by Mark West | Jun 22, 2016 | Barack Obama, Islam, Islamic Terrorism, Liberty, Political, Protection, Safety, Terrorism
This week, in the wake of the worst mass shooting in our nation’s history, President Obama’s Department of Justice, via US Attorney General Loretta Lynch, released an excerpt of the transcript between Omar Mateen, the Islamic terrorist, and a 911 operator. However, the excerpt provided was scrubbed to exclude references to “ISIS” and ISIS leader “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.” It was as if Obama and Lynch chose to use White-Out to cover up after another Islamic terrorist attack.
Thankfully, following an overwhelming outcry from American citizens, Attorney General Lynch reversed course in less than 24 hours and released the full transcript of the 911 calls. It’s extremely troubling though, to say the least, that anyone in our government would think that omitting such relevant info is appropriate.
This is how the scrubbed transcript was initially released:
Orlando Police Dispatcher (OD): Emergency 911, this is being recorded.
Shooter (OM): In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficial [in Arabic]
OD: What?
OM: Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God [in Arabic]. I let you know, I’m in Orlando and I did the shootings.
OD: What’s your name?
OM: My name is I pledge of allegiance to [omitted].
OD: Ok, What’s your name?
OM: I pledge allegiance to [omitted] may God protect him [in Arabic], on behalf of [omitted].
OD: Alright, where are you at?
OM: In Orlando.
OD: Where in Orlando?
[End of call.]
Imagine for just a moment, how this kind of approach might have read on December 8, 1941 when President Franklin Roosevelt responded to the deliberate attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor:
“Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 – a date which will live in infamy – the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of [omitted]. I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by [omitted] on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the [omitted] empire.”
Looking back in history now, we would see such a response from the POTUS as not only ludicrous and naive but more importantly, mortally dangerous. Thankfully, President Roosevelt understood the existential threat posed by Japan and he not only named them as the enemy, but he responded with these words: “No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.”
Fast forward seventy-five years though, and we see an administration that is either so stooped in political correctness that it cannot bring itself to allow the words of the actual terrorist to be disclosed, or worse, it naively believes that there really is no threat posed by ISIS and its Islamic soldiers, who walk among us. Based on the actions and words of Obama and his administration over the last seven years, there is no question that the President seeks to provide cover for Islam.
As noted, because of political pressure, Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynn acquiesced. But her initial willingness to “white-out” the facts that are perhaps the most relevant to explaining the motive behind the worst mass shooting in our history, is extremely telling. And it’s not unprecedented for the Obama administration. There have been other instances when words were changed to deemphasize the role Islamic terrorism has played in other attacks.
If you’ve ever used the product White Out to cover up a word, you know that while the product’s white smudge hides the mistake, the original word is still underneath. Likewise, while Obama and his underlings may attempt to white-out Islamic terrorism, the grave threat this 1400 year old ideology poses remains. And as Obama continues to employ this white-out strategy, American lives will continue to hang in the balance, just as they did in Los Angeles, Little Rock, Ft. Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, San Bernardino, Orlando, and more.
The question we must ask ourselves is what role has Obama’s failed and dangerous strategy played in the loss of American lives? And how many more lives will we continue to lose between now and January 20, 2017, Obama’s last day in office? No one knows. But one thing is for certain, there is no chance that Obama will reverse course at this point.
But there are at least three steps you and I can take to counter Obama’s dangerous white-out policy:
Individually we must remain vigilant. All muslims are not terrorists and they do not all pose a threat. But nearly all terrorists over the last couple decades have come from the Islamic faith, interpreting its doctrine and teachings in keeping with their founder, Muhammed. So be aware of this truth. If you see something or someone that appears suspicious, inform your local law enforcement.
Inform your friends, family and neighbors of the the reality of the threat of Islamic terrorism. Forward this article to others. Make sure they are provided with news from sources other than ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and even FoxNews. There are many unfiltered and non-politically correct sites that can provide you and others with the true nature and scope of the threat posed by Islamic terrorism. Three which I consider very credible are Center for Security Policy, Political Islam, and Act for America.
We must encourage our political leaders and law enforcement to step up and fill-in the gap that Obama has created. You’ve heard the old saying that “all politics is local.” This same concept applies to law enforcement. Your local sheriff is likely the most important individual who will either acknowledge the threat of Islamic terrorism or he will embrace the Obama “white-out” strategy. Thankfully, my local Hamilton County Sheriff Jim Hammond has taken a strong stand against Islamic terrorism, following the Islamic attack in 2015 in Chattanooga that killed five servicemen. And while his stand has brought great criticism by the naive apologists for Islam, Sheriff Hammond has remained steadfast in his understanding of the threat, and because of this, our community is safer as a result.
I close with the thoughts of two of our founders and the responsibility we all bear, for both our individual safety and our nation’s liberty.
“Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty.” Thomas Jefferson
“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” Thomas Paine
by Mark West | Jun 8, 2016 | Compromise, Conservative, Donald Trump, GOP, Political, Republican Party
Imagine a doctor who compromises the proven cure for an illness. Or a financial advisor who compromises a sure investment. Or a pilot who compromises the correct course heading. Or a Mt. Everest climber who compromises the proper amount of oxygen needed to scale the summit. Or a political party that compromises the very principles and values that built a great nation.
Compromise, when resorted to in the wrong scenarios, can have disastrous consequences.
Perhaps the only thing worse than being sincerely wrong is being willing to compromise the truth by diluting it with a lie.
The art of compromise is one that is an integral part of business, politics, relationships and more. It is typically employed when two parties hold opposing views and are at an impasse. And if compromise does not sacrifice truth or principle, then it can be a worthwhile strategy to advance one’s goals.
But when compromise involves abandoning one’s principles and truth, then it will certainly lead to failure and ultimate loss.
The GOP’s history of diluting and compromising its core principles over the last several decades has led directly to the rise of Donald Trump. As a result, Republicans are now being represented and led by a man who:
- Is an open and unapologetic serial adulterer, even boasting of his numerous and lurid escapades with “top women of the world.”
- Is well known for his willingness to verbally assault anyone that might pose a threat to him or that he simply desires to ridicule or mock. It matters not whether the person is an invalid, a woman that doesn’t measure up to his perfect 10 scoring, or a hundred other childish, misogynist or bigoted reasons.
- Routinely encourages violence against those who disagree with him.
- Uses mean-spirited racial slurs and disparages various ethnic and religious minorities.
- Values his own personal ambition, fame and wealth above most anything else.
- Affirms that America is not an exceptional nation, and he actually has never liked such a designation.
- Has never asked God for forgiveness and does not even see the need for such.
- Believes Planned Parenthood does good work.
- Would order the military to kill the wives and children of terrorists.
- Supported a ban on “assault weapons.”
- Has sided with the strong-arm tactics of government over the personal property rights of individuals.
- Is a big government crony capitalist, doling our millions to politicians, in order to buy personal & business favors.
- Is a serial liar, personally, professionally and politically.
- Advocated for universal healthcare.
- Supported partial birth abortion.
- Welcomed Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner to use the women’s restroom in Trump Tower.
- Criticized the North Carolina “bathroom bill” and suggested that people should “use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate.”
The Republican Platform over the years, including in 2012, has been a manuscript that promoted not only our nation’s founding principles but it affirmed the values that have been synonymous with conservatives. But it’s one thing to enumerate a set of principles via a manuscript and yet another to put those principles into action. Sadly we have witnessed too many Republican leaders willingly compromise our founding principles, to the detriment of the party and the nation.
There are times when a person’s commitment to truth or principle requires personal sacrifice. In some instances that sacrifice may even cost great loss. We can look to our history to see great examples of men and women who were willing to sacrifice fame and fortune rather than compromise. One of Tennessee’s great heroes, Davy Crockett, is one such example. Despite facing certain death, Crockett came to the aide of his newly adopted Texas brothers at the Alamo and lost his life doing so. But in that final act, Davy epitomized the spirit he had chosen to live by: “Be always sure you’re right. Then go ahead!“
President John F. Kennedy famously once said, “Sometimes party loyalty asks too much.” When such loyalty demands the compromise of truth and principle, that loyalty must not only be abandoned, but it must be exposed for the failure it most certainly will cause.
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” John Adams, founding father.
“Truth has stumbled in the streets.” (Isaiah 59:14)
by Mark West | Feb 10, 2016 | Donald Trump, Faith, Flaws, Leaders, Leadership, Political, Trust
I find it very curious that so many folks have enthusiastically thrown their support behind Donald Trump in 2016. But I’m particularly amazed at evangelicals who have fallen head over heels for Trump, both those in the pews, as well as noted evangelical leaders such as Jerry Falwell, Jr., Robert Jeffress and more. As I’ve listened to these men trumpet their praise for Donald, much of their rationale is based on the billionaire’s perceived business acumen and his supposed fiscal credentials.
In his statement endorsing Donald Trump, Liberty University President Jerry Falwell, Jr, called Trump, “a successful executive and entrepreneur.” And Dr. Robert Jeffress, pastor of 11,000 member First Baptist Church in Dallas, TX, stated on FoxNews that evangelical pragmatists say, “Let’s find the most conservative person we can. Let him concentrate on fixing the economy… pragmatists are basically going towards Donald Trump.”
The sentiments by Falwell, Jeffers and millions of other “pragmatic” evangelicals prioritizing the economy and fiscal matters is quite puzzling and got me wondering whether other values of an individual should be ignored? Do a candidate’s positions on other issues matter? What about his personal behavior and life — is that fair game? Or should we simply remain focused on fiscal issues, as if strengthening the almighty dollar should be our nation’s singular priority?
Let’s consider another businessman who, by any measure of economic standards, has achieved extraordinary business success. In 1953, a 27-year-old entrepreneur, struggling to find his place in the world, invested $600 of his limited capital to launch a monthly periodical. The first issue was an instant success, selling out all 53,991 copies at 50 cents per copy. Over the next several years, the magazine’s circulation grew to over 1 million by 1960, and it continued on a rapid upward trend, peaking at over 5 million copies monthly in 1975.
Boosted by his rapid success, the young entrepreneur ventured into a number of related business ventures, including casinos and night clubs. With his growing success, the periodical he founded attracted mainstream authors and secured interviews with noted personalities, including presidential candidate Jimmy Carter and even Donald Trump.
Despite falling on hard times in the 80’s, the following decade the business regrouped under the leadership of his daughter. As a result, the enterprise that began as a men’s magazine nearly 40 years earlier successfully launched a TV channel and soon after that a membership only website. Fast forward to 2015 and the founder of that first fledgling periodical in 1953 now boasts a multi-billion dollar global operation. And this entrepreneur’s own personal net worth is estimated at $50 million… which all started with a $600 investment.
Obviously, from the title of my article you can already surmise our mystery entrepreneur is none other than Hugh Hefner, founder of Playboy, one of the most economically successful men’s magazines of all time. Yet, by any measure of wholesome and upright values, Hugh Hefner is someone who has preyed on women and capitalized on the sexually degenerate appetites of men. Hefner is a man whose values have served to hasten our nation’s slide into the abyss of moral degradation and depravity. The door Hefner’s Playboy dared to crack open has ultimately served to proliferate an industry that has become so mainstream that many simply shrug their shoulders as it leads millions of young men down a dead end trail of remorse and regret.
Like Hugh Hefner, Donald Trump has achieved extraordinary business success and it’s this success that he touts when he claims, “I’m running for office in a country that’s essentially bankrupt, and it needs a successful businessman.” There is no doubt that America’s fiscal condition is dire with up to 40% of all federal expenditures being funded through increasing our national debt as it bursts through the $20 trillion mark. But driving this fiscal threat is our bankruptcy as a nation relative to our adherence to the Constitution and the principles of our founding fathers, including those Judeo-Christian values upon which America was founded.
Given these truths, we are faced with a chicken and egg type dilemma. Do economics drive a person’s values or do a person’s values drive their economics?
I believe all that we do flows from our core values so while evangelical leaders like Falwell and Jeffress appear to base their endorsement of Trump on his fiscal prowess, I believe one cannot and should not ignore the values behind Trump’s financial successes. So, let’s look very briefly at just a few of Trump’s “values” that would be at odds with the values many evangelicals and conservatives claim as their own:
- Trump boasts in his book “The Art of the Comeback” about his numerous extra-marital exploits: “If I told the real stories of my experiences with women, often seemingly very happily married and important women, this book would be a guaranteed best-seller.“
- Trump said in 1999 “I am very pro-choice” and he would not ban partial birth abortion. He claims to have changed his views in recent years.
- Trump said he is open to the idea of continuing federal funding of Planned Parenthood for their “good aspects… and the things they do properly and good” but he would not fund the abortion part of their business.
- Trump supports ethanol subsidies.
- Trump supported President Obama’s Stimulus plan in 2009.
- Trump supported the 2005 Supreme Court Kelo vs City of London dealing with eminent domain that authorized public authorities to seize private property for economic development by investors.
- Trump supported TARP
- Trump supports a universal healthcare system similar to Canada’s government-run system and the government would foot the bill for those who could not pay.
These are just a few highlights of Trump’s views that clearly conflict with conservative values. To find out more about the issues Trump supports, that should concern conservatives, go to Conservative Review here and here. Additionally, for evangelical conservatives, these articles by CNN and The Daily Beast provide additional areas of concern.
At the end of the day, I believe that one’s core values will ultimately influence every other decision a person makes. And while our nation certainly requires some drastic fiscal reforms, there are still matters that should trump the dollar, even when it comes to Donald Trump. And finally, we should all remember the words of Jesus when He said, “What profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?” At this crucial time in our nation’s history, are we more concerned in gaining the world or losing our souls?
As my fellow evangelicals head to the polls, I pray they will not only ponder their answer to this question, but I encourage them to read the Resolution on Moral Character of Public Officials.
by Mark West | Jan 27, 2016 | Courage, Dream, Leadership, Mentor, Retirement, Service, Success
This last week I had the opportunity to view the newly released Hollywood movie, 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. Having followed the tragic circumstances surrounding the loss of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, I was eager to view the movie. The film tells the true story of four Americans killed, including our Ambassador, during an attack by Islamic jihadists at a US compound in Libya, as a security team struggled to defend the lives of several dozen Americans.
While there were several scenes and lines that stood out to me in the film, one in particular is the subject of my post today. The main characters in the story, Jack Silva and Tyrone Woods, were retired Navy Seals and long time friends.
In the relevant scene, the two are sitting on the rooftop of one of the building in the compound they are defending, following an intense battle in which they and their small team had just survived one of what was to be several waves of attacks from dozens of heavily armed Islamists. As Jack recounts his frustration with having left his wife and children behind in the US to sign up for another stint on the security team, he expresses his bewilderment at what drives him to continue to return to the battlefield. In response Tyrone explains that, “Warriors aren’t trained to retire.”
If one isn’t paying attention in the movie, it would be easy to miss this line that succinctly explains the behavior of these Navy Seal warriors. But the line, “Warriors aren’t trained to retire” is also a statement that bears examining for possible application to our lives.
No matter where you are in life, the concept of retirement is one that has crossed your mind. In our culture, it’s commonly accepted that all who work will eventually retire and begin a life of leisure. Typically the word retirement is tied to two variables: age and economics. And it generally looks like this. A person will work 40-50 years, create sufficient assets and related income, so that when they are 60-70 years of age, they can “retire” and live happily ever after.
The “happily ever after” can change from one person to the next, but for most it ranges from moving to Florida, playing golf several times a week, traveling, or a host of other R&R type activities.
But this “conventional” approach would seem at odds with the point Tyrone was making to Jack, that warriors just don’t know how to retire because it isn’t something that is taught, or perhaps more importantly, even contemplated. While becoming a warrior involves training and know-how, to be an effective warrior it also requires a certain type of spirit or mental attitude that never quits. A warrior understands that there is always another mission and his skills and know-how are not expendable; rather, they are desperately needed by others.
When thinking of your own circumstances, I’d like to challenge you to consider what you will do with your life once you are no longer gainfully employed. Many eagerly await that day, believing that punching out that last time will be the start of all things new and better, anticipating that the grass is greener on the other side.
But I’d suggest that if we are working today to simply stop working tomorrow, we are overlooking one of life’s greatest purposes. Despite our 21st century way of thinking, the world hasn’t always considered that when one reaches a certain age or economic status, he can then simply turn his attention inward, seeking to devote much of his waking hours at that point to his own fancies and pleasure.
To the contrary, I would suggest that at the point one leaves the office for the last time, it is then that one’s experience, wisdom and perhaps even passion have likely reached a crescendo. And if we believe the truth that “to whom much is given, much is required” then we will be compelled to share the wisdom and life experiences we have gained with others in need. Those “others” could be a young man who is just beginning his family and career, or a woman who is facing a difficult midlife challenge, or even an organization that is in desperate need of our expertise.
I have a friend who is an honorably discharged twenty-three year combat veteran of the US Army who beautifully exemplifies the idea that warriors don’t retire. Rather than head for the golf course or sandy beaches, Bob in his post-retirement years launched a new non-profit organization with a two-fold, synergistic mission: “To support military veterans by training and employing them in schools as classroom volunteers, tutors and mentors.” And today, Bob and his colleagues are making a huge difference in the lives of veterans and school children in my community.
So what about you? No matter whether you are in the first half of your career, or approaching those final years in your job or business, it’s never too early, or too late to be thinking about and planning for life after employment. I encourage you to seriously consider how you will invest into the lives of others in a way that will have deep and lasting impact for good… because “warriors aren’t trained to retire.”
by Mark West | Dec 29, 2015 | Leaders, Political, Service, Trust
It seems the popular thing to do these days is to declare oneself a conservative, at least, it appears that’s the aspiration of nearly every one of the Republican candidates for President. It’s also true that during nearly every Republican Congressional campaign, the candidates insist that they are the true conservative.
But is the Republican party overwhelmingly represented by conservatives, both in Congress and in those seeking the Presidency? Is it simply that easy: just assert one is a conservative and, voila, he or she is such?
Conservatism is not merely defined by one’s state of mind, feeling, belief or even a pronouncement. Rather, I would assert it is much more. Conservatism is ultimately defined by action which produces one’s track record.
Too often we see the electorate, politicians, and bureaucrats claiming conservatism. But is claiming such enough?
There is a verse that states, “by their fruits you shall know them.” There is not a more appropriate verse than this when discussing or wondering about a person’s true political convictions.
I am humored by the claims of so many Republican politicians that they are “dyed in the wool” conservatives. It’s almost as if it’s a badge of honor to claim such. But we can tell their true colors when it comes to the bills they champion (or fail to champion) and the votes they cast (or fail to cast).
The $1.1 trillion Omnibus spending bill that was voted on before Christmas is the most recent example of what conservatism is not. We should note that 150 Republican Congressman (including my own TN Congressman Chuck Fleischmann) banded together with 166 Democrats to fund this orgy of spending on nearly every conceivable program and agency across the entire range of the political spectrum. True there may have been some minor aspects of this 2,000-page bill that conservatives might have endorsed. But all in all, this was a horrendous bill that encapsulated all that is wrong with Washington.
There are plenty of articles from reputable sources that document the voluminous “sins” that are endorsed and funded by this latest fiasco so I will not take the time to reiterate them here. But suffice it to say that the December 2015 Omnibus bill is the poster child for all things progressive and the antithesis of all things conservative.
Following the vote by a majority of the Republican and Democrat delegations in both houses of Congress, Senator Ted Cruz from Texas criticized the legislation saying it “effectively forfeits our massive Republican victories of 2014 and cements Obama’s priorities for nearly the remainder of his term.”
Following years and years of manipulation, deception and double-speak, it’s time for ordinary Americans to move beyond the words of politicians and look only to their actions and track records. Conservatism is more than a word. Most importantly it is action. And the most revealing action a politician takes is his or her vote. Their vote affirms who they are and what they believe.
The Omnibus vote this month separated the wheat from the chaff. And sadly, if chaff is worthless, the Republican majority in both houses of Congress is the epitome of worthlessness, at least until a new crop of true conservatives is elected.
