The Continuing War To Eliminate God From Our Military

     From the founding of this nation, God has been an integral part of our Military.  Read any of the writings of George Washington, the Commander-in-Chief, and you will know that he relied on God for victory.  In short, faith in God was an essential element among our fighting forces.  That same faith has seen our military through countless wars, including our own Civil War, and the World Wars of the 20th Century.
     That's why it is astounding to realize that it has been just 70 short years since the U.S. government has gone from printing, at taxpayer expense, editions of the New Testament and Psalms for Protestant soldiers serving in World War II, to attempting to silence the prayers of Christian chaplains and military leaders.  The latest case involves Navy Chaplain Wesley Modder, who has been a Chaplain in the Navy for almost 20 years. He has ministered to Navy Seals under fire in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He has been described in official reports as “the best of the best,” a “consummate professional leader.” He has been recommended for “early promote,” which is the “highest rating possible.”

     Yet, a Navy lieutenant junior grade, who was assigned to the chaplaincy while waiting further assignment, allegedly laid a trap for the well-respected Chaplain.  He appears to have been running his own private investigation into Chaplain Modder’s Christian beliefs and how they conflicted with his interpretation of proper tolerance for LGBT individuals.
     It seems that the Lieutenant JG hid his homosexuality from the Chaplain as the two discussed various aspects of Modder's Christian faith.  When Modder expressed his deeply religious convictions on the subjects, the Lt. JG lodged a complaint against him for being homophobic.  He was accused of not properly “comforting” those who came to him for counseling, and now he faces the possibility of being kicked out of the Navy for what amounts to a "perceived offense."  Modder denies that he has ever "religiously coerced" those who come to him for counseling.  At the same time, he has never shied away from responding to questions in counseling sessions “honestly and from a biblical worldview."
     So, how did we get here?  How have we come from a nation that embraced prayer for (and in) our military, to a nation that institutes laws designed to limit the presence of God among our fighting forces?  I find it incomprehensible, especially since the National Defense Authorization Act (FY, 2013) prohibits military personnel from requiring a chaplain to perform “any rite, ritual, or ceremony contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain.” The law also says the chaplain cannot be denied a promotion for such refusal.
     I guess you could say the anti-God agenda was further promoted in 2014, when the U.S. Congress told the Department of Defense that the Military Departments “will accommodate individual expressions of sincerely held beliefs” “unless it could have an adverse effect on military readiness, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline…”.
     As it turns out, the commanding officer of the Navy Nuclear Power Training Command says Chaplian Modder is doing just that ... and has accused him of homophobia and insensitivity -- the official charge is "substandard performance".  The commander said his decision was based on the effect Modder's opinions would have on “military readiness, unit cohesion, health, safety, morale, good order, discipline, and mission accomplishment.”
     Specifically, the commander said that Chaplain Modder had failed to respond to the complainant under the core capability of chaplains to provide "care"; in other words, the Chaplain had failed to perform his duty "to be sensitive to the religious, spiritual, moral, cultural, and personal differences of those you serve."
     Does anyone else see the irony here?  Is the Navy being sensitive to the religious, spiritual, moral, cultural, and personal opinions of the Chaplain?  Or is the Navy's position that only the "different opinions" of the LGBT lobby need to be honored?  I guess that question is answered when you consider that the Department of Defense is now considering allowing transgendered soldiers to serve openly in the military and to pay for their sex change surgeries and hormone treatments.
     But I still fail to see exactly how Chaplain Modder -- or any religious person in the military, for that matter-- can negatively impact the military readiness, or the unit cohesion, or the morale of our armed services.  Instead, it seems to me that by attempting to eliminate Chaplain Modder's freedom to express his religious opinions and beliefs, we have a clear violation of his constitutional rights to religious expression.
     From the beginning of time, military campaigns have been waged with the presence of cultural gods.  Granted, many of them were fought by praying to false gods.  But the Bible clearly shows the Israelites experiencing both victory and defeat, all dependent on whether God was in their midst or not. If our Military continues down this path of giving recognition to the false gods of "tolerance" and  "sexual freedom", the road will only lead to defeat.  How long will it take to censor all the chaplains and remove them from service?  When that occurs, our military will cease to be ready, cohesive, healthy, safe, moral, or disciplined; and the true mission of the anti-God agenda will be accomplished.  Then victory will no longer be ours, but belong to the Enemy.

For more information on the story of Chaplain Modder, please click here.  To read the official charges brought by the Department of the Navy, click here. 

 Exodus 14:13-14     And Moses said to the people, “Fear not, stand firm, and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will work for you today. For the Egyptians whom you see today, you shall never see again. The Lord will fight for you, and you have only to be silent."

The Spirit of Christmas

   

     Today is the twenty-second anniversary of the opening of the first Fisher House at Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, TX.  As we have for the past three years, PLW and I journeyed the couple of hours to serve a Christmas luncheon to our servicemen and women, their family members, and the dedicated staff that helps care for and rehabilitate them.
     As part of a service organization called Angel Chefs, we periodically come into the Fisher House to provide several days of home-cooked meals to give a respite to family members, and to show our veterans that we support and honor their service.  It is a simple, yet heartfelt method to show our gratitude.
     (In case you are unfamiliar with the history of Fisher Houses, let me give you a brief history.  Zachary Fisher was a wealthy New York philanthropist who answered the call for temporary lodging facilities for our wounded veterans and their families while they are recuperating from their debilitating injuries.  In 1990, he and his wife, Elizabeth, began the non-profit Fisher House program, dedicating more than $20 million to the construction of comfort homes for families of hospitalized military personnel -- free of charge. These "home away from home" facilities vary in size, and can accommodate 16 to 42 family members; oftentimes for months on end.  There are currently 64 Fisher Houses located on 23 military installations and 24 VA medical centers, with more planned in the future... and all are built from private donations.  The U.S. government is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the homes.)

     This Christmas at Fisher House was no different, in many aspects.  I don't think I will ever become accustomed to the sight of 19 and 20-year-olds with missing limbs, due to the horrors of IED attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I am continually amazed at the acceptance of their condition and the determination with which they work at reclaiming their lives.  But I also see the pain and the weariness that comes from knowing their life is changed forever.  Then there is the disguised emotions on the faces of wives and parents, whose own lives have been altered by the need to care for their loved ones.
     While our Christmas cheer provides a moment of respite from the countless days of rehabilitation, no home-cooked meal can ever repay these veterans and their families for what they have sacrificed on our behalf.  We have so little to give in return for their bravery and commitment to keep our nation safe.  The blessings we receive by being in the company of these heroes is so much greater than any comfort we bestow on them.
     But this year, there was an added poignancy to our Fisher House experience.  Through the years, we have grown to respect and love Inga Godfrey, the Director of Fisher Houses at Fort Sam, and the much-beloved "House Mother" to all the inhabitants.  With her thick German accent, Inga runs a tight ship; but her capacity to watch over her families and love them through the hard times knows no bounds.
     The meal preparations were being well-handled by the group of Angel Chefs, so Inga commissioned PLW and myself to accompany her and Mr. & Mrs. Claus to the vast Medical Center on Post.  We loaded up bags of wrapped toys and proceeded room to room, with a carefully prepared list of children whose day needed to be brightened just a little.

Our littlest heroes, and Santa's elves (Inga and PLW)

     Each of these children had at least one parent on active duty in our military.  Some were cancer patients; others were hematology patients; still more were sick from various infections and viruses.  It broke my heart to see these children suffering, and to think of the worry and anxiety their parents must be feeling.  I watched a staff of military doctors and nurses dedicated to treating them, and was so glad to see that they were being administered to with the best medical care possible.  And this is one use of my tax dollars that I do not begrudge.  We owe this to our military families and I pray that these benefits continue amidst all the efforts to cut the Defense budget.
     I was also glad to see that these children and their families were not just a number to the hospital staff, or to Inga.  She had coordinated with hospital administrators to find out the names and ages of the sickest of the children, and the gift they had requested from Santa.  Even PLW was coaxed into putting on an elf hat and carrying Santa's red bag of presents!  The wonder and the smiles on those little faces made us all forget the state of the world for just a moment; while the smallest of them, an eight-month-old little boy hooked up to tubes nearly reduced me to tears.  We locked eyes through his open door and I was once more aware how fragile this life is, and how every life is important.  His young mother welcomed us and talked of her son's fighting spirit; a fitting representative of the best of our American fighting forces.
     After making our rounds of the hospital, we returned to the Fisher House and served up our meal.  As I contemplated the huge dining room and its tables full of smiling faces, I didn't see missing limbs or devastated lives.  I saw a room full of courageous people; I saw champions and victors over the worst that war can inflict on a person.  And above all else, I saw the commitment, and the grace and mercy, that one person can give to another through the loving Spirit of Christ.  This is what Christmas should be all about!

1 Corinthians 13:7    "Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

   

Congressional Spending Bill: The Wins & Losses For The American People

     I've had a day or so to mull over the spending bill before Congress.  While being touted as a "Bipartisan Compromise", initial reports of the $1.01 Trillion boondoggle reveals where the focus of our elected officials lie.  Remember, these are the representatives that we send to Washington to rule the nation on our behalf -- not to vote for their own ideologies.  Based on an article in The Washington Post,  here is a brief summary of some of the dollars proposed; and it should give us a clear picture of how we will be governed.  Pay close attention to what agencies will be receiving more money, and ask yourselves, "Why"?

Increases In Spending: (You decide if it truly benefits the American people).
•  Campaign Finance:  Through some manipulations and "funny politics", donors can now give $324,000 in campaign donations -- that's a 10% increase over current limits.
•  Centers For Disease Control:  receives an additional $42.7 million, making their budget $6.98 Billion.
•  National Institute of Health:  plus $150 Million in funding.
•  FDA & Food Safety:  an additional $37 million, from last year's budget of $2.68 Billion.
•  Immigration:  There's lots of land mines in this section of the funding bill.  The Department of Homeland Security will only be funded until next February.  (But don't worry, this is probably to throw us off their trail).  Then there's the $80 Million increase for the Department of Health & Human Services for the "unaccompanied children's program" that sees to their health issues.  Add in the $14 Million to help schools absorb new immigrant students, and you can clearly see the priorities.  What about helping the inner city schools, which has been peddled as a contributing factor to the racial unrest in this country?
•  Overseas Military Operations: $1.3 Billion to combat ISIS, and $1.6 Billion to train Iraqi and Kurdish forces; plus an additional $500 Million to train and equip vetted Syrian forces, (who are complaining that they have stopped receiving arms and aid from the U.S.)

Decreases in Spending:
•  The Affordable Care Act (ACA) or ObamaCare:  Congress will try to pull the wool over our eyes by saying that they have decreased the budget by $10 Million for the Independent Advisory Board (so-called Death panels) within the Affordable Care Act; and that there is no new money allocated for ObamaCare.  But I guess they think of us the same way the ACA Architect, Jonathan Gruber, does ... stupid.  But it doesn't take a genius to see that we have been fooled once again.  ObamaCare is still funded, and still exists.  It remains to be seen what the new sworn-in Congress can do to fulfill their campaign promises of defunding it
•  Ebola:  Congress only funded $5.4 Billion, instead of the $6 Billion the President wanted to fight this modern-day plague.
•  Environmental Protection Agency:  Their budget is down to $8.1 Billion, $60 Million less than last year, plus 21% down since 2010.  This budget cut likely means staff reductions.
•  IRS:  Their budget is slashed by $345 Million, and they can't target organizations (such as the Tea Party), based on ideological beliefs.

Wins: (At least from my perspective):  We can take some satisfaction from the following cuts in the budget:
•  Abortion:  There will not be any Federal Funding for most abortions.  I see a Supreme Court case in our future, don't you?
•  Clean Water Act:  Congress has blocked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from applying restrictions to certain farm ponds and irrigation ditches; a definite win for farmers.
•  Palestinian Authority:  There will be no assistance to the PA if it becomes a member of the United Nations, or UN agencies, without an agreement with Israel.  The bill also prohibits funding for Hamas.
•  Common Core:  There is no funding for this Progressive agenda-driven Educational curriculum.
•  Department of Veterans Affairs:  This department will receive more money and more oversight; long overdue.  $209 Million added to address new costs related to additional medical staff and expanding dozens of facilities.  In addition, the VA's inspector general is getting a $5 million budget increase to continue investigating lapses in patient care.
•  Whistleblowers:  Whistleblowers will now be protected from prosecution should they report allegations of waste, fraud or abuse, even if they sign a confidentiality agreement

Losses For The American People:
•  Egypt:  We are still funding this Muslim Brotherhood-influenced nation with $1.3 Billion in military aid, and $150 Million in Economic aid.  How does this benefit us, again?
•  Guantanamo Bay:  Detainees will still allowed to transfer to other countries -- perhaps to fight again another day?
•  Military personnel vs Federal Employees:  Members of the military will see their pay increase cut from 1.8% to 1% (Generals and flag officers receive a pay freeze), while Federal Employees will see a 1% increase in their pay.  And after the embarrassing scandals regarding elaborate conferences and travel perks, Congress has agreed to ban, or at least "put limits on certain conferences, official travel and some employee awards."  Military personnel, on the other hand, are losing their 5% discount on tobacco-related products at military exchanges.

     I don't know if any of you even waded through all the facts and figures of this post -- or, if you even care.  And I can't say that I don't blame you.  Our government is so out of control with spending and their mismanagement of our trust.  There will be further manipulating of the bill, and there's a good possibility that we may never know all that is hidden in it, or even if it will be enacted as it is pronounced.  But one thing we know for sure ... as a nation, we are far from being fiscally sound or good stewards of all the largesse that God has bestowed on us.  It is readily apparent -- to me, at least -- that if we had to defend our management of all that He has given us, there would be a huge payment coming due.  It's time to reconcile the books and balance the budget.

Malachi 3:8-9   "Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, ‘How have we robbed you?’ In your tithes and contributions. You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing me, the whole nation of you."

We're Failing Our Military: The NDAA & Military Morale

     I'm just going to say it ... the failure of the lame duck Congress to give sufficient and appropriate attention to the state of our Military is appalling!  And, apparently, they aren't paying any attention to the mandate they have been given by voters in the latest election.  We can only hope that the new citizen servants coming to Washington after the first of the year will deliver on their promises to our men and women in uniform.

     In case you didn't know it, this Congress is attempting to rush through the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which is an ill-disguised effort to downsize our military forces, and to "fundamentally change" their objective.  Instead of making sure we maintain the finest fighting force in the world, the military is being hamstrung in an attempt to weaken it.  (I admit it is sometimes difficult to choose between supporting our Military and encouraging the Military-Industrial Complex).

     Besides affecting the national security of the country, Front Page Mag reports these items in the Bill:  "A scheduled pay raise of 1.8 percent will be reduced to one percent; there will be reduced growth in the troops’ Basic Housing Allowance (BHA) for those who cannot be accommodated on military bases; and a $3 copay will be added to the cost of prescription medication."  All these cuts will drastically affect the standard of living for our already strapped soldiers. 

     But never fear ... while the troops suffer forced reductions, there is always room to advance the social agenda of those in the White House and Pentagon.  The NDAA would establish Committees to address feminist-oriented issues, such as "Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces"; as well as to investigate "gender diversity metrics", which would allow the  more qualified personnel to be replaced by those meeting minimum standards -- laughably referred to as “lower but equal.”

     I just don't understand it.  Why is there this push to make the Military "politically correct" like the American culture?  It is easy to see that this will make our fighting forces less effective and substandard to those in the rest of the world.  Do you think it's time to put on my tin foil hat?

     And just what do you think all this is doing to the morale in the Military?  There is an in-depth article on the Military Times website, titled:  America's Military:  A Force Adrift.  I suggest you read it in its entirety, but for brevity's sake, I will highlight a few of the points that this well-written article makes.  

     I believe, that for the most part, the civilian population misunderstands the mindset of our Military.  Sure, there are those who enlist for the education opportunities and for the job security.  But you might be surprised to find out that the vast majority sign up because they see that going to war and fighting for their nation is a noble cause.  There is a true "warrior spirit" that resides in many of these men, and when their mission is unclear or contradictory, it leads to major morale shifts.

     According to a Military Times survey of 2,300 active-duty troops, morale indicators are on the decline in nearly every aspect of military life. Troops report significantly lower overall job satisfaction, diminished respect for their superiors, and a declining interest in re-enlistment now compared to just five years ago.  Service members say they feel underpaid, under-equipped and under-appreciated.  After 13 years of war, the all-volunteer military is entering an era fraught with uncertainty and a growing sense that the force has been left adrift.

     When speaking about their "Mission", troops seemed to indicate that there is a growing disconnect between the civilian population, who has been groomed to psychologically move on from the wars; to cut their losses, so to speak.  But to the troops, themselves, the mission still matters and is unfinished; and those losses have names and faces attached to them.  

     The Military Times Survey also revealed that morale is down due to the stress related to fiscal insecurity.  There is no longer the promise of long-term job stability, and the budget cuts due to Sequestration have affected more than just salaries.  A Navy aviation machinist's mate first class based in El Centro, California, said operational budget cuts left him and fellow sailors cannibalizing working parts from other aircraft entering phased maintenance so they could repair higher-priority broken jets.  How have we let the preeminence of the U.S. military fall so far?  And how could we expect morale to be anything but in the dumps?

    Furthermore, the potential for more Congressional budget cuts is always hanging over their heads.  A Navy fire controlman chief with 10 deployments said budget fears are contributing to a feeling of distrust and abandonment. "If sailors are worried about not getting paid, how am I supposed to do my job?" he said. And then came the bottom line, as far as I'm concerned ... he went on to say, "I'm not an effective warfighter if I don't have the backing of my government at home."

     And there you have it; that's the real heart of this matter.  In order to have confidence that our nation is secure from outside forces that wish to destroy us, we need to have confidence that our military are "effective war fighters"; and they need to have the confidence that their government is supporting and championing them.  Unfortunately, one of the most effective ways to secure peace at home, is to develop and maintain a strong, forceful and powerful Military.  From where I sit, that is no longer the objective of our elected officials, and it is cause for great alarm.  

For more information on the details and objectives of the NDAA, click here.  If you would like to read about the results of the Military Times Survey, then click here.  Both articles will provide you with a broad overview of the declining state of our Military.  

Psalm 108:12-13    "Oh grant us help against the foe, for vain is the salvation of man! With God we shall do valiantly; it is he who will tread down our foes."

Veterans Day: A Paradox of Feelings

   

     Today is an historic day.  Originally known as Armistice Day, it was established as a federal holiday in 1919 by President Woodrow Wilson to mark the one-year anniversary of the end of WWI at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month.  He proclaimed the holiday as "an opportunity for America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations."
     In 1945, World War II veteran Raymond Weeks from Birmingham, Alabama, had the idea to expand Armistice Day to celebrate all veterans, not just those who died in World War I.  As usual, it took several years for a bill to wind its way through the Federal Government, but in 1954, Congress finally approved a bill, establishing November 11th as Veterans Day.
     So, today, while I am observing Veterans Day, I do so with conflicting emotions.  For the first time in my life, I am angry, sorrowful, and yet deeply proud when it comes to our nation's veterans.  Before I try to explain the contradictions of my feelings, you need to understand that I very deliberately separate the veterans of our military from the political power structure that is the Military Industrial Complex.  The latter is the complicated relationship between policy makers in our government, the fighting forces and their assigned organizations, and the industries that manufacture weapons and military technology to fight the wars.  In fact, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us that it would be necessary to strike a careful balance between securing a robust national defense and how we approached diplomacy with fellow nations of the world.  Without that balance, he cautioned, there would be a strong inducement to abuse power.
     And that's where my anger comes in.  As in so many other areas of our national narrative, we the American people, didn't keep our guard up.  And with much reluctance, I now question whether we have indeed, become empire builders and profiteers of war.   Where once, the United States concentrated on developing and protecting our own security, it seems to me that we have let our government proceed unchecked in subjecting our fighting forces in far too many "military assistance" and "training" roles in foreign countries.
     Woodrow Wilson wanted to celebrate America as a nation that embodied peace and justice in war. Both of those components seem to have become convoluted in the 13 long years of war since we were attacked on September 11th, 2001.  If you are truly seeking peace, then why wouldn't you make every effort to win the war and minimize deaths and casualties to both your own forces and those of the enemy?  Or has it all been to enrich the powerful and the war machine that needs constant feeding?
     But this Veterans Day finds me sad, too.  Sad for the thousands of men and women who have sacrificed their lives, their bodies, their families and their youth in the hope that they were truly protecting their country and fighting for liberty in the world.  Was it worth it?  Are we any safer at home?  Is the world a safer place?  What do you think?  Just read the headlines, and tell me what we've gained from the nearly $6 trillion spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?  That's nearly $75,000 per US household!  We have spent $87 billion in reconstruction funding for Afghanistan, and $61 billion in Iraq.  Where are the results?

     I see nothing but exhausted and disillusioned soldiers.  I see a government bureaucracy and machine that is so immersed in perpetuating itself, that it scandalously ignores the medical needs of the very personnel who put their lives on the line.  I see flagrant disregard for the safety and morale of the troops by political hacks dressed in military uniforms who sell their souls for a place at the Machine's table.  And I see transparent attempts to both denigrate the value and character of returning veterans, as well as plant suspicion and conflict between veterans and civilians.  (The recent indifference to the plight of Sgt. Andrew Tahmoorissi meets all these characterizations).  And it all makes me sad.
     I have to be honest and say that this is really the first Veterans Day that I have felt these negative emotions.  But as new and raw as they are, they do not replace the pride that I will always feel for those who are members of our U.S. military forces.  As the daughter of a WWII veteran, I am extremely proud of my dad's service to the country.
     At the same time, I am beginning to see more cynicism among veterans, and that concerns me.  I can understand how they must feel betrayed and exploited.  The men and women who have fought, and continue to fight, in our recent wars may serve under unscrupulous and corrupt men; but it does not change who they are.  I'd like to think that most people who enter military service do it out of a sense of honor and principle; to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves, and to defend our liberty and freedom.  These are noble causes and noble actions.
     And that's why I also want to respond to the hateful article on Salon.com by David Masciotra, who believes “It is challenging for anyone reasonable, and not drowning in the syrup of patriotic sentimentality, to stop saluting, and look at the servicemen of the American military with criticism and skepticism.”  I will not give him any more credit than necessary; only to vehemently disagree with his anti-military stance.
     I know that War is monstrous, and the business of War is ugly and reprehensible.  And maybe I am too idealistic and too much of a romantic, but I also believe that integrity, and decency, and trustworthiness, and justness are parts of combat, too.  I have been in the company of some of the bravest of our military personnel, and I have witnessed a code of honor that exists and deserves to be paid tribute to.  The fact that someone is willing to step into the gap to defend another is praiseworthy.  It is something worth celebrating.  It is also my prayer that next Veterans Day, we will have none of our military on foreign soil.  But no matter where they are, no matter how trite it may seem to them, I will continue to thank them for their service and their sacrifice.  I will continue to respect and honor them; to support them and encourage them.  And I will continue to pray for them.  It's the least I can do.

Ecclesiastes 3:1, 8:   "To everything there is a season, and a time for every matter or purpose under heaven ... A time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace."
     
   

"What If You Gave A War & Nobody Tweeted?"

    That was the opening sentence in an article by writer Jeb Lund, of The Guardian.  He is responding to the rather nebulous name of the ill-defined war that now belongs to President Obama .. "Operation Inherent Resolve".  Doesn't exactly inspire one to seek victory, does it?  What exactly does it mean?  If you simply use dictionary definitions, it insinuates a "fundamental decision".  About what?  And how does it relate to the whole issue of defeating ISIS?  Whatever it is we're doing in the Middle East is about as confusing as the name of the mission!

    If you listen to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, he will tell you that the name means "we need to be able to be credible and sustainable over time in order to accomplish the mission that we've been given."  And that mission is?  "To eliminate the terrorist group ISIL," according to Dempsey.  So why the reluctance to call this a War? The enemy certainly has no problem declaring theirs is a war against us! 
     I will admit that naming wars is a political gimmick to employ support from the American people, who are ultimately funding the military missions.  But it also sends a message to the enemy, as well.  Names like Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom telegraphed to our enemy, not only what we saw as our mission, but just how serious we were in accomplishing it.  But what is Inherent Resolve supposed to convey?  
     It has been interesting to see the lack of attention that the American press have afforded the announcement of this name and our latest engagement.  Is it a ploy to get by the mid-term elections without ostensibly breaking previous campaign promises?  Is it to maintain a vague foreign policy with Muslim nations?  While the current administration may think being vague makes them exempt from specific and undue criticism, foreign press outlets aren't as compliant as our media.
     The Sydney Morning Herald, from Australia, called the name Operation Inherent Resolve "lame" and "blah".  And they're much less politically correct, as observed by this comment: "The Americans have become increasingly politicised with the names they use for their missions," says the Australia Defence Association's Neil James. "Since the Twin Towers came down, they wanted to demonstrate a point, that they weren't fighting Islam, only the extremists. Which is one of the reasons why the word crusade is never used."  They see through our guise ....

    Perhaps we should follow their method of naming wars; they use a computer program that throws out random names.  In their own words, "The Australian military doesn't go in for such frippery [as the Americans]", which is why their code name for their involvement in the war with ISIS is Operation Okra --- makes about as much sense as Inherent Resolve to me.  But the best part of the article was this piece of advice:  "The Herald respectfully suggests that the Australian Defence Force farms out the process to the public; crowd-sourcing the naming rights to the people who will ultimately pay for the war: Us."  Good advice!
     But it was writer Jeb Lund, of the UK's The Guardian (and the author of my blog title), who really got to the heart of what the world may think of our newly named war ... "The Operation’s nom de guerre basically offers synonyms for sounding determined. You could call it Operation Stubborn Intrinsic, Operation Stick-to-Itiveness, Operation Keep Doing It ... Basically, this is Operation More Of The Same But With A Proper Noun For It Now, So We Have To Use It."
     So, what good is "sounding determined", if you don't back it up?  Naming a military mission, or war, doesn't necessarily mean you have any intention of accomplishing anything.  What is the stated objective of Operation Inherent Resolve?  So far, we've heard from different sources, that it is to "degrade" or "to humiliate" or to "destroy" ISIS.  That's a pretty broad spectrum, don't you think?  Shouldn't we define our goal in more precise and cohesive terms?
     But perhaps that is the purpose of this ambiguous name.  By keeping the objectives and the goals speculative, it can become an indeterminate, endless war; in reality, it has been 13 years, and counting, from the beginning of this long series of "operations" and "missions" in the Middle East.  The Military-Industrial Complex is chugging right along ... after all, the War on Poverty is 50 years old, and there's no end in sight, so who's to say that Operation Inherent Resolve can't be just as effective? (Wink, Wink).

James 5:8   "You also must wait patiently, strengthening your resolve, because the coming of the Lord is near."
     
 

Is It The Military's Duty To Fight Ebola?

     I can tell you that I am struggling to understand the decision to send our military personnel to West Africa to become involved in fighting Ebola.  In an exclusive report on WND.com, some of our most decorated and retired Military Generals are grappling with this decision, too.  Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin and retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely both question the decision by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to put 4,000 boots on the ground.
     Although U.S. officials want us to believe that our troops' exposure to the deadly virus will be "limited", this seems to be a very rushed and anything but comprehensively planned mission.  We are told that "the soldiers would be responsible for command, control, logistics, civil affairs and medical assistance."  Should that really be their role?  Doesn't that sound like duties that should be carried out by the Center for Disease Control?
     In fact, the CDC Foundation website describes the role of the CDC in case of a contagious outbreak as follows:  If a pandemic should occur, CDC would conduct an investigation and provide technical assistance to cities, states or international partners dealing with the outbreak. This assistance would include consultation, lab testing and analysis, patient management and care, tracking of contacts and infection control (including isolation and quarantine). CDC’s primary goals would be to determine the cause of the illness, the source of the infection/virus/toxin, learn how it is transmitted and how readily it is spread, how to break the cycle of transmission and prevent further cases and how patients can best be treated. Not only would scientists be working to identify the cause and cure of the outbreak, but CDC acting with other federal and international agencies would send medical teams and first responders to help those in affected areas. Scientists in the labs of CDC would work to develop a vaccine to combat the virus and then distribute and administer it to public.
     So why aren't they doing their job and going to West Africa, instead of sending our troops to do jobs they aren't qualified for?  As General Boykin points out, "At a time when our military has been at war for 13 years, suicide is at an all-time high, [post-traumatic stress disorder] is out of control and families are being destroyed as a result of 13 years of war, the last thing the president should be doing is sending people into West Africa to fight Ebola ... That's not what the military does."

   
     In the WND article, Boykin goes on to point out that there will be no inoculation for Ebola prior to troop deployment. Defense Department spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby said that the only preparation service members will receive before heading to West Africa will be briefings on the disease.  How would you feel if your son, daughter, husband or wife was assigned this deployment?  Will that information help you sleep at night?
     And as I look at these young people boarding a transport plane in the accompanying photo, I can't help but think, "What are we sending them into?  How will we protect them, and how will we contain this disease should, God forbid, one of them contract it?  Are they just a face without a name to the DC politicians?"
     Then there is this to consider ... the CDC wanted us to believe that our nation's hospitals were briefed and prepared to deal with any potential Ebola patient that showed up on their doorstep.  Yet, it is clear to us all that the so-called medical experts botched it in Dallas.  Are we really expected to believe that  we can send 4,000 soldiers into the heart of the beast and no one will become infected?  And can they guarantee that all these heroes will be better monitored than one man was in Dallas -- so that they do not endanger their loved ones at home, or deploy to other units and spread the disease?
     And like General Boykin, I want to know, "Where is the U.N. or other African nations?"  Why are our troops once again on the front lines?  You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to figure out that this doesn't make sense, and defies logic or common sense.  The administration spokesmen can insist all they want that our troops won't be exposed to the virus; but the fact that they are in West Africa places them in harm's way.
     Then there is information provided in another WND article, written by Joseph Farah.  He reports that "The Defense Department is planning to spend at least $1 billion on the effort. That represents a commitment of $333,333 for every soldier deployed. Just imagine how many more local citizens could be hired for this assignment?"
     Farah's article also mentions the ambiguity of Defense Department spokesman John Kirby, when he said, “But there’s no – there’s no intent right now for them to have direct contact with patients.”  Do you trust the safety of our troops after that ill-defined statement?  And here's what I don't get ... Kirby very clearly states that this "is not a military operation ... The mission is to do some training, to build these units and do some logistics, some transports, the movement of materiel."  So, if it's not a military operation, why are we sending soldiers?
     You know, it seems to me that we actually have some real missions that better suit our soldiers right now ... like stopping the growing threat of Islamic radicals in Syria and Iraq... or how about protecting our own country from a myriad of threats at our southern border?  That's what our troops are trained to do!  They are warriors, trained to fight and win wars ... this is one mission they should not be called to answer.

Psalm 91:9-10   "Because you’ve made the Lord my refuge, the Most High, your place of residence—no evil will happen to you; no disease will come close to your tent."


   

What's Really Going On?

   

     If you are new to this blog, then you've probably surmised that I look through the lens of a Biblical worldview.  I try to see "the bigger picture" via God's plan for the world, instead of the immediate political and social implications.  With that caveat, I am hesitant to jump into the dialogue on the turn we've taken towards the "war" with ISIS, and the recent airstrikes on Syria -- primarily, because I am no expert on Middle Eastern affairs and am speaking purely from a spiritual outlook; and a veiled one, at that.  Then there is my opinion that more will "develop"in the coming days that just might change the entire narrative.
     To begin with, I find it difficult to figure out the true significance of all our foreign policy moves, and how that might relate to what God has in store for the world.  All the key players in this drama are part of the End Times prophecies in the Bible, so it's hard not to look for a broader perspective than media sound bites might reveal.  The back-and-forth on our relationships with these countries can leave your head spinning; especially when one week, the major news item is that we are "not at war" with ISIS, and the next week, we are.  But I believe that ISIS may only be a tool to bring about one of the biggest End-Times participants .... Iran (Persia in the Bible).
     Think about it ... Iran is set to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of this latest war on terrorism, as embodied by ISIS, the radical jihadists who rose up out of the Syrian civil war.  From what I can glean from articles on FrontPageMag, and such Middle Eastern experts as Walid Shoebat and Majid Rafizadeh, Iran is clearly manipulating both the West and the Middle East, while playing out its role for the End of the Ages.
     Did you know that Iran was the major reason behind the emergence and creation of the terrorist group the Islamic State?  According to FrontPageMAg, "Iran’s military, financial, intelligence, advisory, and security support of the Assad government in Syria contributed to the instability of the country.  Both Syria and Iran used the excuse that they were putting down civil uprisings to legitimize their brutal force, which both radicalized and militarized Al-Qaeda affiliates and groups such as ISIS, initiating their development, organization, and recruitment of more members."
     But here is where the plot becomes more diabolical.  The rise of such groups as ISIS was a distinct advantage to both Iran and the Assad regime.  FrontPageMag reports, "The Islamic Republic [of Iran] and Syria were strategically successful at sending the West, and particularly the United States, a robust message that there is no alternative to Assad, and any military or foreign intervention would exacerbate the conflict."  That explains why we kept a "hands off" policy for so long.  But the spiritual component of this situation is that in the background, Satan is gaining more ground towards his ultimate goal of conflagration against Israel.
     Because look at how smart Iran is playing this game!  ISIS had time to grow its numbers, and has managed to panic the world with its successive beheadings and mass executions across Iraq and Syria.  Now with ISIS's bold pronouncements against the West, Iran is presenting itself as a willing ally in their defeat.  In reality, by offering their assistance in defeating ISIS (and our acceptance of their help), Iran no longer has to hide its involvement in Syrian and Iraqi affairs (or its part in the emergence of ISIS), as it continues to grow its power in those regions (when our military forces pulled out of Iraq, we left the door wide open for Iran).  The mullahs and the Iranian regime will cast themselves in this Devil's play as essential to victory, and as the major power in the Middle East; demanding concessions for their assistance, of course.  The price?  Look the other way as they continue their development of nuclear weapons.

      Is there much more to this whole scenario as seen from a worldly viewpoint?  Absolutely!  The machinations of world leaders will continue to influence what we see on the nightly news, and we will be told what they want us to hear.  But we're a little smarter, more aware, and not as naive as we were when we went to war in Iraq 11 years ago.  And God's people are awake, too.  Our Biblical viewpoint allows us to see the Bible's prophecies coming to fulfillment.  We know that no matter what the "king's of this world" may decide, it is YHVH who is ultimately in control and the battle will play out as He has planned it.  
     So, like I said, I am no foreign policy expert, nor prophecy scholar; and I definitely see "in a mirror, darkly,"  But my spirit is telling me that there is more to this story than any official White House bulletin or United Nations speech might convey.  While all eyes are fixed on ISIS, Iran is flexing its muscle, and Turkey is waiting in the wings to make its presence known.  But we must keep our eyes on the Holy City of Jerusalem.  That is where the final war of this Age will occur, and no one can doubt that we are certainly moving in that direction.  "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: May those who love you be secure." (Psalm 122:6)

Psalm 83:1-5     "O God, do not keep silence; do not hold your peace or be still, O God! For behold, your enemies make an uproar; those who hate you have raised their heads. They lay crafty plans against your people; they consult together against your treasured ones. They say, “Come, let us wipe them out as a nation; let the name of Israel be remembered no more!” For they conspire with one accord; against you they make a covenant—"

ISIS Ups The Ante & The U.S. Courts Iran

     There are at least two new disturbing reports about the escalating threat to the world from the Islamic Caliphate known as ISIS.  On Thursday, The Telegraph ran a story that Australian authorities thwarted a plot by the jihadist group to target random civilians on the streets of South Wales, Australia's largest state.
     According to the article, "Pre-dawn raids across Sydney and Brisbane led to the arrest of fifteen people and the reported seizure of a scimitar, a gun, machetes, balaclavas and military fatigues which authorities said were to be used in a plot to “shock, horrify and terrorize” the community."
     Apparently, ISIS planned on kidnapping strangers right off the street, and then performing what they called "demonstration killings"; beheading them and then posting the grisly murders on social media.  By committing these random acts of violence (such as the similar murder of soldier Lee Rigby in London last year), the terrorist group clearly hoped to strike terror in the hearts of citizens.
     Intelligence sources were quick to react to reports that Australian Islamic extremists were soon to return home, after fighting side by side with ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and could possibly connect with domestic terrorist sympathizers in the homeland.  Obviously, the Caliphate is wasting no time in spreading their reign of terror outside the Middle East.
     There was also a report by Fox News that a bulletin from the Central Florida Intelligence Exchange warns "that Islamic State fighters have increased calls for "lone wolves" to attack U.S. soldiers in America ... a call for jihadists to find service members' addresses online and then 'show up and slaughter them'."  Furthermore, the agency warned, “These threats will most likely increase should the U.S. or its allies attack the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).”
     What is particularly frightening is that the jihadists instruct their fighters via Twitter to use Facebook, LinkedIn, or other social media sites to locate addresses and information on soldiers in order to locate their targets.  According to the bulletin, "Killing U.S. troops on American soil is an increasing focus of  jihadists", seemingly because it would be easier to accomplish their goal of global terror than luring Western fighters to come to the Middle East --- kind of a "just-stay-home-and-kill" policy, if you will.
     An interesting side note is the fact that these social media-savvy terrorists look to Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood jihadist, as a role model for how to carry out an attack ... hmmm, apparently they don't agree with the White House that Fort Hood was "workplace violence."  And, by the way, Hassan recently indicated from his jail cell that he wants to join the Islamic State.  So, now, can we label it a terrorist attack and get some federal relief for the victims?
     Along with Australian officials, the Central Florida intelligence center likened the possibility of such attacks to the jihadi murder of the British soldier, Lee Rigby.  If you have family members that are military personnel, I would take this threat seriously.  Everyone should be mindful of posting personal information on social media sites.  But, it is now evident that members of the U.S. Military have been singled out as targets.  Stay Alert!
     To add even more alarm to this world situation, I have been hearing various news reporters disclosing that while our military policy regarding ISIS does not currently involve plans for "U.S. boots on the ground", the Administration is considering talks with Iran to be our proxy "boots".  I guess they think that Iran's Shia Muslims will be glad to fight the world's battle against the ISIS Sunni Muslims.  But what do you think the price will be?  And don't you think they see a way to take advantage of our unwillingness to follow through on our mission?
     If you were Iran, wouldn't your bargaining chip be their nuclear program?  It's a win/win situation for Iran, but I'm afraid this game of playing "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" will only serve to harm us in the end.  There is never any good that comes from bargaining with the devil.
     So the march of evil continues on ... it is growing louder and bolder, and coming closer to our shores.  I don't know what the immediate future brings, but I do know that there is a limit to the wickedness that God will allow.  Until that time, I will rely on Him to increase my faith and help me to stand boldly and resolutely for His kingdom.  He is our Fortress and our Refuge!

2 Peter 2:9    "These things show that the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from their trials, and how to keep the unrighteous for punishment on the Judgment Day."

A Tale of Two Soldiers

   

     I've gone too long without commenting on the status of Marine  Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi.  It has now been 100+ days that he has been imprisoned in a Mexican jail for making a wrong turn at the Mexican border and declaring his mistake and possession of firearms.  The weapons are legal in the United States but not Mexico, and he was detained when he inadvertently crossed over the boundary in late March.  I have been to the Mexican border and believe me, it can be quite confusing; and once you have committed yourself to the "entry lane" into Mexico, concrete barriers prohibit any change of direction or return.
     Sgt. Tahmooressi is a decorated Marine who suffers from PTSD after two tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He has received very little attention from our administration; in fact their response has been, "We need to let the Mexican justice system take its course."  Meanwhile, another soldier, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, has been paraded before the world for his release from Taliban captivity.  There were major White House announcements about "the returning P.O.W." and news conferences in the Rose Garden.  Yet the subject of Sgt. Tahmooressi is avoided in White House press briefings as if he is of no consequence.
     For whatever reason, the left-leaning media wants to portray Tahmooressi as less than honest in his story, and point to the somewhat dicey approach of his first Mexican lawyer as proof that he has something to hide.  Yet where are they when it comes to questioning Bergdahl's story?  There are more than enough members of his platoon that will testify to his hatred of America and his abandonment of his post.  But his questionable relationship with the Taliban is inadequately examined.  And now he has a nice little desk job at an Army post in Texas.
     In the meantime, Sgt. Tahmooressi's mother, Jill, has waged a one-woman campaign to bring her son home.  She presented a petition to the White House, with the prerequisite signatures, demanding the release of her son.  Still no official response.  Why was Bergdahl's release worth five high-ranking Taliban leaders, yet according to this administration, Tahmooressi's imprisonment is "a private matter", and all John Kerry can muster is a weak statement that "we have raised the issue"?  Jill Tahmooressi's response?  "I find that offensive. That, in fact, infuriates me! My son is more than an ‘issue.’ Andrew [and his health] is a grave, urgent, serious concern. The fact that the president has totally ignored him is so offensive and wrong. This situation is urgent! He is a decorated military hero who screened positive for PTSD in San Diego in March and requires treatment.”
     World Net Daily reported that in an interview from his Mexican jail cell, Tahmooressi confirmed that the U.S. State Department has not contacted him, nor has he been able to talk with them.  One has to wonder  -- What is the ulterior motive behind how differently these two soldiers have been treated?  How can the White House boast about the return of Bergdahl, and that "we never leave anyone behind"?  Aren't we doing just that with Sgt. Tahmooressi?  
     Our country has paid an extremely high price for the return of an alleged deserter and Taliban sympathizer.  What is our government willing to pay for the return of an honorable and decorated war hero?  Perhaps that's where the real story lies, and how our military is undervalued and disrespected.
     Sgt. Tahmooressi told World Net Daily that he trusts God for his future – but he’d also like an answer from his Commander-in-Chief.  That's the least he deserves.  He also asks for our prayers and our vigilance on his behalf; that we keep his captivity before the public, the media, and the White House.  And that's the least we can do.  May God strengthen Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi in his hour of need.

Joshua 22:3    "You have not forsaken your brothers these many days, down to this day, but have been careful to keep the charge of the Lord your God."

The Mind of Our Military Is At Risk!

     In the wake of the VA Hospital scandal, it's not as if our soldiers don't have enough to worry about when it comes to their medical treatment.  Now The End Begins website recently printed an article that will have you scurrying for the biggest tin-foil hat you can find.  They report that "under the guise of treating the all-covering diagnosis of PTSD, the Obama administration has instructed the Pentagon to begin the process of microchipping the brains of soldiers. Watch for diagnosis of PTSD to increase 1000% past the current all-time high to justify mass microchipping."
     Wow!  Did the hair just stand up on the back of your neck?  But we shouldn't be surprised.  After all, I'm sure you knew that Obamacare made plenty of provision for “implantable devices”, and not just for pacemakers.  You knew that, right?  Remember, we have been hearing about RFID chips for some time now, and how they will "streamline" all of our outdated processes.  We can keep better track of our kids while they are at school; help monitor our elderly to make sure they are taking their medications properly; heck, we are even considering microchipping our bank accounts in our hands, so that just a swipe across that scanner will take care of business.
     Why would we object?  Don't we already microchip our pets?  Now, Defense One, a site that offers breaking news and analysis about defense, foreign policy and national security, reports that the Pentagon is developing a new, innovative brain chip to treat PTSD in soldiers and veterans that could bring sweeping new changes to the way depression and anxiety is treated for millions of Americans.  With $12 million (and the potential for $26 million more if benchmarks are met), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, wants to reach deep into your brain’s soft tissue to record, predict and possibly treat anxiety, depression and other maladies of mood and mind.   Does anyone else see the vast possibilities for misuse of such a device?  And who wants the government being able to "treat" your brain?
     There will always be those who are looking for the "magic pill", or in this case, the magic cybernetic electrode that implants into the brain.  They make it all sound so .... brilliant.  “DARPA is looking for ways to characterize which regions come into play for different conditions – measured from brain networks down to the single neuron level – and develop therapeutic devices that can record activity, deliver targeted stimulation, and most importantly, automatically adjust therapy as the brain itself changes,” DARPA program manager Justin Sanchez said.
     That's my point!  They are changing the brain!  We have already seen how certain mind-altering drugs can influence aberrant behavior.  Now the government wants to "deliver targeted stimulation"?  Do you trust that it will be only for the good of the patient?  This is the kind of stuff evil scientists come up with to gain mind-control over their subjects!  And I can't help but remember the effects of electric shock therapy on a beloved aunt who suffered from depression and anxiety.  How is this any different?  "Targeted" and "electric stimulation" is the same, no matter what name you call it!
     Here's another thought ... in the end, there is something that is manifestly wrong with trying to control the brain.  For a long time now, scientists have tried to discover if there is a "God spot" hidden deep within the brain; an area where we identify with the One who created us, and where we recognize His worth.  The research has revealed that a belief in God is deeply embedded in the human brain, which is programmed for religious experiences.  And according to a study by the US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, "Religious belief and behavior are a hallmark of human life, with no accepted animal equivalent, and found in all cultures."
     Soooo, if you were say, Satan, and you wanted to eradicate any concept or thought of God, wouldn't it be to your benefit to introduce through your ever-expanding technological advances, a method by which you could cut open the skull and put one or more wires deep inside and turn off that neuron receptacle?  Or at least "adjust" it?  And think of the implications of an entire military with microchips that can be "targeted", "stimulated", or simply shut down?
     We are treading on dangerous ground here!  I just pray that our military personnel are wise enough to resist the manipulation and false promises they are about to receive.  This is Scary Science at its best, and the Devil at his most diabolical.

Colossians 2:8    "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."

Embattled Over Bowe

     Although it is way too early to know the full story of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's release by the Taliban -- if we will ever know the full story or the truth -- I have some immediate and conflicting thoughts.  I am aware that what I think has no real value in this dialogue, other than mentioning some inconsistencies and concerns over this development.
     Bergdahl was the only American POW held by the Taliban.  He was held prisoner for five years, and I cannot imagine the joy of his family to know that he will soon be back on U.S. soil.  And we can all share the jubilation felt by his hometown of Hailey, Idaho as they are finally able to remove the public display of yellow ribbons.
      Images that crept out through the years were highly emotional, and patriotic Americans prayed and petitioned for his release.  After all, it has long been the position of the US military that "we leave no man behind."
     Yet was the price too high for Bowe to come home?  In exchange for Bergdah's freedom, The Weekly Standard has reported that our nation has released "five of the most dangerous Taliban commanders in U.S. custody."  Furthermore, all five are among the Taliban’s top commanders and are still revered in jihadist circles.  Known as the "Gitmo 5", they became pawns in the White House's strategy to coerce the Taliban to break from their Al Qaeda counterparts.  Although, the administration is offering assurances that they do not pose a threat to American national security, are you willing to take that bet?
     There's a part of me that celebrates this picture of a lone American soldier being worth five evil Taliban.... that our culture would value the life of one innocent man, and that God would honor our intentions and protect us from any further injury by the Gitmo 5.  But is it a picture that's even real?
     Ever since Sgt. Bergdahl disappeared in Afghanistan, there have been rumors that, at the worst, he was a defector; and at the least, he was disillusioned with the Army and "ashamed to be an American."  The military is abuzz in various chat rooms with theories put forth by his comrades-in-arms.   The problem is that I am hard-pressed to trust any report on this situation.  Information can be placed anywhere by anybody, and all of it can be false.
     There have been recent reports that Bowe may struggle with the ability to speak English, after years of speaking Pashtun.  And there are sincere concerns that he could have been programmed to become a Taliban sympathizer, and this is all a plot to return him to wreak havoc on the homeland.  Granted, this sounds seriously conspiratorial --  and is even the plot of a major TV show -- but one has to consider his state of mind when he was captured.  Whether willingly, or not, we cannot dismiss the possibility that Sgt. Bergdahl might feel empathy or sympathy with his captors after these five long years.  The "Stockholm Syndrome" is a proven psychological effect of prolonged imprisonment.
     But now, let's take our eyes off the freed prisoner for a moment and consider the consequences of his release.  Several members of Congress are now questioning if the President broke the law in securing Bergdahl's freedom.  To be exact, he failed to notify Congress 30 days before the deal was made, as the President is required to do.  Further, no less than former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton has questioned the move as raising the value for future American prisoners.  He points out that it is not only our military at risk, but others such as missionaries, aid workers, and tourists. And in a joint statement, House Armed Services Chairman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., and Senate Armed Services Ranking Member James Inhofe, R-Okla., told ABC News, “Trading five senior Taliban leaders from detention in Guantanamo Bay for Berghdal’s release may have consequences for the rest of our forces and all Americans. Our terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans. That incentive will put our forces in Afghanistan and around the world at even greater risk.”
     So, while I celebrate the release of Bowe Bergdahl from his Taliban imprisonment, I want to know that there won't be serious repercussions and further lives lost.  I realize that this is an irrational and unrealistic expectation.  And I don't like thinking that this one man's life is disposable for the greater good of the country.  I believe that God views every life as valuable; every life as redeemable ... and no matter what Bowe's truth is, I pray that the fact of his release will bless him greatly and bless his family, his hometown and his country.

2 Timothy 2:25-26    "God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will."

Tribute To Our Armed Services

     

     Today is Memorial Day, the day that we Americans remember the men and women who died while serving in our country's military. Originally instituted to honor the Civil War dead, it has become a national holiday to remember all Americans who have died in war.  It is a sobering fact to realize that from the time of the War Between the States to our most recent wars, there have been 1,249,588 Americans who have died while serving us.  Let that number seep into your soul and reflect on what it has cost to preserve this nation and our freedoms.
     But are we truly honoring them?  Do we respect them?  What about admiring them or appreciating them?  It is not enough to hang a flag outside your door on this one day a year that is set aside for them.  Are we all conscious that they have stepped into the gap for us, and are willing to make the hard sacrifices so that we can continue to live our self-absorbed lives?  When you look at how the VietNam vets were treated on their return home, or the mistreatment of today's military by the VA Administration, we should hang our head in shame.
     I often ask myself, why would anyone choose to step up and lay their life on the line when it is so under-apprecuated?  Thanks to a smartphone app called "Whisper", some soldiers have been taking to social media and giving us an insight as to why they are willing to put others before themselves.  Some of their reasons for joining the armed forces are the following: a true desire to serve their country; the need to preserve our freedom; to do something with their life and to make a difference;  a wish to protect their family; a determination to conquer their fears; and a longing to save lives.  Many of them lost a parent or loved one on September 11th, and they have a deep need to defend this nation against evil.
     As I reflect back on our country's history, the reasons for our participation in all the wars were varied.  Yet I would suspect that the reasons young men and women have enlisted has remained the same.  Read back through the comments made on social media … except for the reference to 9/11, all those reasons could apply to a solider in the Civil War, or the Indian Wars, the Mexican Revolution, the Spanish-American War, either World War, the Korean War, VietNam, the Persian Gulf War, Afghanistan or Iraq.
     I stand in awe of any member of the military, from any era, who has answered his heart's desire to serve his country and fellow man.  Anyone who puts on the uniform possesses a noble quality that distinguishes them from the rest of us.  And today we remember all who have perished.  And with each of those nearly one-and-a-quarter million deaths, there have been parents, spouses, children, and siblings who have grieved their loss. A tremendous price has been paid …. and yet they continue to take our place on that front line; they carry on the long tradition of American sacrifice for causes greater than themselves.
     It is a sad commentary on these times in which we live, that I am having an increasingly difficult time honoring the causes, let alone the men and institutions who create the wars in which we celebrate our fallen.  It is my prayer that these exceptional Americans will not have died in vain, and that the country they believed in, and fought for, will survive and fulfill her calling.  May God have mercy on their souls and reward them for their sacrifice.

John 5:28    "Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice ."

Can Robots Be Programmed To Be Moral?

   

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel considers new "moral" robot

     Of course, says the Chairman of the Yale Technology and Ethics Study Group.  In fact, Mr. Wendell Wallach thinks we can program different kinds of morality into our robotic associates.  First there is Operational Morality, which he says "is what you already get when the operator can discern all the situations that the robot may come under and program in appropriate responses."  There is also Functional Morality, which "is where the robot starts to move into situations where the operator can’t always predict what [the robot] will encounter and [the robot] will need to bring some form of ethical reasoning to bear."  Finally, Mr. Wallach thinks we can program a robot to become a "full moral agent."  Which is exactly what?
      Well, apparently a full moral agent is a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong.  And that's exactly where Wallach fails to make his case.  A "being" is understood to have a living soul, a spirit, an essence, and a heart.  Robots have none of these things.  They are wires and metal and computer chips. Now, can they be programmed to act out directives based on existing conditions?  Absolutely.  But can they be programmed with feelings, and values, and a code of ethical standards -- all which comes from our inner psyche, and which determines one's ability to define morality?  I do not believe so.
     But The Blaze reports that the Department of Defense, through the Office of Naval Research has $7.5 million set aside in grant money over the next five years for university researchers to build a robot with moral reasoning capabilities.  And here's their truly chilling rationalization for such a plan: Proponents argue a “sense of moral consequence” could allow robotic systems to operate as one part of a more efficient — and truly autonomous — defense infrastructure. And some of those advocates think pre-programmed machines would make better decisions than humans, since they could only follow strict rules of engagement and calculate potential outcomes for multiple different scenarios.
     First of all, I cannot easily dismiss the language they use to describe this possible scenario ... "the robot will need to bring "some form" of ethical reasoning to bear" ... a "sense" of moral consequence ...    truly autonomous systems ... Does anyone else think that there's a huge risk for a) the robot's sense and form of morality being different than a human's, or b) the possibility that someone of inferior (or even evil) morals could corrupt the programming for a robot who is going to be involved in our defense infrastructure?  And do you want these robots with unprovable morals being truly autonomous;  i.e. self-ruling and self-determining?  That would be a big, fat NO from me!
     Artificial Intelligence researcher Steven Omohundro says it all makes sense to him.  “With drones, missile defines, autonomous vehicles, etc., the military is rapidly creating systems that will need to make moral decisions."  Again, I ask, WHY?!?  Why will they need to make moral decisions ... who decided that?  Just because you say it, does not give it credibility.
     I am so sick and tired of all these researchers and scientists that are so gung-ho to explore the world of human/robotic integration.  I am weary of them acting and speaking as if it is the most natural and obvious development; the indisputable next step and course of action.  We should take that leap ... oh, just because ... We can! Where is the morality in that?
     Has anybody stopped to ask these geniuses if they would be willing to trust a robot to decide if they should be rescued in an IED attack?  Would they be happy to rely on that robot deciding if the moral thing to do would be to leave you, while a more seriously injured comrade was rescued first?  What if the robot decided you were "acceptable collateral damage" to the mission? Humans will always care more about humans than machines can!  We have God-embedded DNA!  Hasn't anybody seen the movie Terminator???
     And before I end my tirade, I'd like to address the military minds that are behind this debatable and controversial plan.  How dare you suggest that $7.5 million be spent on the development of so-called moral robots, when the genuinely moral thing to do would be to spend that money on caring for the real life, flesh-and-blood veterans who have been languishing and dying in our VA hospitals!  Shame on you!  God have mercy on this foolish and misguided generation!

Luke 12:57   "And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right? "

Shame On The VA!

     I believe it is not too contrived to suggest that how a nation treats those who are willing to fight and die on behalf of its citizens, is a measure of how decent is that nation's heart.  And, my friends, I am heartsick over the way our veterans have been treated in their hour of need.
     As FrontPageMag reveals in a pointed article, the Veterans Affairs Department can no longer hide its abominable conduct toward our military veterans who seek the medical care they are due and have been promised.  Last month, at a hearing before the House of Representatives Committee on Veterans Affairs, lawmakers from both parties accused VA officials of allowing veterans to die, due to delayed or withheld medical treatments at VA facilities.  That is unacceptable and loathsome!
     It is heart-breaking to hear stories like that of Gulf War Veteran, Barry Coates, aged 44.  Testifying before the House Committee, Mr. Coates said he is dying of cancer because a simple medical procedure was delayed at several VA facilities, including the William Jennings Bryan Dorn VA medical center in Columbia, South Carolina.  Mr. Coates testified after being a part of an in-depth investigative report by CNN.  After suffering for more than a year from rectal bleeding and seeking a diagnosis, he was told he had hemorrhoids.  Now, his condition is terminal.
     But he is not the only veteran who was harmed because of lack of proper medical care by the VA.  The CNN investigation revealed that veterans waiting months for simple gastrointestinal procedures -- such as a colonoscopy or endoscopy -- have been dying because their cancers aren't caught in time.
     Because of the scrutiny, the VA has confirmed six deaths at Dorn tied to delays. But sources close to the investigation say the number of veterans dead or dying of cancer because they had to wait too long for diagnosis or treatment at this facility could be more than 20.  That is 20 too many!  And more than likely that number is much higher!
     Here are some further facts that are truly appalling:  In July 2011, a hospital physician sent a warning to VA administrators that the backlog for Dorn patients' gastrointestinal appointments had reached 2,500, and patients were waiting eight months -- until February 2012 -- for appointments.  Just several months later, in December of 2011, that backlog had grown to 3,800 patients.  It wasn't until September of 2013, that the VA's inspector general affirmed details of the delays at Dorn in stark language, stating that 700 of the delays for appointments or care were "critical."  
     Now, do you want to here what is even more disgusting?  Taxpayer money was actually given to fix the problem in September 2011, but only a third of the $1 million appropriated by Congress was used for its intended purpose at Dorn: to pay for care for veterans on a waiting list.  The explanation that the VA "redirected those dollars to go somewhere it was needed" is not good enough.
     You should know that the South Carolina VA medical center is not the only guilty facility.   Internal documents at an Augusta, Georgia VA facility showed a waiting list of 4,500 patients.  The same holds true for facilities across the country.  At least 40 U.S. veterans died waiting for appointments at the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Health Care system, many of whom were placed on a secret waiting list.  A retired VA doctor, reported that there's an "official" list that's shared with officials in Washington and shows the VA has been providing timely appointments. And then there's the "secret list"; the real list that's hidden from outsiders, where wait times can last more than a year.
     Yet, while veterans were getting sick or dying due to inexcusable delays, administrators got bonuses, not demotions, according to congressional investigators.  And it all makes me disgusted, angry, and very sad.
     As upset as I was over the lack of medical care that my own WW II veteran father received at local hospitals, I shudder to think of how he would have been treated in the VA system.  But the thing that is glaringly apparent is that the VA Administration (and our federal representatives) have neglected the system for far too long.  Proper updates in equipment, psychological treatment, and manpower have not been implemented.  They are overwhelmed with Vietnam Vets, Gulf War Vets, and now a growing and complicated set of medical needs from two ongoing wars that have lasted over 10 years.  Sadly, I do not think things will get better in time to save the lives that hang in the balance today.   As a country, we are out of money, and our veterans are once again sacrificing their lives -- unnecessarily and tragically.  As a nation, we have failed them; and that speaks to our moral decline as well as our misguided policies and mistreatment.

1 John 3:17     "But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?"