A few years ago I was able to take a trip to the Philippians. One of the things I was most excited to do on that trip was visit Corregidor Island and the WWII Manila American Cemetery and Memorial.  It was sobering to be there among the 17,202 brave heroes buried there. There is also over 36,000 names written in limestone in the center of the memorial of those still missing.

On this Memorial Weekend I wanted to take a moment and express my thanks to the over 1.3 million American’s we have lost in our wars throughout the years. 

These brave men and women had the courage to answer the call and paid the greatest price for a reward they could not savor, but its great importance and value they understood. The fight for freedom has waged on for centuries and the fight is rarely understood today by any whom have not tasted the bitterness of losing their freedom. I honor and respect those who still understand why this is a prize worth fighting and dying for.

The birth of this great nation started with the loss of 25,000 great men, who fought for this freedom by  crossing the Delaware in the middle of winter, many with  no shoes on their feet, to change the tide of war and gain this freedom.

There is a saying in this generation, “War does not determine who is right, only who is left.” I disagree with this statement. I believe the statement should be,  “War does not determine who is right, only the rights of who are left.”

I pray we will someday see the end of war, but I honor those who have taken up the fight that I might be free of tyranny and live free, unafraid of a ruler who oppresses and enslaves.

May we always remember these great sacrifices and take with grave seriousness our obligation to protect and hold on to these rights, when we consider giving up any of the many freedoms we have inherited through the blood of our great fallen. For once these freedom are given up, they seldom are regained without paying another heavy price in blood.

We talk so often of the struggle between the left and the right. How many of us have clarity about the core value pillars of each side? We can all rattle off policies and laws that sit on one side of the argument or the other but can we articulate the underlying values from which those policies and laws are derived? To argue about the policies and be ignorant of the principals is akin to arguing about weight loss programs without understanding nutrition and exercise.

I believe that the Right seeks to preserve Traditional American Values. I understand those values to be the ones established by our Founding Fathers and reflected on our currency. They are:

• Liberty
• In God We Trust
• E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One)
• Limited Government

I believe the Left desires to replace these values with other values. Ones that are more secular, European, and socialist. Their replacements would be:

• Equality
• Secularism
• Multiculturalism
• Big Government

Liberty means preserving as much authority and agency for the individual as possible, only curtailing that liberty when the liberty of another or the nation is under attack. The Left believes that Equality, ensuring that life is fair, is more important, and they are willing to take from those that have in order to provide for those that have not.

In God We Trust means that there is a Divine Creator of man and it is from this Creator that we gain our rights, powers, and authority as individuals. This is a philosophy, not a religion. It is a principal that means governments cannot take our rights away because they are not the author of them. Without this principal the question of authority and where it comes from is suspect and ripe for infringement.

E Pluribus Unum (or Out of Many, One) means that we welcome others into our nation but expect that they will honor our American Values. It does not mean they must abandon their cultural roots. It means that they will learn of us, our history, our language, so that we may together build a common future using the values of our past as a common foundation.

Limited Government because Big Government corrupts and controls. The free market as an extension of the people and private property rights is the innovative engine of the nation, and government should be kept within clearly enumerated and restricted powers. A government not of entitlements, depts, and deficits.

The move from the traditional values of the right, to the new values of the left, represents a fundamental transformation of America. I do not want a transformed America, I always want an improved America, but there is so much to retain.

Define: Transform -- to change something dramatically: to change somebody or something completely

As a final thought you will note that I have omitted the term 'liberal' - that is because the historical meaning of the term has been hijacked. John F. Kennedy was a liberal, but not the left of today:

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well.

-John F. Kennedy, Sept 14, 1960

This is not the language of the left today which has taken over the leadership ranks of the Democratic party. I am not saying that JFK would be a conservative, but he was far from the leftist liberals of today that speak of ‘social justice’ which is simply a euphemism for economic equality, an enemy of liberty. JFK was unlike his leftist brother Senator Edward Kennedy as he himself points out:

In another sign of lukewarm support from his own party for Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s reelection campaign, Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy today branded the Connecticut incumbent as “a J.F.K. conservative, a relic of another era. "I’m not sure we need someone in the Senate who’s still mired in the provincial, hawkish John F. Kennedy ideas about U.S. military power,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy.

The bottom line is this nation is the greatest success story the world has ever seen. It has enabled individuals to increase their standard of living and the standards of the world more than any other. It has sacrificed for the good of the world time and time again, through the sacrifice of our military strength in the face of evil and through the generosity of our citizens in the face of natural disasters, which was made possible by our prosperity. This was all made possible by the principals that our Founding Fathers put into place: Liberty, In God We Trust, E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One), and Limited Government. If we abandon these and replace them with a different foundation we will lose that which brought us to this magnificent place in human history. We will be transformed into something smaller, less hopeful, less free, less capable, and more dependant – I pray this transformation of America does not happen.

Some believe that there are two types of war, wars that can be won, and wars that will be lost. My fear is that there, is indeed, a third type which is, wars that can only be fought. The clearest example of this is the war that has been raging between Israel and Palestine. Napoleon and the Russians showed that controlling Afghanistan has historically been a war that will be lost. Now we Americans are taking on that place and people again, and with our vastly superior resources and technology we have changed it into a war that can be won. My worry is that, in fact, we have only changed it into a war that can only be fought. Time will tell…

Simply put the human race is divided into two groups, the decent and the indecent. The distinction has nothing to do with race, religion, sex, or age. It has everything to do with values. It is easy to believe that because we have a certain racial heritage or cultural background, or because we are men or women, or because we subscribe to a specific religion or none at all that we act, understand, and react the way we do. However all these distinctions are cosmetic, they only create a context in which values are defined and held by us as individuals. It is the actual values that these environments advocate, either knowingly or unknowingly, that form the soul of the man or woman that then acts upon the world through the filter of these values.

If a society has taught men that women are their property then they see no value in a woman being able to choose her own profession. If a culture has fostered the creative nature of the individual then they see value in the creations a person can imagine and build. Not all values are equal. Values roll up into two supreme values: the value of Good and the value of Evil. Values of Good are anything that increases or builds up the good things of the world and Evil is anything that destroys or reduces the good things of the world. The more good a value produces, the greater that value.

Do we know what we value? Many people are so busy in life that they do not take the time to thoughtfully reflect on their values. As a result many people believe that they hold values that in fact they do not. They give lip service to it in conversation but indeed their hearts are far from those values. Take the simple example of anger vs. patience. Most would assert that they hold the value of patience higher than anger and feel that one should have patience in most circumstances and resort to anger only when the need is important. The examples of people getting angry over unimportant things are legion; the problem of road rage alone is convincing.

Spend some time paying attention to where you spend your time and how you behave while executing your daily tasks. If watched closely enough you will see the things you value and the values you actually hold and those you cast aside. The observation could result in a revelation that may begin a personal transformation.

If I were to ask you to start a conversation about politics or religion with three people you have just recently met how would you feel? Nervous, intimidated, fearful? I believe most of us would feel those emotions. Why is this the case? I find it quite sad. These are two extremely important subjects to us all. Is there a God and if there is, does he have a plan, and what is that plan? How should the government of the nation that I call home, and whose job it is to protect and preserve my way of life, behave in the face of the current challenges we face? There are fewer questions asked where the answers have greater impact on our lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren. However, we dare not bring them up.

The reason for this is because we allow ourselves to become too emotionally entrenched in our position. Feeling the need to defend it to the death. To question the idea is to question the value ourselves. We often feel like someone questioning our position is equivalent to them questioning our intelligence. We ascribe to ourselves only the purest of motives while giving no thought or little credit to the motives of the other person. We believe we have what is best in mind while the other person has some sinister motive or is shockingly naive. These attitudes are reinforced by name-calling and ad hominem attacks which does nothing but shut down dialog and end debate. All of this is expected, from children.

Most of us are not children, and we should stop acting like it. We have to be able to discuss these subjects if we expect to continue to evolve our thinking, expand our minds, gain intelligence, and extract wisdom. This child-like level of dialog has become an epidemic on the internet and on television. Today people are shouting at one another, attributing ill motives, mischaracterizing the others arguments, and showing a chronic unwillingness to admit error. A wise man once said, “when you open your mouth you can only learn what you already know.”

Recently when discussing a speech given by Dick Cheney many people via internet left comments like, ‘he’s an idiot’, ‘liar!’, ‘what an ass’, etc. Regardless if these statements are true or not, it does nothing to advance the dialog that matters which is related to the arguments and ideas he is presenting. Recently in response to materials created by Michael Moore people left comments like, ‘fat slob’, ‘liberal fascist’, etc. Again, this gets us nowhere. It only identifies the culprit as childlike and unserious.

As adults we should be able to keep our emotions in check because we want to understand better than we currently do and become wiser in our actions. When hearing an idea or position the first question that should come to mind is, “Is it true?” It doesn’t matter much if the source is a homeless vagrant or a Pulitzer prize winner. If it is true then we need to address it as such. It deserves our attention. By avoiding it or dismissing it we have only robbed ourselves of the opportunity to understand with greater clarity and increase in wisdom through meaningful dialog.

Remember these rules when approaching conversations:

1. Approach the conversation with a desire to uncover the truth and determine the wisest conclusions. If you are unwilling to do this, but rather seek to overpower your opponent then wisdom will never be your companion.
2. Listen and ensure that you hear and understand the arguments. If you are not going to listen to them you might as well just write them a letter. If you are going to argue with a position that they don’t actually hold you are just identifying yourself as someone that has a poor capacity for understanding.
3. Clarify what outcome the other has in mind before deciding to respond. If both desire similar outcomes but have different strategies to obtain it, then there is a discussion worth having. If however, the desired outcomes are completely different then the subject of your debate will be focused differently.
4. Before responding, seek to understand why they have come to the conclusion they have. Often it is in their reasoning that contains the flaw and debating the conclusion rather than the assumptions is like trying to keep water out of the boat without fixing the leak.
5. Once you have their position well in hand, ask the question: Is it true? This could be in response to the entire position or certain parts. You may disagree with their overall conclusion but find deeper understanding by identifying truth they may have. Accepting the truths of their position increases your ability to debate their conclusions if necessary.
6. When responding stay clearly focused on the issue. Do not allow yourself to resort to personal attacks. This only destroys common ground, kills trust, and abandons logic and reason in favor of petty emotions. This will remove any credibility you may have gained, and it also demonstrates that you are lacking in the power of self-control.

If we can do these things, we have the ability to find real solutions to the real problems of our day. Without this we are no better than the children in the playground yelling back and forth, “yes, you are!”, “no I’m not!”, “yes, you are!’ and the conclusions we make will only be worthy of our childishness.