Posts

By Your Leave, Sir…

ribbonsRibbons and Medals

As an enlisted man, when you’re getting ready to pass a commissioned officer from the rear, you salute and say, “By your leave, sir.” He responds by saying, “Granted” and you continue on your way.

It’s an appropriate gesture of respect and it’s expected in the context of what is considered to be military protocol.

While you don’t salute military decorations on an officer’s chest, those ribbons and medals are also worthy of acknowledgement because of the way they reflect courage and character – at least in that moment where the act of bravery represented by that medal actually occurred.

But…

To assume that those same actions translate to an inability to be mistaken, flawed or even criminal is to assume that the valor needed to justify those ribbons on their chest is automatically present in every thought and activity from that moment on.

And that’s not a healthy assumption.

When you encounter a veteran, they’re worthy of your gratitude for their service. And when you meet a decorated veteran, they’re even more deserving because of they’re having risked their lives and made a sacrifice that justifies a salute and a “By your leave, sir.”

But however “proven” a person’s character may be – even in a combat scenario – to assume that they’re impervious to any kind of temptation or incapable of making a bad decision is to deny the fact that they’re human.

Combat Veterans

When I served, I enjoyed working for combat veterans. Having had to function in an environment where real bullets were whistling overheard, those individuals tended to lead in a manner that was devoid of any kind of drama or political correctness. It was solid, confident and even if you didn’t agree with it, you were more prone to trust their logic given the far greater tensions they had been confronted with in the past.

But I had one run in with a staff non commissioned officer that was a Vietnam War veteran and I wouldn’t have wanted him for a subordinate let alone a boss. He was impulsive, negative, condescending and – in my particular situation – he was wrong. But he wasn’t the kind of individual who would ever admit it, which made his bearing even more disdainful.

My uncle was a decorated WW II fighter pilot, having won the Silver Star as well as the Distinguished Flying Cross. Among the Flag Officers that would later be immortalized in various World War II films, there was one in particular that, while he appeared to be a noble and wise leader in the movies, my uncle had a much different perspective on him because of the way he foolishly put his sailors at risk.

Robert J. O’Neill, the Navy Seal who killed Osama Bin Laden, tweeted, “I wish the left wouldn’t use his uniform to make him a saint. He’s an operative with an agenda.” Similarly, Mark Geist, a Marine who fought at Benghazi tweeted, “Vindman is a disgrace to all who have served. Transcript of his previous closed door testimony he clearly admits to undermining the @POTUS foreign policy and now he has chairman Schiff advising him on how to answer questions.

Vindman Discredits His Service And Uniform With Partisan Testimony

And then there’s Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the officer who testified before the House Intelligence Committee as part of the Democrat’s attempt to remove Trump from office. Despite the fact that President Zelensky insisted there was nothing inappropriate about Trump’s conduct, House Democrats proceeded to manufacture a bogus scenario in order to justify impeachment proceedings. Part of their despicable theater was Lt. Col. Vindman, a decorated Army officer who used his ribbons to distract from the fact that his respect for protocol and the chain of command was as unprofessional as it was non-existent. So, while Vindman needs to be thanked for whatever wounds he was willing to endure that earned him the Purple Heart, his conduct and his motives demonstrated as part of the coup to remove his Commander in Chief show that a singular act of bravery doesn’t translate to a lifetime of valor.

Four Star Generals

General Kelly and General Mattis have impeccable military records. But recently they’ve been very critical of Trump and the MSM has been only too happy to celebrate them as legitimate reasons why you wouldn’t want to vote for him.

But here’s the thing:

Mattis doesn’t want Federal Troops to be deployed against Antifa. He’s denounced Trump as an enemy of “unity.”

Well, I disagree.

Antifa hides behind a noble sounding rhetoric, but in the end they, along with their Black Lives Matter counterparts, are not asking for unity or equality. Their actions demonstrate a desire for immunity and a commitment to destruction: Immune to the consequences of bad decisions and determined to destroy the very paradigm that gives them the right to protest. Furthermore, many of the areas where these thugs are allowed to flourish are run by Democratic leadership who seem willing to put their own constituents at risk both financially and physically all for the sake of making the White House look bad.

Kelly has been critical of the President for some time. But his bias is hard to ignore when you consider how at one point he said that anyone who favors Fox News is not an informed citizen. So, what does that imply, as far as those who favor the MSM? Furthermore, his indictments, according to White House Press Secretary Stephenie Grisham, seem “disingenuous,” given the fact that she was with in the room when he backed the President on issues that he now criticizes.

Bottom Line

Marine Corps Major General Jim Livingston, a Medal of Honor winner, recently joined 8 four star generals and a total of over 200 retired senior military officers to endorse Trump. Thing is, you have to “dig,” to find that information. The MSM is going to trumpet anything and anyone they can find to promote the idea that Trump is a fool and a fiend. Anything that supports something to the contrary is going to be demonized as either irrelevant or unreliable.

His accomplishments are rarely discussed. Rather, it’s his supposed lack of character and the attacks have been ruthless. The bias and the overall lack of integrity on the part of the media is rampant as evidenced by the recent article published by The Atlantic (and quickly reprinted in almost every major news publication) that claimed Trump referred to the buried American World War I  soldiers in France as “suckers and losers.” Suspiciously validated by four “anonymous” sources, this claim has been refuted by no less than 20 Witnesses who were present at the time this comment was supposedly made – which was two years ago, by the way.

Ribbons and Medals are worthy of respect. But just because you’ve been decorated doesn’t mean you’ve been granted a status of immunity when it comes to succumbing to bad influences or the tendency to make bad choices all on your own. Furthermore, a decorated vet isn’t necessarily representative of every decorated serviceman when it comes to one’s mindset and perspective. However the press, or any institution for that matter, wants to imply that one combat veteran’s opinion is either symbolic or superior to any other serviceman’s outlook is to overlook:

  • the possibility of that person being flawed
  • the malicious manipulation represented by asserting a heroic act as means to validate a bogus perspective
  • the ignorant assumption made when believing that one man’s opinion is shared by everyone else who wears the same uniform

A salute, a grateful disposition and respect for a selfless act…absolutely! But to respond with a “By your leave, sir!” when confronted with a half truth, a hidden agenda or something immoral?

Absolutely not.

 

Why I’m Going to Vote for Trump and Why I Think You Should Too (Consider the Source)

81SsnoeWwcL._AC_UL1500_For the last four years, the Democrat Party and the Main Stream Media (MSM) has been focused dedicated exclusively to destroying President Trump.

Some would argue that they get plenty of help from Trump himself in the way he Tweets and the way he communicates in general.

But there’s a point where you have to consider the source before you allow the incessant din of negative press to influence your perspective and, more importantly, your vote.

Trump’s Lies

Trump’s detractors have a bad habit of hijacking certain words in the English language and use their implied meaning to  distract from the true purpose behind the use of those terms.

For example…

  • Lie – something that Trump has said that the Left doesn’t agree with and can’t effectively refute
  • Fascism – that time frame when a Democrat neither occupies the Oval Office nor the majority
  • Hatemonger – a personality that doesn’t cower in the face of bad press
  • Mysoginist – government official who refuses to force employers to financially support a female’s sexual lifestyle
  • Racist – person who sees an individual as someone who’s responsible for their actions
  • American Nationalism – the mindset that believes it’s appropriate to protect and promote those things that make America unique and special

Taken together you have a literary pool from which to draw from that, when combined with intentionally incomplete information, you can sound compelling yet not be entirely accurate. And while your content may be ethical as far as it not being technically false, it is nevertheless toxic because of it being presented as a completed puzzle rather than a mere puzzle piece.

Journalists are the smartest people in the room, so smart that they can’t possibly expected to just report the news. Thus, the grant themselves license to package it and analyze it with an intelligence only they seem to possess. They profess to believe in the power of facts, but what they really believe in is their power to proclaim facts. Facts exist to be bent to their will to further their narrative.1

You see this illustrated in the 2017 article published by the New York Times entitled, “Trump’s Lies.” I supposedly detailed over 100 lies that Trump had supposedly told during his first 100 days in office. But with minimal digging, you can see for yourself that the Times is not reporting falsehoods as much as they are identifying things they don’t agree with and referring to them as “lies.” Click here to see for yourself.

Losers and Suckers

In addition, you have situations like the story that was recently printed in, “The Atlantic” entitled, “Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’.” Within an hour, most of the major news publications were reprinting the story of how President Trump referred to the soldiers buried in France who lost their lives at the Battle of Belleau Wood. Those who despise Trump were only too happy to throw their two cents in and repeat the diatribe that, more often than not, is more sensation than it is substance.

The article itself is based on a very flimsy journalistic foundation. Jeffrey Goldberg, the author of the article, claims that Trump’s comments were verified by four “anonymous” sources. However dubious that sounds, it is nevertheless perceived as a substantive testimony and all the world is justified in perceiving Trump as a vulgar fiend.

But is it true?

Since the article was published, no less than 20 individuals who were present at the time the alleged comments were made have insisted that Trump did no such thing. Goldberg himself as admitted that some of what was asserted in the article may be false.

But to what extent do you hear what amounts to both a retraction as well as a body of evidence that compelling labels Goldberg’s accusations as bogus? And is it circulated with the same kind of enthusiasm as the original indictment?

Not a whisper and a big, fat, “No!”

What You’ve Been Told

Most of what we know about the world is based on what we’ve been told. Moreover, it’s not just what we’ve been told as much as it’s what we choose to hear. If you’re inclined to think of humanity as its own absolute, the Democrat party specializes in labels, mobs and crowds to justify the condemnation of whole systems in order to vindicate the individual and thereby awarding them a default nobility and an assumed morality. It’s not so much that God is dead as much as it’s God is gone and His Perspective is replaced with a person’s “right to be happy.” However obvious or appropriate that might sound, it’s not a person’s right to be happy as much as it’s a person having the authority to redefine that which is good and that which is evil.

Theology, for the sake of this conversation, is the application of Scripture as the “words” of God. No editing and no ignoring of certain passages so as to better accommodate cultural preferences. Sociology, in this case, is referring to the Bible deployed only when it agrees with a societal belief and only those sections that can be sufficiently twisted. “Absolutes” are replaced with generic references to love and unity and sin is dismissed as a legalistic term that carries with it no real consequence and therefore no real need for redemption.
Theology vs Sociology

On the other hand, if you’re convinced that the only qualified individual who can effectively lead our country in a way that promotes and protects Biblical Absolutes is one that can quote Scripture and abstain from anything even remotely crass, you will find yourself at an impasse when pondering all that Trump has done to preserve and apply our spiritual heritage and compare that to the self absorbed fiend the media would have you believe him to be.

At Some Point…

At some point you have to think with your mind and not your feelings. You can’t read with your ears nor can you substitute sound bites for substance.

You have to consider the source.

Whether you’re listening to a journalist, an activist or a self proclaimed political commentator, you have to process what they’re saying recognizing that some would believe they can speak something into existence simply because they want it to be real. Facts, however accurate they may be, are nevertheless pieces of a much larger whole and regardless of the name of the resource or the number of letters after the expert being cited, you have to consider the source and be ready to think for yourself rather than allowing others to do your thinking for you.

Journalism is an honorable vocation provided it’s journalism and not activism. And even citing Scripture as the premise upon which you want to build your perspective is healthy provided it’s theology and not sociology (see sidebar). So, however passionate or credible the voice may be, you have to consider the source. Only then are you guaranteed accurate perspectives, practical solutions and…

…a qualified leader.

You have to consider the source.

 

1. “Unmasked”, L. Brent Bozell III, Tim Graham, Humanix Books, West Palm Beach, FL, 2019, p1