Et Tu CWA?

Penny Young NanceDear Ms. Nance:

Yesterday I posted on my blog an open letter to Ms. Terry O’Neil of the National Organization of Women (NOW). In the letter I questioned why her organization had not mentioned the pending involuntary separation of SGT 1st Class Charles Martland from the United States Army.

SGT Martland knocked to the ground an Afghan officer who admitted to – and laughed about – the repeated and prolonged sexual abuse of a 12-year-old boy. The boy’s mother was also beaten after she went to local authorities. Martland was disciplined by the Army and received a “memorandum of reprimand” from Brig. General Christopher Haas. Because of that one mark on an otherwise spotless 11 year history, SGT Martland is being told to go home.

After I posted that letter, I was notified that your site also is missing any mention of this man’s name. Since I tend to be harder on fellow conservative organizations than on liberal ones, to say that I am disappointed is an understatement.

According to your issue‘s page, there is an “unmistakable standard that there is right and wrong.” These standards come from the understanding that Scripture is the inerrant Word of God which enable us to live according to the Spirit. As a conservative Christian who firmly holds to the doctrine of inerrancy, I agree with you.

That same page goes on to list your core issues, and why you have to stick to them in the face of how society is moving. I understand that you have limited resources, and need to set priorities. What I do not understand is why you fail to see that SGT Martland does not fall into several of the categories of your issues:

Sanctity of Life: If you are to support the protection of all human life from conception to natural death, does it not make sense that you want a big, burly guy trained in all manner of skills to do the protecting? He places his very body between tyranny and freedom, and in the case at hand between a young boy and perversion.

Defense of Family: SGT Martland sacrificed time with his own family to protect our country and in so doing defended another family thousands of miles from his home.

National Sovereignty: If we are to protect ourselves from tyranny, than we are to have a strong military with strong people. Today’s military, though, is politicized to the point where SGT Martland is released because of his high moral standards while those who cannot enter into the military in the first place are given special standards.

Sexual Exploitation: What could be more obscene than the rape of a child?

As I stated to NOW, I will say to you: this man is the type of person your organization has been trying to promote. Within the male-dominated world of Afghanistan, SGT Martland took the women’s word over a man’s. When the Afghan officer just shrugged off the accusations – hiding behind the accepted “tea-boy” practice of some in the area – the Green Beret took the culture head on and shoved the man to the ground. SGT Martland is unapologetic about his actions – and probably would do them again. He defended his country, he defended a helpless child, and he defended a woman.

Yet no where on your national website is there a single word about SGT Martland. Not one. I searched for it. My friend – who is a supporter of NOW and would align herself as far left of you – searched for it.

CWA No Results

You do talk about raising money to end Planned Parenthood. You are very upfront about your Christian values and your defense of family. I urge you to be equally upfront about this issue as well.

Or – as seems to be the truth at NOW as well – perhaps Afghan women just do not matter to you.

Posted in Political Thoughts, Theology | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

NOW is not the time for SGT Martland

Terry ONeil Dear Ms. O’Neil:

According to Fox News and other sources, SGT 1st Class Charles Martland is being involuntarily separated from the Army after defending two victims of sexual assault during his last deployment in Afghanistan.

SGT Martland knocked to the ground an Afghan officer who admitted to – and laughed about – chaining a 12-year-old boy to a bed and raping him for several days. When the boy’s mother protested and informed local authorities, she was also assaulted and beaten.

Captain Daniel Quinn – Martland’s Commanding Officer – stated that shoving the Afghani to the ground was not meant to be revenge, but “to send the message to the man and to the other local policemen that sexual assaults would not be tolerated.”

Martland was disciplined by the Army and received a “memorandum of reprimand” from Brig. General Christopher Haas. Because of that one mark on an otherwise spotless 11 year history, SGT Martland is being told to go home.

This man is the type of person the National Organization of Women (NOW) has been trying to promote in your long history of women’s rights. Within the male-dominated world of Afghanistan, SGT Martland took the women’s word over a man’s. When the Afghan officer just shrugged off the accusations – hiding behind the accepted “tea-boy” practice of some in the area – the Green Beret took the culture head on and shoved the man to the ground. SGT Martland is unapologetic about his actions – and probably would do them again. He defended his country, he defended a helpless child, and he defended a woman.

Yet no where on your national website is there a single word about SGT Martland. Not one. I searched for it.

NOW-noresults

Your blog – Say it Sister – does talk about the the shock of finding out that not every pharmacy sells emergency contraceptives. You talk about abortion rights and statistics. You even talk about the “suspicious death” of Sandra Bland. But no where do you talk about a man who is trying to correct a very wrong cultural practice of preying on young boys and beating up on their mothers.

It seems to me that this man – one who will fight for his country and a helpless woman – is one that you – the National Organization of Women –  want to have in the Green Berets.  I do know that if your organization weighed in on the matter that your discussion and interest would carry a great deal of weight. While I understand you and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) might not see eye-to-eye on most things, I can also imagine that he would welcome your help in keeping this good man in the Army.

Or perhaps Afghan women just do not matter to you.

Posted in Political Thoughts | 1 Comment

An Open Letter to Reince Priebus

Reince PriebusDear Mr. Priebus:

Please do not expect any donations from me to the national party during the primaries. While I will – and have – given my financial support to individual candidates – the Republican Party will not receive any financial support until you decide to be Republican again.

Almost a year ago, the voters of this country swept Democrats out of congress and replaced them with members of your party. At considerable expense – and fighting a powerful President – we endeavored to start the process of correcting the very bad laws that came out of the Democrat Party. I understand that without a supermajority that not much could get done, especially a veto override. However, we expected you to at least try.

So far, the RNC has not even shown up at the starting blocks.

Consider what we expected you to do:

  1. Defund Obama Care – we expected bill after bill to go up to the White House. Again, we expected a veto on each one. But we also expected that the Republicans would have crafted those bills to make the President veto what would have been common sense reforms. Except for a few half-hearted resolutions, we have seen no major attacks on the Affordable Health Care bill.
  2. Under GOP leadership, the Senate stripped itself of treaty powers. No matter what the Executive branch titles it, the deal with Iran is by definition a treaty. The Constitution gives that power to the Senate – until Republicans gave it away.
  3. The border continues to be unsecured. This issue is not a Hispanic issue – which seems to scare the RNC into immobility. This is a national security issue. Yet, no bills have been passed in order to stem the flow of illegal immigrants and terrorists into this country. In fact, a bill fully funding the DHS and amnesty was passed in the House – but only with the help of Democrats.

In 2012 the RNC told us that we needed a House majority to get things done in Washington. We gave you that. In 2014, you told us that we needed a majority in both houses of Congress – we gave you that as well. For the 2016 round, we are told that we need a majority in Congress and win the White House. We will work hard for that goal.

But, if we succeed, will the RNC show up to govern?

  • Will you secure the borders and ensure national security by halting the illegal immigrant tidal wave?
  • Will you repeal and replace the ACA with something more sustainable, more workable, with less government involvement?
  • Will you negate any “agreements” that should have gone through the Senate because they are indeed treaties?
  • Will you reduce taxes and government spending? Is it indeed too hopeful to think you might even repeal the Income Tax and replace it with a national retail sales tax?
  • Will you be champions of small government?

In other words, will the Republicans govern as Republicans?

Posted in Musings | Leave a comment

A Great Day!

Cross“If you dip into any college, or school, or parish, or family—anything you like—at a given point in its history, you always find that there was a time before that point when there was more elbow room and contrasts weren’t quite so sharp; and that there’s going to be a time after that point when there is even less room for indecision and choices are even more momentous. Good is always getting better and bad is always getting worse: the possibilities of even apparent neutrality are always diminishing.”
-C.S. Lewis – That Hideous Strength:

Christians – conservative ones that is – have been fretting. With apparent good reason: our culture is going more and more away from a Christian-based value system, the brutal physical attacks on Christians abroad, the political and economic sanctions of believers at home, and the almost-overnight changes of definitions of marriage across the land are just a few of the daily news items that stress followers of Jesus. Our America is very different than the country that our Founding Fathers established and envisioned.

Yet, with today’s decision from the Supreme Court to over-ride state’s rights and enforce a definition of marriage on states that believe differently, the church has been given a chance to be reborn. For too long the steeple has been synonymous with American culture instead of the Christian kingdom. We proclaim a Godly moralism essential to patriotism instead of preaching obedience to Christ out of pure love for Him. The tax-exempt church – while free to buy fields for soccer and building projects – has been muted in having a cultural impact instead of being a voice in the wilderness that might be penniless but powerful. Today, all that has changed.

Today, we can show love to those with whom we disagree, to those who seek to shut down our businesses and churches, and to those who would want to see us keep our faith silent and to ourselves. While insults and sneers are sent our way, may we demonstrate love in all that we do or say.

Today, as culture seeks fulfillment through the unholy, we can bring holiness. Just as survivors of ship-wrecks die of thirst after drinking ocean-water, so too will this culture perish by binging on the immorality that has become the standard of today. When followers of this culture are empty, the message of Christ that we bring – the message that is different from all things in culture – will bring peace and assuage their thirst.

In other words, today the church can stand against the gates of Hell, proclaiming the kingdom of God that is both at hand and is coming. Today we can love all who come within our doors while showing them a way to live that is holy and just. And today, we can go and make disciples of every nation by demonstrating through word and deed the love of Christ.

What a great day!

Posted in Political Thoughts, Theology | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Still No Answer

open-colorado-road-1442365-mA couple of years ago, I asked a question to which I got a grand total of zero responses. I once again ask the question of those who are on the left of me (which I admit encompasses quite a few people): Now that homosexual marriage is the law of the land in many states – and probably will be country-wide by the next presidential election – are those who pushed for these changes happy with the resulting upheaval of those who do not agree with it?

I am not talking about people who beat or molest homosexuals on the street or the workplace. Neither am I talking about churches who gather at funerals and cast insults upon the grieving families. People like these are monsters at best. They should be shunned, condemned, and persecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

No. I need a ruling on the question of your stance on the issue of the government forcing a bakery to make a cake for a homosexual marriage – even though such a marriage is against the beliefs of the owners. Or on what gives a government the right to force a photography agency to to take pictures of a homosexual union ceremony or be held in contempt of a Human Rights Act. I want to know – from those who rejoice at the recognition of your freedom to love whom you want to love – is this truly what you want to have happen?

Because if that is the case, you are going down the same road as those who oppressed you and from whom you have been set free. You have replaced one set of intolerances – oppression of homosexuality – with another set. You have argued for years that we must all be free to live our lives according to our personal being and choices – but now by your silence on this question you sign on to the persecution of those who hold to views different from your own.

Does a black-owned bakery now have to make cakes for Klu Klux Klan rallies? Does a photography studio owned by a homosexual couple now have to provide services for the Westboro Baptists? Or, does your silence only pertain to those who disagree with homosexual marriage?

I have written before of my contempt of CAIR and other Muslim organizations when they are not on the front lines of condemning attacks and atrocities committed by Islamic terrorists. Just as those organizations should lead the way in denouncing those acts, so too should those on the intelligent left be the loudest voices in halting the oppression of beliefs. Business owners take a great deal of risk just running their company – what right does the government have to force them to use their talents and skills in ways that run contrary to their set of of beliefs?

Surely you understand that the recognition of your rights does not – and must not – mean the dissolution of someone else’s. It is impossible that you do not see that such sanctions by the government on belief systems will always be universally oppressive in the long run. I cannot believe that you would want to see people face fines, sanctions or closure of their business – not because they committed a crime against you – but simply because their deeply-held belief structure says they cannot serve you.

So why are you silent?

Posted in Political Thoughts | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment