Email:
Forgot your password? Enter your login email below. If you use your email, we will send you an email with a link to reset your password.
An email with directions on how to reset your password has been sent to .
Please be patient; the delivery of email may be delayed. Remember to confirm that the email above is correct and to check your junk or spam folder or filter if you do not receive this email.
by Brad Birzer 3 hours ago
Executive Lies
The American celebrations surrounding Osama Bin Laden's death have been startling, to say the least. That he was a murderer and an enemy of humanity cannot be denied. That we should celebrate his death through festivities, though, makes us little better than those we have traditionally called barbaric. At best, the moment of his assassination should be a sobering one.
This aside, one of the most disturbing things to come out of the president's ordered hit on Osama Bin Laden has been the rapidly shifting accounts of the terrorist's death coming out of the White House. The story, as told officially, has come in a variety of different packages, some brightly colored, others rather drab; we might still see more arrive.
It is as though post-modernism has gripped the current administration; whatever story told becomes the official story, even if it contradicts the previous story. We, as citizens, are merely to accept whatever new account we're given.
I certainly am no expert on military matters, nor do I aspire to be one. But, I can see when a truth is not a truth, as it slips and slides, malleable to the political whims of the moment.
One explanation, offered by Forbes, is that the Obama administration merely spoke too quickly, that really all investigators know that an accurate picture of events can be slippery. No dishonesty, Forbes argues, just over eagerness.
President George Bush seemed to suffer from problems similar to Obama's, especially in his explanations as to why Americans decided to go to war (well, not officially"”just an executive decision with some Congressional approval). When we found no weapons of mass destruction, the war became some kind of neo-conservative and progressive fantasy, to remake the world safe for democracy. As President Bush said to the world, ad nauseam, "freedom is written on our hearts." This, of course, grossly perverts St. Paul, who assured us (with truth, it should be added) that we have the "natural law" written on our hearts.
When we put President Obama's words into context"”given his campaign promises, most of which he has overturned, neglected, or forgotten, as well as the blatant lies told by presidents at least since Nixon lied about troops in Cambodia, if not before"”it's hard to believe the current president and the administration are not lying.
Citizenship and Truth
As citizens and Catholics, we have every right to ask for the truth"”the complete and transparent truth"”from our government. Indeed, more powerful than any right could ever be, we have a duty to demand such things, no matter what the cost to any one of us personally.
As the brilliant Catholic historian, Christopher Dawson, wrote fifty years ago: Any Christian
who is intellectually alive and is at the same time obviously convinced of the truth of his religion administers a shock to their confidence [that is, the confidence of the progressives, the secularists, and the ideologues] ideas. He is not likely to convert them, but he shakes their confidence in the inevitability of the secularist outlook and in the stupidity of the religious view of life.
In his powerful and gut-wrenching examination of the Soviet state, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, one of the most profound prophets of his day, described the state of truth in a totalitarian society.
This universal mutual mistrust had the effect of deepening the mass-grave pit of slavery. The moment someone began to speak up frankly, everyone stepped back and shunned him: "A provocation!' And therefore anyone who burst out with a sincere protest was predestined to loneliness and alienation.
As this same man warned America in 1978, we might very well be headed toward the same end, but in a fashion much more soft and palatable.
We must honestly ask if we have reached this end?
Who now challenges the government? A number of radio buffoons and lots of really plastic-looking people at FoxNews challenge the current administration. But, they generally do so in a manner seemingly no better than the one Obama himself employs.
Sound bytes fly, tempers rise"”all, it seems, for show and profit. The most famous of the talk radio hosts, a man with a rather checkered past"”at least in terms of wives and drugs"”makes about one point (generally an assertion) per show and then repeats that point over and over and over again. There's no real discussion, just lots of accusations, mocking of folks he opposes, and then some banter with callers.
He's obviously done well for himself, as he's been on the national scene for two decades.
Where, though, is the sustained conversation? Where is the discussion regarding the constitutionality of the current administration's decision to blockade and invade Libya?
Should not the members of the House and the Senate be debating vital issues, day in and day out? Anyone who has read the great debates of the nineteenth century"”the Webster Hayne debates or the Lincoln Douglas debates"”knows instantly how impoverished current political dialogue is.
Exceptions exist, of course, in the larger media and in Congress. Mike Church"”whether one agrees with his views or not"”takes life and ideas and discussion seriously. He may be the only large radio personality who does. He's mission driven, not profit driven, though he also knows how to put on a good show, and I very much hope he prospers. Frankly, the man is hilarious.
Congressman Justin Amash, a freshman in the current session from west Michigan, has pledged himself to complete transparency. Not only does he allow his constituents to see what he is doing, he explains exactly why he's doing what he's doing. One can agree or disagree, but Amash is not afraid to speak his mind and to do so forcefully. If opposition comes, Amash expects it to be equally open and virtuous.
These men should serve as models for a republic, not exceptions.
Truth and the Human Person
In 1965, Russell Kirk–a man who left academia because of the ridiculous politics and poor management found in almost every institution of higher learning, even those proclaiming to be different and counter cultural, even classical"”wrote: "To fear to commit evil, and to hate what is abominable, is the mark of manliness."
Read Full Article »