Regardless of how much the left in the United States despises organized religion, the Founding Fathers were Christian and their faith was the bedrock upon which this nation has flourished.

Everywhere I look in America today, I see Christians circling the wagons, hiding out of plain sight as much as possible.  The principle of "Separation of Church and State", as sound and important as it is, has been used as the ultimate twenty-first century boogeyman, with Christian folks everywhere walking on pins and needles in the fear that they be accused of bigotry.  Let's face it, Christians are an easy target.  When I was a child in the 1970s and 1980s, the liberal academic pressure groups initially forced their brand of Sex Education into our public school system and then picked up the "Separation of Church and State" banner, not bothering to determine first if everyone agreed with their interpretation of that sensitive phrase.  In the beginning, even the Christian groups avoided getting overly involved.  The basic idea of Separation of Church and State is very American, and makes sense to people.  The United States has been seeded with people who left their home countries to escape all sorts of tyranny, including religious oppression.  Its about having the freedom to worship as you choose, and not having to worry about any government introducing a "state religion".  For centuries, most of Europe was Roman Catholic because the ruling monarchies were loyal to the Pope.  More recently, Atheism has been encouraged by some Socialist governments, especially in Africa and Eastern Europe.  Before the end of the Cold War and the fall of oppressive governments in Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia and the Baltic States, Socialist and Communist governments openly harassed Christians.  Atheism was the state religion in Albania for many years, as it is today in Communist China.

Excuse the little side trip down memory lane, but a bit of history will help us to understand the balance we try to strike in the United States. The right not to worship is just as important as the right to worship as we choose.  Once the effort to remove some of the more obvious examples of religion within public schools was successful, the left put things into high-gear.  Remember as a child, participating in a Christmas Play that included the Christ child and a manger scene?  What about the plaque emblazoned with the Ten Commandments that was donated by the local chapter of the VFW, and the continued use of the term Christmas, as included in Christmas vacation, Christmas tree, Christmas present, etc.?  If it has anything to do with public school, it has to go.  Most people weren't very happy with the removal of the word Christmas, while others could not see the harm in displaying the Ten Commandments (sometimes you have to remind folks that other religions aside from Christianity are present in our communities).  I believe that the left has done a very convincing job justifying its efforts to remove religion from public schools, and they did so by repeating ad nauseam the Constitutional obligation to make it so.  Have you read the First Amendment to the Constitution lately?  Why not stop reading right here, google and read it, then come on back.

Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the phrase, "Separation of Church and State".  What the  First Amendment does say is that the government shall make no law "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".  The more I re-examine the Constitution and the separate writings of our founding fathers, the more apparent it is to me that they had no intention of removing religion from the fabric of our nation.  They were, with very few exceptions, practicing Christians, who took advantage of every opportunity to credit God for the success in establishing a free and bountiful nation.  As for the message that was left for us, it seems to me that the Founding Fathers mentioned God in just about everything that was intended to last.  Aside from the documents establishing our political experiment, take a look at your coins and currency; God always seems to make an appearance.  In our Justice system, what book is used to guarantee that the speaker intends to be fully truthful, and what book is used to swear in Presidents every four years?  Of course, its the Bible.  We can surmise the intent of the Founding Fathers, but can we explain why young people today mock and make jokes about people who attend church?  Why has Hollywood and the Entertainment Industry declared war on religion?  You will hear the superstars giving credit to God in their speeches, but how often, outside of the gospel industry, do you hear someone singing about their faith?

Religion has become the enemy because it comes with rules, and the left doesn't believe in rules.  More accurately, the left doesn't believe in responsibility.  We have been through eight years of a Democratic Administration, and it appears likely we will suffer through an additional eight.  One of the most successful campaign tools for the left has been the "you are owed" message.  It goes hand-in-hand with the "it's someone else's fault" mantra.  During the Obama Administration, the National Debt has more than doubled, to nearly twenty-trillion dollars.  Conservatives like to quickly point at the "entitlements" boogeyman, but our debt is an unending stream of giveaways that goes way beyond entitlements.  Social Security has been empty for years, at least as it was originally designed.  Persons collecting Social Security today are borrowing it from someone way into the future.  Add all sorts of welfare, including unemployment, corporate welfare, and the almost criminal never-ending welfare packages paid to farmers (farmers in the United States just can't fail, the government will see to it).  The most recent surge in government dependency has been the increase in persons on disability.  I can't blame the Democrats for all of the giveaway, but I'm happy to dump most of the blame at their feet.  We have raised one, possibly two generations who have no idea how to take responsibility for anything, let alone their own lives.  At the end of the day, this works well for the Democrats, who believe that government must exist, if not control, every aspect of our lives.

I didn't write this commentary in defense of the tele-evangelists  and the Westboro Baptist Church. Hate is hate and its ugly and evil, no matter the source.  I try to keep things simple in my life, and when I noticed so many empty churches, and organizations having no problem misrepresenting the intentions of our Founding Fathers, I went in search of the simple explanation; it wasn't hard to find.  Many young people live their lives with abandon.  To them, life is one short crazy ride that ends with death, so why not experience everything?  Suicide seems to be a pastime for the younger generations, and drug use impacts children more so now then ever.  Its true that young people today seem more politically active than in recent time, but have you listened to what they support?  Free school, free books, free travel for education, everything is free.  The lessons of the recent past, of September 11, 2001, of the Cold War, seem irrelevant.  They have been mislead into thinking that money grows on trees, mostly in Bernie Sander's backyard.  The message of my youth, of family, faith, responsibility, patriotism and kindness, are hard to find.  We are so fortunate to live in a country that does not enforce a national religion, but I am convinced that the left-wing war on organized faith in our nation has been at cross-purposes with many parents.  In most instances (not all), being raised in a Christian household creates responsible, hard-working adults, who would prefer to work than to receive lodging, food and clothing for free.  Sadly, I believe that the numbers are turning in the wrong direction, as the last two Presidential elections have demonstrated.  Donald Trump says he can make America great again.  Although I never realized it previously, Trump claims to be a Christian conservative.  That's great, but we don't necessarily need someone claiming to be a Christian conservative.  We need someone who can set the right example, so that young people will be interested in how they can help build a strong country, with opportunity for anyone willing to sacrifice, instead of preferring to wait for a free ride.  Today, the only time you will hear Barack Obama mention religion, is when he is obliged to repeat the tired cliché, "our hearts and prayers........".  I hope President Trump won't shy away from talking about faith, and won't avoid saying "Islamic Extremist" when the term applies.  God Bless America.

Obama Administration changes backtracks in Syria, stating that regime change is not imperative.

Link:  U.S. accepts Russia's stance regarding Bashar al-Assad.


In a move which reflects the complete collapse of coherent policy in the latter days of the Obama Administration, United States Secretary of State John Kerry announced this week that the U.S. no longer believed that "regime change" was necessary in Iraq.  Until now, the U.S. policy had been squarely behind the conviction that a future, peaceful Syria would not have Bashar al-Assad as it's Chief of State.  In fact, U.S. policy (and money) had been focused on various indigenous Syrian groups who were opposing both the Assad regime and ISIS.  Over the years, Syria has been a thorn in the side of U.S. foreign policy in the Levant, basically because of the Syrian Ba'ath Party and two men, Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar.  Both men ruled Syria as Presidential strongmen, tolerating no opposition, playing any internal opposition of against each other, and declaring "death to Israel" at just about every opportunity.  Syria and the Assad-led Ba'athists had no reason to expect generosity from the United States.  In fact, a good argument can be made that Syria has on more than a few occasions has supported terrorist actions against U.S. civilians and property.  But for some reason, the U.S. State Department chose this week to make up with Assad.  No need to ask why.  The reason the Obama Administration removed its previous insistence that Assad had to go is because the United States Department of State has become unwilling to oppose Russia on any terms.

Earlier this year, the conflict in Ukraine was headline news.  Watching the drama unfold was fascinating, as Russia openly manipulated an emasculated Europe and United States, to solidify its annexation of Crimea and set the stage for further dismemberment of Ukraine down the road.  The only action the Obama Administration was willing to take to confront Russia was the threat of more sanctions.  No doubt the sanctions regime that eventually took hold caused some disruption in the Russian economy, but the Russian people are used to sacrifice, and over the years they have shown their disdain for the use of economics as a weapon; the Germans tried to starve Russia in both the first and second World Wars, and failed miserably both times.  At this moment in time, Putin is running the show.  The EU, NATO, and the United States show no real inclination to stand up to Russian aggression, and the Chinese seem to be content to watch from the sidelines.  Russia intends on destroying ISIS and remaking the Middle East, but according to its designs, which include Iran as a regional superpower.  The disappearance of the United States has been breathtaking.  Both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are scrambling to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran, supported by Russia as the world's sole superpower.  Putin has laid his cards on the table; he is determined to rewrite the legacy of the Cold War, this time with Russia as the winner.  His timing has been perfect, with U.S. President Barack Obama apparently uninterested in facing down his Russian counterpart.  For the moment, what Russia wants, Russia gets.  In 2016, a new President moves into the Oval Office; will it be too late to set things right again?

Obama's treaty with Iran surpasses Neville Chamberlain in sacrificing international security in search of a political legacy.

Links: A. ISIS a beneficiary of the Obama/Iran nuclear treaty.
           B. Putin assisted with Obama/Iran nuclear treaty.

So, Vladimir Putin heartily approves of the treaty agreed to by the Obama Administration and the Islamic Republic of Iran.  In fact, President Obama is quick to praise Putin for being helpful during the negotiations.  How quickly we forget who we are dealing with.  Have we forgotten the 298 dead civilians from Malaysian Airlines flight 17, whose lives were lost because Putin agreed to use advanced Russian military hardware in the Ukrainian conflict.  Unfortunately, he didn't lend the experts who know how to use the equipment, and the result was a civilian airline being mistaken for a military flight.  The world understands and excepts this reality, along with many others that show Putin to be a megalomaniacal dictator, intent on returning Russia to the military prominence of the Cold War.  Every effort made by the United States on behalf of de-escalation of violence and the end of nuclear proliferation, up to now has been met with cold, hard opposition by Putin in Russia.  The Russians never sided with the United Nations in its efforts to force Iran to steer away from militarizing its nuclear research.  But now, because Putin approves of this treaty, he's become "a friend".  And those of us in this country, including many who have served in uniform and sacrificed limbs for national security, are called "overheated and dishonest" by Obama.  And now we are told that the Administration has been working on a "rapprochement" with Russia, and has started putting pressure on the Ukrainian government to be more conciliatory to the Russian-backed terrorists, I mean separatists, who are trying to detach entire pieces of Ukraine for annexation by Russia.

I have no doubt that this Administration did not spend one second considering the consequences of this treaty on the current unstable situation in the Persian Gulf and the Levant.  All that mattered was to keep the goal in sight, and the goal in this instance was a treaty of some sort to allow Obama to leave office claiming credit for some foreign policy initiative.  I don't understand why he just didn't focus on one of his other, previous foreign policy initiatives; he's had six years so there must be something, right?  Fat chance.  Our foreign policy over the past six years has been as knee-jerk as a reflex in a doctor's office.  Under President's Reagan, Bush, and even Clinton, our government continued the tradition of initiating positive change in the world.  The last six years have been singularly about responses, not initiatives.  Now for a bit of simple, common-sense.  ISIS is a religiously Sunni-affiliated organization, as is Al-Qaida.  Iran, with the lifting a sanctions, which conservatively will release as much as one hundred billion dollars to the Iranian treasury, will rapidly become a dominant force in the Persian Gulf.  The ballsy involvement with the Houthis in Yemen has already demonstrated this Iranian Administration's determination to expand its international influence.  Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, who are already suspected of having some funding connections to Sunni extremism, will look upon recent developments as a return to the Battlefield of Karbala.  Even if the Iranians were to fulfill their obligations according to this treaty, in five years they would again be free to pursue whatever type of nuclear research they desire.  There are a number of questionable facilities that are part of the Iranian nuclear research program, which can have no purpose other than the construction of a nuclear weapon.  It would have been nice if our negotiating team had at least requested that the Iranians shut these facilities.  But as far as I know, nothing was requested of the Iranians whatsoever, except the need for unannounced inspections.  Well, we saw how far that demand went.

Lets welcome Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. to the nuclear arms race.  Lets also congratulate Sunni extremists everywhere, who will now be able to use the growing power of Shi'a Iran as a recruiting and fundraising tool.  This treaty is so flawed that I think its time I took a sabbatical from reviewing its contents.  Instead, I will pick up another debate which is near and dear to my heart.  In 1993, President Clinton signed a law making it illegal for active duty military personnel to be armed on base.  I can't recall if this law was preceded by some incident involving firearms and active duty personnel, but I can tell you that the United States is not the same country as it was twenty-one years ago.  Our Federal Law Enforcement and Intelligence experts stress the likelihood that Islamic extremists are living within our communities, waiting for the order or the opportunity to strike.  On a number of occasions, we have already seen that military installations are prime targets.  This is the world we live in today, 2015.  Our young men and women who volunteer to put their lives in jeopardy for national security, should not be deprived of the ability to defend themselves.  Are we supposed to tell these soldiers that we can trust them enough to die for their country, but they can't be trusted enough to carry a weapon on base?  What an absurd law.  I'm not afraid to state the obvious, and point directly to former President Bill Clinton: if that law had not passed in 1993, its probable that at least some of the victims of Thursday's attack would have been armed.  I will leave the rest of that assumption up to the reader.....