortive killing of a child who happens to survive an abortion procedure. He would, therefore, have vetoed this bill after its arrival on his desk. This would have clearly demonstrated his total disrespect for human life. The same would be true of all those politicians of either party who did not vote for the bill. 

Most Republican politicians, who for 40 years have talked much but done little about abortion, want to keep the issue alive, but only in the safe political background, so they can pull it out and use it when hustling for votes among pro-life constituents. Most know full well that without the pro-life vote they would not be elected or re-elected. But despite their fine words while campaigning, their actions have produced little of any consequence. One suspects they consider their careers far more important than the lives of innocents. In truth they have done nothing to slow the progress of our society's acceptance of the "culture of death."  And so today Republican politicians are patting themselves on the back for their "courageous" vote to de-fund abortion, but ignoring their cowardly rejection of a ban on infanticide. "Put not your trust in princes..." 

It should be clear that this horrendous plague of abortion, the greatest killer of human beings, will not be brought to an end by politicians. No, it will continue until the people themselves experience a change of heart, and this can come only as a gift from God, an infusion of His grace. Yes, we must march, but we must also pray constantly that God will come to our aid, to the aid of the innocents.

Swapping a Deserter for Five War Criminals

I won't speculate as to why the president felt it was necessary to release five very nasty war criminals from Guantanamo in exchange for the release of an American soldier who deserted his post and his comrades. Sadly, there also seems to be fairly strong evidence that Sgt Bergdahl engaged in some level of collaboration with the enemy. As one wag observed, "We traded five grenades for one water pistol." There certainly doesn't appear to be any national security rational for this "deal," which will likely return these five nasties to active involvement in the conflict. If anything, our willingness to negotiate with these terrorists will only energize them to seek out high-value Americans and kidnap them knowing that they can expect to be rewarded.

The Five War Criminals

The Deserter

To my knowledge all of the president's senior military advisers were completely against the swap, which appears to have been supported only by his political team. The reasons offered by the White House, specious reasons which seem to dribble out anew every few hours, aren't very likely. For someone supposedly on death's door, Sgt Bergdahl appeared to be in reasonably good health. Even Senator Feinstein, a Democrat and chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, stated that she believed there was no "credible threat" against the life of Bergdahl. Not surprisingly national security advisor Susan Rice was intent on once again making a fool of herself on national tv by claiming that this deserter "served with honor and distinction." And then the president went public and attributed any opposition to the deal to politics, which I find especially odd since a growing number of his own party publicly oppose him on this. I suppose he's hoping that most of the public won't know this and will just accept whatever he and the mainstream media tell them. Unfortunately, he's probably right.

According to the Obama administration the five released Taliban commanders would be subject to “restrictions on their movement and activities." In other words the government of Qatar would keep a tight rein on these terrorists and ensure that they would not re-enter the conflict, for at least a year.  And then come the reports from Qatar. The released terrorists will have no restrictions on their movements within the Arab Emirate. Such a good deal!

But more disturbing than all this misinformation are the reports issuing from the administration that the sergeant's platoon-mates, who have come out strongly against him, are perhaps a group of undisciplined psychopaths. These accusations are absolutely despicable and are certainly unworthy of the commander in chief. As someone who wore the uniform of our nation for nearly 30 years, I just don't know what to make of it. I simply cannot conceive of a commander in chief who would do such a thing. 

Vice Admiral James Stockdale

I'll make one prediction: Sgt Bergdahl will not face a court martial. I base this opinion on the precedent set at the end of the war in Vietnam. In addition to the hundreds of unbelievably brave POWs, several of whom I knew personally,  there were a tiny handful who collaborated with their communist captors and accepted special treatment, including early release. When the other POWs were finally released, their senior officer, Vice Admiral James Stockdale, brought charges against those who had collaborated. Stockdale who earned the medal of honor for his heroism as a POW, was rebuffed by the Department of Defense. DOD decided not to prosecute, believing that doing so would only result in more division in a country already polarized because of the war. 

I can't believe that our current administration will act any differently.

Monday Morning Thoughts

Putin and his foes. The ongoing drama playing out among the world's political leaders has enrolled even the least astute of observers in a graduate course in non-leadership. On one side we have President Obama, alleged leader of the world's most powerful and successful nation. He is loosely joined by a feckless collection of Western European politicians whom we are assured the President is leading from behind. Opposed to this worthy coalition is one Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putin, the President of Russia.

Putin has branded himself as a kind of superman, the Russian he-man, a blended reincarnation of Stalin and Ivan the Terrible with a feminine side inherited from Catherine the Great. He projects the image of the savior intent on returning the expansive nation to its former greatness. In this, however, he has given his countrymen a false hope, since the nation they envision had never really been able to achieve true greatness, but for centuries always teetered on the edge of collapse. And collapse it did, several times during just the last century.

But this doesn't mean Putin and the new Russia are no threat. While our nation adopts foolish policies that undermine our relationships with our most reliable allies and appease those who would destroy us, Putin courts emerging superpower Communist China and strengthens Russian ties with Iran, the world's leading sponsor of terror. While the West stumbles along in its hapless efforts to convince Iran to stop its ongoing development of nuclear weapons, who do you think is providing them with nuclear reactors? (Hint: his middle name is Vladimirovitch.) As the United States disengages itself from the Middle East, guess who will fill the resulting vacuum? (Hint: Who pulled the rug out from under President Obama and took charge of the "Syrian problem"?) And which maritime nation is today decimating its naval forces (Hint: it's initials are USA), while Russia and China undertake huge expansions of their blue-water navies? Guess which leader seems to have a better grasp of the intricacies of the global chessboard? (No hint necessary.)

Russian warship in the Bosporus en route to Syria

He might be an astute manipulator of power politics, but in reality Putin is little more than a clever thug, a former KGB apparatchik, who like those he once served believes power is best applied through the barrel of a gun. Economically today's Russia is a corruption-riddled basket case, and it's military, while certainly not insignificant in numbers, is also not especially well-equipped. Despite this, Putin realizes he has little to fear from our president and our erstwhile NATO allies. Like Hitler occupying the Rhineland or Austria, Putin sent his troops virtually unopposed into Crimea and then formally annexed the region. We may scold him on the world stage, wagging our finger and wringing our hands, but the fact is Crimea is once again a part of the Russian homeland. This morning I read that the Russians even set the Crimean clocks to Moscow time. For Russia the consequences of this illegal aggression have been horrendous: several of Putin's closest friends can no longer spend long weekends in Vegas or use their Visa cards, and the USA has sent vast amounts of military aid to the threatened Ukranians in the form of MREs; i.e., Meals Ready to Eat.

Russian Troops in Crimea

Will President Obama and his sometime allies actually respond in any effective way? Unlikely. Sadly this global drama is quite unlike those Tolkien-like or Reaganesque battles between good and evil that so inflame the hearts of free men. It's really more of a schoolyard confrontation in which a collection of nerds appeases the school bully by turning over their lunch money. By doing so they incorrectly assume he's been bought off and will forever leave them alone. Of course he won't. He'll be back...and next time he might bring some friends.

Nancy Pelosi Receives Award Named for a Racist. U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is a remarkable woman. The former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, she was the driving force in the enactment of Obamacare (the so-called Affordable Care Act). To this end she masterfully convinced her Democrat colleagues in the House to vote for this huge, and hugely flawed, piece of legislation even though few of them knew what was in it. How can we ever forget her forceful, convincing argument which concluded with the statement: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..."?

Pelosi with Dr. Ruth, HHS Secretary Sebelius, and Planned Parenthood President Richards

Ms. Pelosi also claims to be a faithful Catholic although she openly rejects many of her Church's teachings. Indeed, one gets the impression that she wishes she were pope so she could bring the Church into alignment with the prevailing zeitgeist. Alas, that dream of hers will remain unfulfilled, and so she must be content with instructing the bishops to join her in virtual apostasy. Sadly for her, that effort too is doomed to failure.

Margaret Sanger

She remains, however, undeterred. Indeed, her latest claim to fame is an award she has received from Planned Parenthood, the nation's number one baby killer. And this isn't just any award. It's the Margaret Sanger Award. Now, for those who might not know it, Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) founded Planned Parenthood in 1921. She was also a racist who believed in the elimination of undesirable racial minorities, or "human weeds", as she called them. It's no accident that the vast majority of Planned Parenthood clinics are located in inner city, minority neighborhoods. This is exactly what Margaret Sanger planned. As a result, the greatest cause of death among African Americans today is abortion.

Sanger was an especially clever racist, though, and even planned to co-opt leaders of the black community to join her in her genocidal efforts. In a 1922 article she wrote:

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Sanger's efforts weren't restricted to contraception and abortion. As she once said, "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Nice. And trust me, she wasn't talking about a family of white Episcopalians from Connecticut.

Lloyd Marcus, author of the fascinating book, Confessions of a Black Conservative, wrote the following in an American Thinker essay: 

"Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." So said Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Seventy-eight percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are in black neighborhoods. Blacks make up only 12% of the population, but 35% of America’s aborted babies are black. Half of black pregnancies end in abortion. Is this an intentional genocide?

'The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb," according to Pastor Clenard Childress, Jr. Blacks are the only minority in America experiencing a declining population.

So why would Obama, the NAACP, Rev. Sharpton, and other black leftists be passionate supporters of Planned Parenthood? Why did Al Sharpton threaten to protest a pro-life billboard which exposed the devastatingly high number of black abortions?

Good questions. Why do the Democrats consistently support abortion, and even infanticide, which have led to the deaths of so many minority babies?

And I'll add a few questions of my own. Isn't it interesting that Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader of the House Democrats, should receive an award that honors such a woman as Sanger? Why has no one in the mainstream media asked the former speaker if her beliefs mirror those of Sanger's? For that matter, why does the Democrat Party oppose charter schools and school choice which have done so much to improve the quality of the education received by minority children? Do you think there might be a connection? Interesting questions that deserve answers.

Change and More Change

Change, surprisingly rapid change, seems to define our world today. No aspect of human activity is immune, including religion. Events and movements within religion, however, often fly well below the mainstream media's radar because they are mistakenly believed to be unimportant. I suppose one cannot expect irreligious people to take religion very seriously, although such an attitude displays real ignorance of both human history and human nature. But when religion is discounted by the media and given little intelligent coverage, the general public is shortchanged. Even when the secular media covers religious news, they tend to cover it as they would political news; consequently they usually get the story wrong.  More often, however, religious news is simply ignored.

Here are a few items that reflect some significant changes that may have escaped the notice of most media outlets. 

The Changing Face of Anglicanism. In his blog Fr. Dwight Longenecker gives a brief overview of some of the remarkable changes that have occurred within the diverse Anglican community in recent years. Fr. Longenecker, an American Catholic priest, knows of what he speaks. Brought up in an Evangelical home, he followed an atypical path on his personal religious pilgrimage. A graduate of fundamentalist Bob Jones University, he went on to study theology at Oxford and was subsequently ordained an Anglican priest. After serving many years as an Anglican cleric in England, he and his family converted to Catholicism in 1995. He now lives in South Carolina. You can read Fr. Longenecker's conversion story here.

Growth of Catholicism in Asia and Africa. Few Western Catholics are aware of the rapid growth of the Church in both Asia and Africa. As the faithful in Western Europe shrink to record small levels, their numbers worldwide have grown remarkably. That this growth is unremarked in the U.S. and Europe just highlights the parochialism of many Western Catholics. This growth, though, has been increasingly hard to ignore as more and more priests from Asia and Africa are recruited by our bishops to work as pastors and parochial vicars in American parishes. Not too long ago the Church in America was a major source of missionary priests to the less developed world; now that world sends missionaries to us. Indeed, my pastor is originally from the Philippines and the priest who serves as chaplain in the nearby federal prison, and who lives in our parish, is from Nigeria. Yes, the Catholic Church us truly catholic. (To get a good sense of the growth of the Church in Asia and Africa, read this synopsis of the statistics published in the 2013 Pontifical Yearbook.)

Cardinal Yeom

The Church in South Korea. South Korea is a largely secular Asian nation in which Catholics make up only 11% of the population. But the Church there is growing in both numbers and stature. Pope Francis' recent elevation of Seoul's Archbishop Andrew Yeom Soo-jung as the nation's first cardinal was warmly welcomed by all Koreans as was the Vatican's announcement approving the martyrdom of 124 Koreans who were executed for their faith during the 18th and 19th centuries. We can expect to hear more about these brave men and women as the beatification process continues. I also believe we will be hearing much more about the growing Church in South Korea in the years to come. Just this month 38 new priests were ordained in the Seoul Archdiocese, so don't be surprised if one day a South Korean priest shows up at your parish.

The Disappearing Christians of Iraq. Most of us in the West believe Iraq is a marginally better place since the overthrow and death of Saddam Hussein. But for the Christians of Iraq, those few who remain, nothing could be further from the truth. Few people outside Iraq realize that the nation once boasted an active and vibrant Christian community that represented over 10% of the population and worshiped in hundreds of churches throughout the country. Christians now make up only about 1% of the Iraqi population -- a number that's dwindling rapidly -- and worship in only a few dozen churches. In the spirit of ecumenism, I suggest you read this article published on the website of First Things magazine: The Vicar of Baghdad. It tells the remarkable story of Canon Andrew White, a courageous Anglican priest who ministers to the Christians of Iraq. It's a story you won't read in the New York Times.

Egyptian Catholic Reaction to Our President. Here's another story you won't read in our secular media. Last year during the chaos surrounding the removal from office of President Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood reacted by attacking Christian churches, businesses and homes throughout the nation. Egyptian Christians hadn't suffered such persecution in centuries. In the midst of these open and violent attacks on the nation's Christian community, President Obama called for the to return to power of Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood allies. In response, Fr. Rafic Antoine Greiche, the head of the Press Office of the Catholic Church in Egypt, released a scathing criticism of President Obama. You can view a video of Fr. Greiche below: 



Don't rely on the mainstream media for news on religious matters, and especially for news on the Catholic Church.

Friday Thoughts

Prayer Breakfasts. Our president, the nation's self-proclaimed leading aficionado of religious freedom, decided to address the issue at Thursday's National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC. And let me tell you, it was an uplifting, hopeful address and was doubtless equally well received by the politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, justices, and other holy folk who came together to ask God to advance their respective ideologies.

President and Mrs. Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast

Okay, let me give the president his due. I was very pleased to hear him mention Pastor Saeed Abedini, an American who has been imprisoned in Iran simply because he is a Christian. I may be wrong, but I believe this is the first time the president has mentioned Pastor Abedini publicly. He also referred to another American, Christian missionary Kenneth Bae, who has been imprisoned by the even more barbaric regime in North Korea. The president stated that “The United States will continue to do everything in our power to secure his release because Kenneth Bae deserves to be free.” Later, speaking of Pastor Abedini, he said, "Today, we call on the Iranian government to release Pastor Abedini.” It was good to hear these comments and promises, regardless of their efficacy. [Note: As I write this I just heard a news report that North Korea has transferred Kenneth Bae from a hospital to a labor camp, where he will serve out his 15-year sentence. Sad news indeed. We await the president's response.]

Pastor Abedini and his family

The president also referred to the blasphemy laws used by Muslim nations to persecute non-Muslims, especially Christians. As one might expect, Mr. Obama's reference was somewhat circumspect and avoided mentioning Islam: "Going forward, we will keep standing for religious freedom around the world.  And that includes, by the way, opposing blasphemy and defamation of religion measures, which are promoted sometimes as an expression of religion, but, in fact, all too often can be used to suppress religious minorities." 

The president drifted off into political correctness a few times, as when he said, "We sometimes see religion twisted in an attempt to justify hatred and persecution against other people just because of who they are, or how they pray or who they love" [my italics]. With this comment, of course, the president accuses those who believe homosexual acts to be sinful of twisting religion and justifying hatred. I guess that makes me and the Catholic Church and most orthodox Christians twisted haters. I've been called worse things.

Kenneth Bae

Political correctness was also obvious in what the president didn't address. His administration's attack on the Catholic Church and others who object to being forced to use health insurance that funds contraception, abortion, and sex-change procedures was conspicuously omitted, as was the fact that our nation has slaughtered 55 million unborn human beings since 1973. 

My problem with prayer breakfasts is that they center less on on prayer and more on poorly veiled political speeches. The president's comments [you can read his entire address here] are not addressed to God but rather to the gathered Washington insiders, and their purpose is less worshipful than political. But I suppose we should be happy they actually get together once a year to talk about God...a far better subject than what they usually talk about.

Persecution of Christians. The Pew Research Center has released its latest findings on global religious persecution, and not surprisingly Christians are the most persecuted of all believers. The persecution of Christians has been reported in a mind-boggling 110 countries. Jews, who make up a tiny percentage of the world's population, experienced persecution in 95 countries. Interestingly, the harassment and persecution of believers increased in every region of the world, except the Americas. Furthermore, the number of nations experiencing religious terrorism and sectarian violence also increased significantly, doubling over the past five years. These trends are less than encouraging.

The Internet as Teacher. There's a lot of trash on the web, actually more than a lot, but there's also some very interesting stuff. You can read virtually all of the world's great literature. You can access the minds of experts in every field. You can work your way through courses offered by some of the world's great universities. You can even read this blog. And you can do much of this absolutely free! It's truly remarkable. Another fascinating online resource is Youtube. Yes, I admit that there are a lot of strange and ridiculous videos on Youtube, but there are also some very useful things. YouTube is eminently practical. For example, if you want to learn how best to re-grout the ceramic tile in your shower, there's a video showing you how. If you want to clean your Mossberg shotgun...yep, there's a video. Even more remarkable, however, Youtube can teach you how to open a bottle of wine using only your shoe! This is something I've been aching to learn for decades, and now, here it is, wonderfully encapsulated into a 49-second video, thanks to Mirabeau Vineyards.



One can also learn how to open a bottle of beer without a bottle opener, but for some reason it requires over six minutes of instructional video. Perhaps beer drinkers are slower learners.