Where Is Bowe Bergdahl?

I'm sure you're all familiar with the Bowe Bergdahl story - the "alleged" deserter who wandered away from his Army unit in Afghanistan, sans equipment, rifle or permission, to seek out the Taliban. He found them. Or they found him. And he was held captive for five years until his release was negotiated by an inept and seemingly traitorous White House in a prisoner swap wherein five top Taliban commanders being held in Guantanamo Bay were traded for Bergdahl.

President Obama was surprised when he discovered that Americans opposed his swap, which he did without Congressional approval in a possible violation of law. (He is required to give Congress 30 days notice before releasing any prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay.) The White House says that as Commander-in-Chief Obama is allowed to conduct military actions during wartime. They called the swap a military action. Many Americans called it aiding and abetting the enemy.

The Bergdahl exchange was done and Bergdahl was returned to the United States, ending up on a base in San Antonio, Texas, where he was given medical and psychological exams. The Army CID also investigated the allegations of desertion leveled by his fellow soldiers.

Once Bergdahl was cleared medically and psychologically he was assigned a desk job as the investigation into his conduct continued. To my knowledge he was never put into custody.

According to various sources, the investigation was completed in early October and the report was written. No information was released to the public, ostensibly until the mid-term elections were over in early November. Many people speculated on the reason the report wasn't going to be released. Was it because the report was going to say Bergdahl was not guilty of any wrongdoing and did not desert, as his fellow soldiers still say? Or was it because they found that he was a deserter and the report would make President Obama look bad, given what he gave up to get Bergdahl back?

What's interesting is that the report (or at least the results) have yet to be released to the public. Since President Obama lately seems not to care what people think of the things he does I doubt the report says Bergdahl is a deserter. I think they will clear him of any and all allegations, give him his back pay of over $200,000. It will be a slap in the face to all military members who are serving and have served honorably.

If they charge Bergdahl with desertion it will make the President's decision to trade the Taliban commanders for him look even worse than it already does. (Contrary to the promises made by the White House at least four of those commanders are back in action with three of them now helping to lead ISIS.) And President Obama doesn't like to look bad. It keeps him and Josh Earnest too busy trying to make up excuses.

The other interesting thing is that since October there have been no news updates on Bergdahl, where he is now and what he is doing. The only articles since October are those wondering when and if the report is going to be made public.

So where is Bowe Bergdahl? It seems only the Army and Bergdahl himself know - and possibly his family and any close friends. You can bet the President knows where he is and what is going on. Perhaps they'll hold a court martial that is classified and punish him without the public's knowledge. I doubt that but it would help the President save face.

A few weeks after the Bergdahl swap I predicted that he would never face charges and would simply disappear from the public eye. I wanted to be wrong but it seems my prediction could be coming true. The soldiers who died searching for Bergdahl after he left deserve better. Their families deserve the truth. I can't help but wonder if they'll ever get it....

Will Gitmo Be Returned To Cuba?

In 2009, newly elected President Barack Obama promised to make the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay a top priority. He didn't do so well during his first term so he campaigned on that again, along with repairing roads and bridges - something else he promised the first go round and failed to do.

That seems to have changed. Since 2012, as best I can count, President Obama has released 27 detainees from Gitmo, most of whom seemingly released without Congressional approval. The releases became big news when Obama released the five Taliban commanders for the release of Army deserter Sergeant Bo Bergdahl in May of last year. Bergdahl, who reportedly walked away from his unit in Afghanistan and was held by the Taliban-aligned Haqqani network for five years, had his freedom negotiated by the Obama administration and it only cost us five of the Taliban's top commanders that we were holding in Gitmo and (reportedly) five billion dollars.

Last three Islamic terrorists of Yemeni descent executed a raid on Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris and killed 12 employees, including some of their top cartoonists. The U.S. Congress declared that they would not release any more Gitmo detainees in the aftermath of the attacks. It seems President Obama didn't get the Memo because two days ago he authorized the release of five more detainees - all from Yemen.

The Paris police killed three Yemeni terrorists and President Obama sent them fresh troops.

My wife mentioned something to me last night that hadn't occurred to me. Obama is quickly removing detainees from Gitmo, whether or not he has Congressional approval, and he is determined to close it. At the same time he is trying to "normalize" relations with the Castro regime. Could it be in Obama's plans to empty Gitmo completely, Navy, Marines and all, and give the base back to Cuba? There are some who believe this is a possibility. But is it a good thing or a bad thing?

We have had the land on which Gitmo sits since 1903. It was leased from the Cuban government in an agreement and we have had it ever since. The Navy used it initially as a refueling station for ships in the area. The United States has paid the rent every year as agreed. In 1959, when Fidel Castro took control of Cuba, his government stopped cashing the rent checks and began demanding the land back.

The base is an important strategic placement in the Caribbean and since 2002, has also housed enemy combatants captured in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats have long been against the detention camp and President Obama has promised, on more than one occasion, that he would shut it down. It seems now he is determined to do it and I can't help but wonder if surrendering the base back to Cuba will be a part of it.

Obama wants to make nice with the Castro brothers, appease them, and make them happy, so he can include reuniting with Cuba in his legacy - whether or not it's a smart move. So what better way to do that than to close Gitmo and promise to give it back as soon as it's closed?

Obama has already gotten rid of many commanding officers in our military who won't blindly do his bidding. So I doubt there will be much opposition from military leaders to giving Gitmo back. Republicans in Washington might object but Obama doesn't much care about them. In fact - it seems he takes their objections as a challenge. He has proved that on several occasions.

Nothing Obama does these days surprises me. What would surprise me would be if he one day decides to follow the Constitution instead of doing whatever he wants. I believe impeachment should be on the table this year. It hasn't been until now since Republicans did not control the Senate. It still may not be. The House has enough votes to bring Articles of Impeachment against Obama but even though Republicans control the Senate they may not be able to acquire the required two-thirds vote necessary to convict him. Unless they can convince some Democrats to vote against Obama there is no possibility of removing him from office. And I, personally, wouldn't trust any Democrat who said they'd vote against him to actually do it.

I truly hope our military and our nation can survive two more years of Obama. With everything he does to cut the size and strength of our fighting forces, one can only wonder.

Will 2015 Be The Year The World Loses Freedom Of Speech?

For several years now Muslims around the world have been demanding that non-Muslims stop insulting and/or slandering their beliefs, While they denigrate Christians and Jews with their hate speech (and kill them in many instances) they demand that no one speak ill of Allah, Islam or their prophet, Mohammed. And it seems that some world leaders, including our own President, are siding with the Muslims rather than with freedom.

Since Obama took office he has removed the words "Islam, Muslim terrorists, jihad," and others not only from his speeches but from counter intelligence training manuals, FBI training manuals, and military manuals. President Obama refuses to acknowledge that the terrorists who are killing hundreds of thousands of people around the world in the name of Allah and Mohammed are, in fact, Muslims. He also denies that the Quran demands that infidels - non-believers - be converted or killed. The President says Islam is a religion of peace - even as Imams around the world, who are much more qualified to speak for Islam than Obama, call for jihad worldwide in the name of Allah.

Recently in France two armed Muslims entered the office building of Charlie Hebdo magazine, a publication that specializes in satirical cartoons about religion, politics and celebrities, and killed 12 people in the name of the prophet Mohammed. Upon exiting the building they stopped in the street and shouted three times "We have avenged the prophet Mohammed!"

Charlie Hebdo had published cartoons of Mohammed several times in the past. Muslims took offense and the result was a terrorist attack and loud statement to others - "Don't insult the prophet Mohammed or it could be deadly."

To their credit, the surviving Charlie Hebdo employees published another cartoon just days later that featured Mohammed. They didn't back down in fear. And while I find many of their cartoons to be crass and offensive, I must admire their courage in publishing their latest cover.

The push now from governments around the world to cease and desist with any words or behaviors that are insulting to Islam is not only pathetic but surprising. From our own President to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, to the Pope, leaders are bowing to the terrorists and telling citizens and magazines that they should stop insulting and/or slandering Islam because it's just not right. 

Even before the blood was cleaned from the interior of the Charlie Hebdo building the Obama administration was declaring that the terrorists responsible for the attacks were not Muslims. Regardless of the writings in the Quran, which not only justify the violence but demand it, and the words and actions of the terrorists themselves, many world leaders refuse to acknowledge the Islam connection, instead saying that Islam is a "religion of peace." Anyone with two eyes and a working brain can easily see that's not the case.

Certainly there are Muslims in the world who do not condone the violence that is growing daily in Islamic circles. But most of them stay quiet about it, refusing to speak out against it. In Islamic nations that would be the smart idea since radical Sunnis are executing people who disagree with them. But here in the United States Muslims are also staying quiet. If one stays quiet in the face of evil and do nothing about it they are part of the problem.

Here at home our President wants the media to stop saying anything about Islam that is derogatory in nature. He doesn't want terrorists to be called "radical Islamists," "radical Muslims," or "jihadists," instead wanting them to be called "radical extremists." He has said more than once that the terrorists are "not Islamic," saying "no religion condones the killing of innocents." Apparently the radical Islamic extremists disagree.

Pope Francis made a statement the other day saying "You cannot insult the faith of others." Apparently he believes that people have the right not to be offended, particularly when it comes to their religious beliefs. It's a great ideology... but he's wrong. No one in this world, not even the Pope himself, has the right not to be offended. Everyone has the right to choose not to be offended. That's it.

Being offended does not give one the right to kill. In the same manner, killing over offensive speech does not mean the speech should be outlawed. If the leaders in the world bow down to terrorism, whether it be Islamic or domestic, the terrorists win. We need world leaders who will stand up and tell these Islamic terrorists that we will no longer tolerate their murderous acts and that there is now a war declared, far and wide, against radical Islam. If the non-radicalized Muslims wish to join us they may do so. If not, they need to get out of the way!

In another interesting development - it seems our illustrious President released five more detainees from Gitmo the other day, all from Yemen. Basically, the President spit in the face of Congress who, immediately following the terror attacks in Paris, declared they would not authorize the release of any more detainees until further notice. It seems President Obama decided he doesn't need Congressional approval for anything these days. 

The French police killed three Yemeni terrorists last week. President Obama delivered five new ones, courtesy of the United States of America. Good move, Mr. President. Perhaps you should stop journalists from reporting the things you do as well.

World Leaders Giving Their Nations Away?

Remember back in 2009 when the Department of Homeland Security released a report that basically said conservative Christians, among others, were high risks for domestic terrorism? The report, defended by then Secretary of DHS Janet Napolitano, didn't name Christians specifically but said "those who oppose abortion," which consist mostly of conservative Christians and conservative Republicans. Others on the list included military veterans, people who oppose illegal immigration, and Tea Party members.

The report clearly stated that people on the right who fall under any of the categories listed should be watched for domestic terrorism. "If you are a Christian and oppose abortion on Biblical grounds, you might be a domestic terrorist," the report basically stated.

So in this country, in 2009, under the Obama administration, if you were a Christian who favored the political right, you were marked as a possible terrorist.

So why is it that if you shoot people or blow people up or cut off their heads in the name of Allah or the prophet Mohammed the Obama administration says you might be a terrorist but your religion has nothing at all to do with your actions?

I watched the video taken by a French citizen of the two terrorists celebrating in the street after the murders of 12 people at Charlie Hebdo. Three times they said "We have avenged the Prophet Mohammed!" Now, I don't know about you, but I don't know any non-Muslims who would celebrate avenging the prophet Mohammed. And honestly, I can't think of any non-Muslim who would seriously care one way or the other about insulting the prophet Mohammed. President Obama is the only one I know of besides his mouthpieces, who say whatever he tells them to say.

Obama claims to be a Christian. I have known fellow Christians my entire life and have seen many well known Christians, such as the Graham family, throughout the years. Never have I seen one of them be offended by someone who insulted the prophet Mohammed. There is more to President Obama taking personal offense about Islam than meets the eye.

After his election in 2009, soon after his election, President Obama began defending Islam over his own country, of which he was the elected leader.

In an interview with Al-Arabiya immediately following his inauguration, Obama said "My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy.

Speaking in Cairo a few months later, President Obama said "So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

The following year, NASA President Charles Bolden told Al-Jazeera about his newly assigned duties from President Obama.  "When I became the NASA Administrator, [President Obama] charged me with three things. One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering."

In 2012, following the murders of four Americans by Islamic terrorists, the President told the assembly at the United Nations: "[A] crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.
It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well — for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them….The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

Last year, when ISIS began beheading Americans on video and publishing them for all to see, Secretary of State John Kerry said: "[Our effort] has to start major efforts to delegitimize ISIS’s claim to some religious foundation for what it’s doing and begin to put real Islam out there and draw lines throughout the region."

Just days ago, Egypt's President, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, made a statement to the entire Muslim world. 

"I say and repeat, again, that we are in need of a religious revolution. You imams are responsible before Allah. The entire world is waiting on you. The entire world is waiting for your word … because the Islamic world is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost. And it is being lost by our own hands….It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire Islamic world to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible that this thinking — and I am not saying the religion — I am saying this thinking. This is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world! Does this mean that 1.6 billion people (Muslims) should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants — that is 7 billion — so that they themselves may live? Impossible!"

In a news report yesterday it was revealed that President Obama chose the more traditional Muslim views of the Muslim Brotherhood over el-Sisi's reform demands. What, exactly, does that mean when it comes to Islam and terrorism? It can't be good.

The White House Propaganda Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, said after the murders of 12 people at Charlie Hebdo and four others at a Jewish market in Paris: “There are some individuals that are using a peaceful religion and grossly distorting it.”

He also said, “We have enjoyed significant success in enlisting leaders in the Muslim community, like I said, both in the United States and around the world, to condemn that kind of messaging … and we’re going to redouble those efforts in the days and weeks ahead.”

In other words, "We see no reason for Islamic reform and will not support it." How is it that the President of the United States seems to care more about Islam and the world opinion of Islam than he does about the country that elected him? How does a U.S. President label his own citizens terrorists because of their religious beliefs but refuse to name violent Muslim extremists "Islamic terrorists?"

There is something seriously wrong with the Obama administration and many of the other world leaders.

Following the attacks in Paris last week, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared that France is in a “war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islamism, against everything that is intended to break fraternity, liberty, solidarity.”

France isn't afraid to call it what it is. So why is President Obama?

However, with anti-Islam protests going on in both France and Germany, the leaders of both countries are telling their people to cease their negative views of Islam and simply accept them. 

"Attacks on Muslims are attacks on France," President Francois Hollande said. German Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned the organizers of the anti-Muslim protests in her nation saying they were motivated by skin color, prejudices, and hatred against foreigners. 

'When the protesters chant "we are the people," they actually mean to say "you don't belong — because of your religion or your skin color,"' Merkel said.

What these leaders, as well as some other European nations including Great Britain, fail to realize is that their nations are being conquered from the inside and they (the leaders) are helping the enemy. Muslims are taking over Europe by the millions. Already there are parts of various cities that have been declared "No entry zones" by the Muslims and the police do not go there. How can these world leaders be so blind and ignorant? Do they really believe things are going to OK?

Political correctness is destroying Europe. And it's only a matter of time before the same things begin happening here. Twelve people died in France last week because they insulted the prophet Mohammed through their political cartoons. Our President didn't even go to the rally against radical Islamic extremism. Could it be that he was actually in sympathy with the terrorists? After all - it was President Obama himself who told the United Nations assembly "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

I'll let you decide.

When It Comes To Major Decisions - Obama Fails

With the recent no show by Obama or a member of his administration at the solidarity rally in Paris on Sunday one cannot help but wonder what goes through President Obama's mind when he makes decisions that make him look like he's completely detached from reality.

When liberals across the nation criticize President Obama you understand how big this faux pas really was. MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, who can usually be found wearing an Obama cheer leading outfit, questioned why the President didn't go or at least send someone from the White House. She said the President's decision not to go was "stunning" and "ham-handed." (I had to look that one up. It means a lack of grace.)

CNN's Jake Tapper said “I don’t mean this as a criticism of the Obama administration, but just as an American I do wish that we were better represented in this beautiful procession of world leaders. I’m a little disappointed, personally — this is me speaking personally, not as a representative of CNN, but as an American — that there isn't more of a display of unity here.”

Blooomberg View columnist Josh Rogin said attendees he spoke with 'didn't seem upset at the lack of officials present, saying that the Obama White House "simply isn’t skilled, or doesn’t care, about doing the small things that can make a big difference when it comes to maintaining relationships and showing respect."'

Rogin also said "the White House often misses opportunities and lets poor optics overshadow positive contributions."

Even uber-liberal Rosie O'Donnell weighed in on "The View" yesterday. "Couldn't Joe Biden have been there and wasn't Eric Holder in Paris?" O'Donnell asked. She went on to describe the event as "We are the world - and we didn't show up."

White House Propagandist Press Secretary Josh Earnest yesterday did some dancing around the reason(s) the President couldn't make it (thanks to some intense questioning by Fox News' Ed Henry) but in the end was forced to admit that they screwed up by not going.

But this isn't the first time President Obama has made decisions that make one wonder what's going on. Remember when Margaret Thatcher died? Margaret Thatcher was one of the best friends this nation ever had. She and Ronald Reagan were great comrades as well as friends and her funeral should have been an important date on Obama's calendar. No one from the White House attended. To be fair - no former President went either, which was also a disappointment to many Americans. But the sitting President should have gone. Tony Blair attended Ronald Reagan's funeral.

Remember the Benghazi attack? Remember where Obama was during that long night? Yeah, neither does anyone else. He won't say where he was or what he did but it is assumed he spent the night sleeping. Four Americans died in an hours-long gun battle with terrorists and President Obama got up the next morning and flew to Las Vegas for a fund raiser.

And how about when he released five top Taliban commanders from Guantanamo Bay for the release of one American deserter? Somehow he thought he was doing a good thing; that the American people would be pleased and proud of him for getting that soldier back. He was genuinely surprised when he learned that the American people were angry and felt betrayed by his actions.

He promised the five Taliban commanders would not return to the battlefield. So far all but one has done just that, with three of them now working with ISIS.

Remember when James Foley was beheaded by ISIS and the video was circulated around the world? Remember when President Obama made a couple of remarks about it and went straight to the golf course? Some will argue that he was on vacation and that his playing golf was OK. But it was in poor taste given the circumstances. Even he had to admit it when pressed by Chuck Todd.

"I should have appreciated the optics," the President said. “Optics … it matters. And I’m mindful of that,” he said. But apparently the optics of his Sunday no-show didn't occur to him.

Proper "optics" should have put President Obama in the front line with the 40 plus world leaders on Sunday. He had a chance, a big chance, to stand alongside other world leaders and make an international statement against Islamic terrorism and violent extremism in general. He blew it. Big time.

But it fits his pattern of making poor choices, wondering why he's being criticized for them, then having to make attempts at explaining his poor choices that the American people will understand. He usually fails at that as well.

President Obama didn't send anyone to Paris. He didn't send anyone to Maggie Thatcher's funeral. He failed completely on the Benghazi issue and he released very important Islamic terrorists back to the battlefield. But hey - he did send three White House representatives to the funeral of Michael Brown. That's something, isn't it?

A Shoutout To Christian Brothers Automotive

Ever find a mechanic/auto repair shop that you trust? Or maybe a better question is - have you ever had a difficult time finding a mechanic that you trust?

The service centers at most auto dealers usually do great work but they charge an arm and a leg, and sometimes another arm on top of that. Small, privately owned shops can be good if you find one that is reputable and reliable. I haven't found one of those here yet.

Enter Christian Brothers Automotive of Granbury.

Arden's van began leaking power steering fluid onto the garage floor a few weeks ago. I couldn't find the leak so I took the van to Christian Brothers. I had used them before to tune my car and found them not only very professional and thorough but genuinely nice people.

They diagnosed the leak as being from the rack and pinion system and replaced everything for us. It wasn't cheap but it was necessary. In the days following we noticed a thumping noise coming from the front suspension. I took it back in and they found that the strut on the right side wasn't working properly. It had apparently been replaced by another shop following an accident and they used a salvaged part that was defective. Christian Brothers showed me the part - complete with the grease pencil markings from the salvage yard.

They replaced the struts on both sides and I was convinced the van would drive smoothly and quietly from that point on. I was wrong. I didn't even make it out of the parking lot before I heard the noise again. This time I took the actual mechanic for a ride and duplicated the noise (by hitting small bumps in the parking lot.) He put the van back up on the rack and after several minutes of searching discovered the problem.

The lower control arm bushing on the passenger side of the vehicle had a large chunk missing from it. It was tough to see. There is a steel cover plate mounted to the frame that protects the control arm. There is a 1/2 inch diameter hole in one corner of the plate where you can see the bushing if you have a flashlight and a good eye. They showed it to me. The mechanic said he just happened to look in there and saw the bushing.

Now by this time I've got some serious change tied up in the repairs that have already been done. And that's where Christian Brothers surprised me. Because they had not fixed the noise, the reason that I had brought it to them in the first place, they made me an appointment today to bring the vehicle back in and they fixed it for free. They replaced the control arm bushings on both sides, the sway bar bushings on both sides, and another part that I can't remember right now. Counting labor and front end alignment this was a job that was at least five or six hundred dollars. (I didn't ask the total cost.)

They called a little while ago and said the work was finished, the noise was gone, and they were bringing the van to me rather than me having to pick it up. Ten minutes later the van was in the driveway, Colton handed me the key and shook my hand.

It's been some time since I've seen service of that quality and integrity. Owner Mike Loter, his son Colton, and the rest of the Christian Brothers staff are just good people who care about their customers.

Christian Brothers is a franchise chain that was started in the Houston area by two men who met in a church Sunday school class. One, Mark Carr, was a successful businessman and the other a mechanic. Together they formed their first business, calling it Christian Brothers because they were brothers in Christ. Their business was successful and in 1996 another mechanic approached Mark and wanted help opening his own shop. Since then the chain has grown into 100 shops in 8 states.

Anyway - I just wanted to say thanks to Mike and his team (and Christian Brothers Automotive) for bringing integrity, quality work and customer service back to the auto repair business. They have found a loyal customer.

Divine Coincidence?

In church yesterday, about three quarters of the way through the sermon, my mind wandered for a few minutes to my younger days when I attended my father's church every Sunday. I had been in the church choir and had participated in a production of Handel's "Messiah" in the small town of Coshocton, Ohio. I also performed the special music some Sunday mornings during the worship service.

One of the songs I sang all those years ago was "My Tribute (To God Be The Glory)" by Andre Crouch. I have no idea why the song entered my head but I found myself remembering the words as I sat there and was surprised that even 38 years later (I last performed it in 1977) I still remember them all.

Eventually I snapped my attention back to the pastor and listened to the rest of the sermon.

Following the invitation at the end of the sermon the offering is collected. During the offering there is always some special music, either sung by one or more of our choir members or an instrumental piece done by one or more of our very talented musicians. (We have some very gifted pianists in the group and a young man whose talent on the guitar is remarkable.)

As I sat listening to the first few bars of the song that was to be done I was amazed to discover that it was "My Tribute." I hadn't heard the song, that I can recall, in over 30 years but here it was being performed just 10 minutes after I had been thinking about it. I quietly sang along with the soloist, wondering about the odds of such a coincidence.

As the song progressed it brought tears to my eyes. My memory of the song was from when I was 19 years old, just before I went into the Air Force. Both of my parents were still alive and my dad was still preaching, and would for another 8 years or so. I was just starting out on the amazing journey that was to be my life.

The words were so poignant for my life and where I am today:

How can I say thanks for the things You have done for me...
Things so undeserved - yet You gave to prove your love for me?
The voices of a million angels could not express my gratitude.
All that I am and ever hope to be - I owe it all to Thee.

To God be the glory
To God be the glory
To God be the glory 
For the things He has done.
With his blood He has saved me;
With His power He has raised me.
To God be the glory 
for the things He has done.


I am thankful every day for my life and the blessings I have been given. Certainly there are a few things I would go back and change if I could but my life has been full, rich and exciting and at this point I'm happier than I've ever been. I have a wonderful wife, a great family, a remarkable church, a beautiful home from where I can watch some of the most beautiful sunsets I've ever seen, and many other blessings. And I can only thank God for them all.

I hope you all have a wonderful day. If you so desire, here is a link to "My Tribute" so you can listen for yourself. God bless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RZTYDPavEY