Category: Politics


I would say that it isn’t quite a violation of his oath. More a choice on distribution of resources, but it does set a dangerous precedent and I don’t think it is a good idea. 
What the President is advocating is that we should focus our immigration efforts away from nonviolent immigrants and focus it elsewhere. While this is sound in reasoning it is also going to put even more pressure on some of the hardest hit of the last recession and channel taxpayer funds away from their intended recipients. While I like that the President is advocating we do the right thing for these people, I disagree with it because to do so would hurt many Americans and many more Americans do not agree with this policy. I am also worried that this policy won’t actually have any power or affect any change to help those in question, but may just be a ploy to sway Latino voters. That is the short answer, here is the long one…

What is really being said here?
What the President is advocating is that a group of illegal immigrants no longer fall under the threat of deportation. This isn’t amnesty and it isn’t citizenship. It is just not being deported, according to his words. This group, according to the press conference of the President, will be limited to those who:

  • Were brought here by their parents at a young age.
  • Have been here for 5 years or more.
  • Are seeking to go to college or join the military.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video…

I try to be fair in my posts, so you will see pros and cons. I have my opinion and I will share it, but I will also try and give alternative points of view as well.

Pros:
The immigration system will be able to focus it’s efforts on more dangerous criminal immigrants and be diverted from less dangerous threats such as students. 
One of the arguments mentioned that there was a need to fix the broken immigration system. This is true and has been for a very long time. The borders, particularly the southern border, has been a highway for criminal smuggling activity for decades. This is a main route for drugs, weapons and human trafficking into the United States and black market money out. This argument is not concerned that too many people entering are flooding labor markets, but that without the secure borders we are allowing dangerous contraband to enter the states and even more dangerous people. Here the argument makes sense because the initiative does focus efforts where they will be most useful.

More suspicious and deserving of our attention…

Than this.

Some very good talent will be kept in the United States that would have otherwise been lost through deportation.
I have a great deal of faith in many immigrants who come into this country. They possess within them a great courage and enthusiasm, enough to leave their homeland and start fresh among strangers. Immigrants and first generation Americans have the highest rates of entrepreneurship in the country and are serving as much of the foundation of our economy. Many come here just seeking work and don’t come with baggage that many of my fellow white privileged Americans seem to hold. We feel entitled and a lack humility. Many of the Chinese and Mexicans that I have known and work with in particular exemplify this mentality of hard work and humility while leading a quiet life. They add to not only the countries financial wealth, but also her cultural, moral and social wealth as well. If those who fit this description, a reasonable filter being those seeking higher education, are ignored by immigration then perhaps that is a better use of INS resources and might not be the worst thing.

Cons:
There are already programs in place to protect immigrants who seek college education and service in the military.
While I was in service in the United States Marine Corps I served with several illegal immigrants. Of course they had become naturalized citizens by this time, but I, as a home grown white American was in shock the United States would allow such people into the forces! (This statement was meant in sarcasm people, unbunch your britches.) But it was a surprise to me. Several of them described a process of expedited citizenship in exchange for service in the military. That being said, I am not an expert on this process, but I am aware that it already exists and doesn’t just offer protection, but citizenship. Along with military service comes veteran benefits including the GI Bill and loans for housing. There are also other programs in place to aid illegal immigrants in college already in place that I will mention later down. So the President’s statement seems at best misleading, at worst creating a new solution to an already fixed problem. In the case of these other Marines, many of them were my friends and I trusted them very much. As a born citizen I think that those who leave behind their homeland, pick up weapons and fight our wars beside the “true” Americans don’t just need to be awarded citizenship, there needs to be a statue somewhere in their honor. That, however is a different post. The point is, this program already exists, why is he selling a new one?

This is already the standard practice of INS.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service is already fighting one of the toughest unsung wars in US history. They are undermanned and patrol a massive area. By practice their policies already focus on the most dangerous and the most trafficked areas. They already put much more effort into apprehending those who are a danger to the citizens of the United States than they ever would to a college student. The President in his speech remarked that in recent years there has been a great increase in dangerous immigrant captures. This could not have been done checking ID’s at the local community college in Denton, Texas or any other college campus for that matter. It also can’t be done by “being a nation that expels young kids” which is a quote from the speech that seemed more intended to incite an emotional response rather than reflect what statistically is not the case with the majority of deportations.

This represents the President choosing to ignore certain mandates for certain people.
This is really the heart of the question that Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez was pointing to. By saying that laws set about can be ignored he is saying that he has the power to prosecute whomever he wishes, even treating two people differently who are guilty of the same crime. This is a funny grey area since in this case neither are citizens of the United States, but the ramifications are scary. Could the President or future Presidents one day do the same for other groups, Democrat/Republican, Black/White, Male/Female? I believe that was the direction Mr. Gonzalez was pointing to. No matter how nice it would be a President should not have the power to choose who they do and do not punish. This reasoning places the President’s moral high ground and doing the right thing ideals on a foundation built on very sandy soil. That being said, he would certainly not be the first president, Republican or Democrat (or Federalist) to do this, in all fairness.

This is in opposition to the wishes of many, many American people.
While the issue is deeply contested most Americans worry about too much immigration. They are concerned about dispersal of jobs, resources such as in the public schools and entitlement funds for a growing portion of the population that goes largely untaxed. They feel that if the investment in tax payer dollars is made in these young people there is no guarantee that they will stay around to better America for it. There is also a large argument brewing between the differences in American illegal immigration policy and the much more severe policies of other countries, one ironically being Mexico. This worries a lot of people. Whatever your particular stance on this issue is, a very large number of Americans do not support any program they feel makes it easier for illegal immigrants to take advantage of American wealth. Since so many feel this way, it leads me to say that the President’s job isn’t to decide when the American people are wrong, but to be a conduit for their wishes. He is their elected representative to the most powerful position in the United States. For that reason, I would view that it is his obligation to follow the expressed wishes of the majority and not decide on his own what is right.

This hurts the Americans who right now are already suffering greatly.
Another major concern is that this new policy will create a massive surge in college attendance. While at face value this sounds like a wonderful thing, there are issues with this. The problem with many schools today is that they have already dumbed down the curriculum to open their doors for less serious students and gain their tuition. This is creating a generation of college graduates little better off and with no fewer skills than when they entered school. To confound this with a flood of students not interested in learning, but on not getting deported would only dilute the school systems efficacy further. This brings about the question of payment. There are already numerous government grants that reward a great deal of college tuition based only on household income. Proof of citizenship is not an issue and therefore, government money is used to compensate non citizens for attending college. This too reflects a bad policy diverting funds intended for the American poor to non-Americans. Skip ahead a few years and you have a massive influx into the job market for people aged 22-28.

This group recently has been hit the hardest with the unemployment crisis ranging at times of 25% unemployment. While the average unemployment during the recession was between 9-10% the young college graduates struggled around 14%. This being due to slow growth in the economy, the lack of growth in entry level jobs and few start-ups in non-tech industries. These people are already having hard times getting their carriers off the ground and to invite more competition would be inviting failure for all parties involved. This sub-crisis has been a major contributor to many of the recent politcal action of youth like the Occupy protests.  While I disagree with much of the movements rationalities I do see their point of view in this struggle. We already have a country who’s economy can’t support it’s current college graduates, what good would more and less educated ones do? You have to ask, “As a country do we want to weaken one of our most vunerable groups of proven talent by inviting, supporting and protecting non-citizens?”

In summary…
No. I do not think that this is expressly going against the President’s oath. He is choosing to govern the resources of agencies like the INS in a more efficient way. He is also not dealing with American citizens in how he chooses to follow the laws or mandates. I do however think that is policy is a bad one because:

  1. It doesn’t actually create any new programs that don’t already exist in one way another or are not already the standard practice.
  2. It could put new pressures on schools and the labor market hurting American citizens.
  3. It is built around the story of the “hard working, good grade earning kid who has never done anything wrong” who has historically never been the real target of deportation. This is an emotional pull which diverts people from issues and dilutes them in idealism and racial debate.
  4. Is against the wishes of many, many Americans. As I mentioned before, it is the role of a president to be the representative of the people, not the one who decided when they are wrong.

My final concern is one also shared by the Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, that the President may be trying to use this as a hook to gain Latino voters a few months before the election. These of course are actual citizens, but sympathetic to many illegal immigrants today.

This is an update to a earlier post I made a while back Women in Combat Operations in which I expressed some of my mixed feelings, both for and against the future of women serving in combat centered missions. In any case, I am glad that actions are being taken by the Pentagon and the Marines one way or another.

This Monday Gen. James F. Amos, the Marine Corps commandant, announced that actions were going to be taken by Marine Corps command to study how women would be able to adapt to the combat environment by introducing a select number of women into the  infantry officer school at Quantico, Va., and ground combat battalions that had once been closed to women.

This new effort will, as I understand it, focus on female officers. As my post said many of the women I dealt with in military were officers. One in particular stood out for excellence among Marines, male or female. I think this is an important prospect for the military. It will be putting the women who are the most dedicated, most ambitious and hopefully the ones who will serve the greatest example to future Marines, notably the women.

Although there is great controversy over this debate, much of it in my previous article, and it will likely be a very long time before we see a completely coed military, I think this is a good move for the Marines as they wean into a future that will have to incorporate women more thoroughly.

Will This Winter be the Occupy’s Valley Forge?

There has been a lot of talk about that Occupy is dying down now that the weather is turning and it isn’t fun anymore to bang drums in the middle 20 degree weather. Campuses in numerous cities are breaking up due to this or because of local government interaction. In places like LA and Philadelphia the tent cities are being broken by police while smaller sites, such as the one near where I live in Denton Tx, were for the most part abandoned voluntarily.  And while the camps continue to fade many will be thinking “So this is the end of Occupy?”

Not that a good job wouldn't help...

I seriously doubt it. Many are indeed abandoning the tent cities erected over the past several months that have evolved into a type of forum for an endless open air debate on the nature of the government, economics and social reform. There was also a lot of weed.  The people however will carry the discussion home, influencing those who are close to them and pushing the conversations they had to the rest of us.

It is those who stay behind though. Those hard-core believers in the… something. If they survive this winter, these individuals will be the ones who make the news some three to four months from now.

What those who stay in the tents and endure are going to do for the movement will be very important for its future evolution. They will face cold and rain, snow and ice and intense feeling of “is it worth it?” “Why are we sitting out here in the cold with the entire nation thinking our movement is a joke?” And while they sit something else may happen.

They will talk. As they talk, those that are left, will be creating a conversation that will be different than what they have been saying before. This conversation will be different because it won’t be clouded by the flood of their current population. The flood of fair weather idealists, drugged out self-righteous know-it-alls and the remnant hippies reliving the 70′s that are the current populace of the camps will likely take their leave until the nice weather returns and protesting is a fun sport again. And those that are left will be consolidating the ideas that are left. Their muddled message about the greed of the 1% may finally evolve into something that people can deal with. Those people may together be able to realize some economic truths and realities and create a message that the majority of American people can understand and get behind.

While I don’t agree with the economic views of the Occupy movement and I feel that most of what I heard from them at this point is idealistic, some of it selfish and most of it lacking realism or a long term understanding of what their ideas will end up meaning for the country. I believe however, that some of those taking part in the Occupy protests are intelligent people. I think that if these people do stick it out they may come up with some good ideas, some real ideas and something that can actually create real discussion with the American public.

I compared this period that Occupy is about to go through as their Valley Forge.  No so much in selflessness and courage, nor also the desire to seek both personal and governmental independence, but in zealousness at least. What happened at Valley Forge was that a beaten and weakened Continental Army weathered the winter of 1777-1778. At that time they were a band of confused, unequipped, demoralized and lost group of individuals lacking a clear vision and direction for the future. During that winter they received leadership from our founding military fathers. When the winter was over what came out of the fort was a strong, disciplined Continental Army guided by a shared mission and vision and led by strong leaders. The comparison pretty much ends for me there, but for many Occupiers they see this as their Valley Forge moment. In many ways they may be right, if they can come out of this better then they went in.

Whether you agree with Occupy or think they are bunch silly misguided kids on a tantrum, if they can survive this winter what will come out next spring will be a galvanized group. Their ideas my be better or they may be worse, but what is certain is that those who survive it will be leaders of the new Occupy, whether they like it or not.

Will it? That ball is Occupy's court now.

Hi, I’m Tanner Brumbarger,  I own a blog called ‘Opinionz Matter. I use that blog to express my personal life stories as well as share my views on faith and politics.  Recently, I have had the pleasure  of getting to discuss some different topics with Jon via our two blogs, and have recently fashioned a formal, ‘blog alliance’ with him. I’d like to publicly thank Jon for his advice on difficult topics, as well as his service to our country. He is a fantastic individual with lots of insight and depth, a perfect role model to say the least. I hope this “guest blogging” strategy is a success!

But what I would really like to touch on with this opportunity to publish a post, is the disaster of the Costa Concordia. If you have noticed the events, you have realized that our true problem is much larger than a beached ocean liner.

One does not need to be a cable news junkie to know of the tragic events of the Costa Concordia, a luxury cruise liner which struck a reef off the cost of Tuscany. As of this writing,  30 individuals have been lost. Most people in America have focused their attention on the captain of the ship, Francesco Schettino, blaming him for the accident, and rightly so.

The vessel was sailing by the island of Isola del Giglio, where a former officer of the fleet is retired. The captain of the luxury liner was planning on taking the ship a little close to shore in order to sound off the ship’s horn in salute to the retired naval officer. The rest explains itself, the ship struck a rock, tearing a 160 foot gash in the hull, causing it to list and forcing the evacuation of 4,000 souls. Many people who were onboard the vessel are coming out for the first time, speaking about their horrifying dance with disaster.

But as I watch a documentary on Fox News, regarding the catastrophe on the Tuscan coast, I am faced with many questions, just like you.  I’m sure most of my questions are similar to the questions the mainstream media is asking. Such as: “Why there weren’t mustering drills before the ship took off?” “Why were their not enough life jackets on board the ship?” “What are the Italians going to do to the captain?” Those were the first logical questions that came to my mind. However after some serious thought and some opinions presented to me by other individuals, I am left with questions, and actually some anger about the entire situation. So, here is my take on the self-inflicted tragedy of the Costa Concordia.

 I wrote an article, not quite a month ago, regarding the disaster of the Titanic. I asked my audience what they thought would happen, should some accident like the Titanic occur. Would women and children be ordered off of the sinking boat first? Or should it be anyone who could get on board? You can see the segment below:

“Despite this process, many men, regardless of their class would refuse to leave the ship. The ship had a policy of, women and children first. In spite of available room left, many men would remain on the ship to allow more women and children to board the lifeboats and reach safety. 

The question I would like to pose is: If our society was faced with disaster today, would women and children be sent to safety first? Would men remain? Would women go first? Would our society enforce the same rules that it did a hundred years ago? I know what side of the lifeboats I would be standing on, do you?”

Well world, we now know what that real answer is. A modern day Titanic like accident DID happen. Praise God the fatality rate was not as high, but women and children were not ordered off the boat first, and that’s absolutely despicable.  In fact, it’s repulsive and quite frankly, I would go so far to say it pisses me off.

The blame for this situation completely rests on the shoulders of the failed Captain Francesco Schettino.  The reason why I would put my blame on him is because like a father, the passengers on his ship are his family and therefore his full responsibility. He was responsible for them and protecting the “women and children” first code of ethics. 

God calls not only Christian men to a higher standard, but men in general to reach for a higher level of integrity than anyone else. We are called to protect and provide, to sacrifice and set an example. We are not called to jump on the life boat before the women who may not be able to swim, or ignore the crying child, if your ship is sinking and you’re a man, you should be bending down, putting a child in a lifeboat and holding a woman’s hand as she steps into the boat, even if water level is at your waist. This event only shows the erosion of true leadership in our men.

In my personal opinion and experiences, I have noticed that men in society, primarily the American society, are deteriorating away from a place of leadership.  It seems that if you want to find a good group of men in leadership, you have to go to a local church and in some circumstances, it feels like I have slim pickings. Yes, even at churches. You can identify a man of leadership much quicker than you can a man who follows. All men must follow rules, and every individual must submit to authority, that’s the way the world should work. But all men must take responsibilities for themselves and for their families.

As an individual men are called to submit to authority. Consider the phrase, ‘God Kin & Country’ as your example.

Men are called to submit to the laws of the land and their elders.  First, men should submit to their Fathers. Whether it’s a father/legal guardian or an elder in the church, we are called to obey. This does not mean you are enslaved, but a man is called to respect those who have gone before him, so that hopefully they lead the man in wisdom. I believe that when an individual reaches manhood, he gains a little leniency.

Secondly, I believe men are called back to lead their nation. That can easily begin at the community level. Men should lead in their communities, end of discussion.  All men at some point should step up and lead.

Thirdly, Men are called to be disciples. We are called to set Godly examples as leaders of our households (when we have households) and overall, leaders in our society.

If I may be so bold, I believe that men have lost their chest hair. They have lost their backbone. If you translate that into a modern day white trash phrase, it means men today have lost their ‘swag.’ We have become a society of awkward boys in the bodies of men. A true man takes responsibility and leadership even at the cost to self. This is why I talked about the Costa Concordia incident. The Captain was not a leader like a real man should, nor did he take responsibility for his ‘family’ on board his vessel, like a real man should.

As men struggle to lead, looking for an example to model, I propose that they consider a carpenter. His name was Jesus Christ, the most powerful man of all. He took responsibility for his family and took away their sins; he accepted leadership and had a huge number of followers whom he taught, encouraged and even chastised at some times. A lot like man in the position of fatherhood would do. But what was his only requests for fulfilling such? That we followed him, acted like men, made disciples and became leaders in our lives.

So, I would close with this, the reality of 2012 spoke to us a couple weeks ago, the chivalry of 1912 is dead. Tragedy did come, men did not go last and for that they should be ashamed. It showed us that our society does is not filed with courageous men anymore. We are filled with cowardly boys in men’s bodies. I praise those men who are accepting roles of leadership and I pray that only more will emerge.

I am writing this article to address a few trends that seem to be affecting the church, specifically those in the youth about to be adults most like Tanner. Tanner, while achieving much for his age, is young and has a future ahead of him and now is entering the phase of life where he and those like him will be making the most important decisions of their lives. I feel the church, for the most part, has directed them toward a path where they can’t succeed in the modern world and can’t fully take part in shaping and guiding it anymore. This is part of why so many are steering away from the church and why the church is steering so far from the rest of American culture, bad and good. I wrote this article to try and focus on the direction being given to these young people and perhaps direct readers of Tanner’s and my blog in how they should encourage their youth in the future.

So have you ever said to yourself something to the effect of “Politicians can’t be trusted?” Have you ever said that “All businessmen are greedy and corrupt?” Have you ever wondered why? Because they aren’t Christian anymore. For the most part, Christians have stayed away from the business and political scene for the better part of three generations. But why? Let me put it this way…

Have you ever said any of these things… around your kids?

I know it is something most of us don’t think about often, but ask yourself, what careers am I pushing my kids toward? For many of Tanner’s younger readers, ask what careers where you pushed to? I think though, we should also consider, what are you pushing from?

Many are raised with the idea that ideal Christian careers involve hard work such as construction. Carpentry seems to be popular among Christians (wonder why?) Other career paths include careers that involve some sort of service like the medical field, doctors and nurses (but not gynecologists, that is for the sinners of medicine), and education to become teachers.  Another career path widely encouraged in church circles is the military. I was a Marine and I am still a little baffled at why so many in my church were so proud of me for doing a job that on a good day killed people… But they did. My wife says it has much to do with the service and sacrifice aspect of the job, which I understand. I  still think they just haven’t really thought about it much though.

But what about big business? What is the first thing you think about me when I say I would one day like to own the next Chase bank or be the next Bill Gates? What if I said I would like to one day be a successful venture capitalist? Would you think I was greedy? What if I said I wanted to be a successful politician? That I wanted to be a Senator and work on Capitol Hill? Would you think my goals are to be corrupt, filling my pockets with kickbacks before I become a lobbyist, making millions to influence others while manipulating the democratic system? You may not think that about me in general, but if you were to meet someone on the street with these goals, you wouldn’t think very well of career business people and career politicians.

Why is that? Over the course of history some of the most important people in American history filled these roles. Politicians were once also viewed as a noble profession, public servants, stewards of the community. Businessmen once were viewed as the fiercely independent founders of the American wealth and prosperity. John Pierpont Morgan was one of the most influential business leaders in America. He built massive companies in his day. He also engineered programs and deals that helped to prevent two massive American breakdowns in the American economic system.  He was also a lifelong member of his church and one of it’s most influential leaders. His grandfather was a preacher and influenced him greatly. He could be found alone often in silent prayer for hours at his local church.

The founding fathers were also religious men as well as politicians. Benjamin Franklin is quoted to saying

“Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshiped…As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see.”

Seems pretty straight forward. What about Thomas Jefferson, the supposed atheist of the founders?

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?”

So it is possible to have moral leadership, both in business and politics. Then why is it that these two fields of achievement are so shrouded in the belief that they are corrupt, Godless and without morals?

Because good Christians aren’t supposed to want to do those things.

When I was a child I remember being told that the rich are nothing but greedy and that politicians are liars. I heard that a good Christian job was physical labor, medicine, teaching or the military and that these were the only honorable things available to me. Then I joined the Marines and during that time I realized that those who affect the most change, have the greatest impact on society are not on that list, not directly, not individually. Those with the most direct and individual influence on America are those people of business and leadership, which Christianity shuns.

The problem I see is that for three generations now, young Christians have been pushed by fellow Christians away from these fields and resulted in a growing movement where Christians do not welcome them and are not welcomed by them.  And as a result of this, Christians are growing farther and farther from the socioeconomic center of America. They are losing their place as leaders in its future and are alienating themselves from its people. So while I see many posts going up about the Decline of Christianity in America and the general idea that we are becoming a Godless nation, I say to you “What did you expect? You teach your young people to join you in seclusion from the society they are part of.”

But things don’t need to be this way. In the future we need to encourage our young people to be those leaders of tomorrow. We need to encourage them with stories of great Christian businessmen and politicians, so that they can lead Americans with a Christian perspective. They can recommunicate the values of Christianity in a way society is able to understand and perhaps fix some of the problems we are seeing in society today from hatred of Christians to .

That’s why I am glad to be invited to speak on Tanner’s blog. He is an example of the future of Christianity and the future of America. In the next few years, people his age are going to be making the decisions that will put them in positions where they can have a great resounding impact on us all. I hope that you will encourage them to do something great.

Be entrepreneurs. Solve humanity’s problems with new ideas, new innovations and give people jobs. Make yourselves very wealthy and remember who blessed you with your success. Then tithe.

Be politicians. Become leaders who set a great example to all Americans of what a great person is and should be. Become directly involved in the decision-making process and therefore have greater potential to influence the aspects of society you see that can be fixed.

Don’t live a mundane life complaining about the rich, the wealthy and the powerful. Become them and set a new precedent.

***This post has been duel posted on Opinionz Matter by Tanner Brumbarger . I have been invited to guest post to Tanner’s blog and hopefully this will help drive a bit more traffic to Jon’s Deep Thoughts.

This post was originally a reply to a friend and fellow blogger Tanner of The Opinionz Matter. He made a post Occupiers Ignoring The Founding Fathers.

While the above image is from the Constitution of the United States, I would like to cite a reference to another document of civic importance.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

He focused on the phrases “Pursuit of Happiness” and “Created Equal.”

He reasoned : “”My answers came relatively quickly. I think we can all agree that we should have the freedom to do what we want without lives, whether it involves us being happy or not. No government should prevent that. However, I firmly believe that this statement firmly defines the Founding Fathers’ vision for America; that people should have the right to pursue happiness, not the right to possess happiness in their lives.”

I would reword the last statement to be “not the right [ to be given ] happiness in their lives. But reading this post and others from Tanner I believe he wouldn’t mind the edit.

John Locke

I believe that one can also derive the nature of what was intended in this statement by asking the founders where they got their ideas. I think that it is interesting to consider where Jefferson got many of his views. His work is based much off the work of political theorist John Locke. In a natural state all people were equal and independent, and everyone had a natural right to defend his “Life, health, Liberty, or Property.” Locke uses the word property in both broad and narrow senses. In a broad sense, it covers a wide range of human interests and aspirations; more narrowly, it refers to material goods. He argues that property is a natural right (meaning no one should be able to forcibly stop you from gaining property) and it is derived from labor (In other words, you have to earn it.) In addition, he believed property precedes government and government cannot “dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily.” Karl Marx later critiqued Locke’s theory of property in his own social theory.

This is what the pursuit looks like.

This became the basis for the phrase in the American Declaration of Independence: “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. You can see how happiness is derived from property in Locke’s work, however Jefferson expounded upon the idea as meaning something other than specifically property. If it were, people would assume that the government has an obligation to fill the Right to Property. Instead, Jefferson chose key phrases like “pursuit,” meaning the right to gain without governmental obstruction and “happiness” meaning that which gives value to your life, be it property, fame, relationships or writing blogs.

Learn to Earn. This is not the pursuit of happiness, it’s the pursuit of someone else’s.

Occupy believes that equality is something that is concerned with wealth and that our equality in that respect should be guaranteed. This, as Tanner brought forward, is against the wishes of the founding fathers. Equality is not concerned with wealth. We are created equal, and equality is part of our nature as humans, not the works we do and not part of something that can be given to us by a governing body. Therefore, it seems apparent that the founding fathers did not believe it was their privilege or right to take property or to give it. This is contradictory to the idea of redistribution of wealth and forcible equality of wealth without labor to create that wealth.

We are born equal, we all agree. It took us a long time to understand this. We had to overcome racism, sexism and several other -isms to try to attain the level of equality we have today. I remember growing up when my mom said she thought she would never see a black president. I think that shows how far we have come, not that we are perfect yet, but we are reaching closer now than we have ever been toward equality among everyone. But that, as I said, is when we are created. That is why each of us have only one vote, one voice, equally. Where the equality should stop is the assumption that everyone should have the same property or happiness. This is what is meant to have the right to pursue, meaning it needs to be earned, it has to be worked for and it should never be given.

-Jon

Females are serving across the world in full combat ground positions. The debate over the equality of this situation is coming back to the main stage here in the United States.

There is a debate going on right now concerning women’s equality, particularly in the military. As it stands, women are not allowed to take place in strictly ground combat occupations. This doesn’t mean that women in the military are always safe from combat, but it does mean they cannot join some MOS’s (Military Occupational Specialty or military job) like infantry, artillery or to be an officer of those units. Women are also not eligible for the draft, if that were to happen.

There are many who believe this is not in line with our current view of a need for sexual equality. At President Clinton’s request, the Department of Defense reviewed this issue in 1994. DoD noted that America’s prior drafts were used to supply adequate numbers of Army ground combat troops. Because women are excluded by policy from front line combat positions, excluding them from the draft process remains justifiable in DoD’s view. Although no conclusions were reached, DoD recognized that policies regarding women need to be reviewed periodically because the role of women in the military continues to expand. This week Marine Corps command has release statements stating that it is planning on receiving an undetermined number of women candidates for it’s infantry officer training program. What this will mean for the future of the military and women’s roles within are undetermined, but it definitely shows signs of movement on an issue that hasn’t seen the light of day for quite some time.But where they have still not expanded is into the role of combat infantryman.

Sgt. Theresa Lynn Flannery during an attack in April 2004 near Najaf, Iraq, as other soldiers used a wall for cover.

Most see no reason for this injustice. It must just be some dusty old tradition right? I think there is a better reason than that. Women are just not made for combat. If you say that then you must never have been married to a woman. But in all seriousness, what do you think makes us so different that men could “handle the stress” better than women? Men are just stronger than women? Perhaps, but as another article of mine shows the last decade of warfare has taught us one thing, we need more boots on the ground. In a Marine Infantry squad, there are few “heavy lifting” activities that I experienced where some women’s smaller (it’s statistically true women are smaller than men) frame may have slowed them down. That still leaves at least 10 slots left in the squad that anyone no matter how small would be good for. I would also like to point out another small fry who showed what the littlest member can pull off in an infantry situation. Check out the history of Audie Murphy. This is guy who was too small to join the Marines and then became the most decorated soldier of WWII. So you can see that I don’t put much weight in the argument that women, on average, are too small to do the job.

To maintain fairness I want to put out two differing points of view, both from my own personal perspective of real live cases I witnessed. I want to do this not because I don’t have a point of view, but because I want readers and debaters to see, as fair as I can, as much information possible so that you can arrive at a decision of your own.

For women in combat:

Be honest. Do you think that is a face too weak to do the job?

I want to talk about an officer I knew while in the Marines. She was one of the best Marines I ever knew. Seriously, top 3, including men. Her name was Capt. Dienhart. She was a company commander for an engineering support squadron I worked for. She was in command of over 120 mostly male Marines. Even here in the Marines, the most famous boys club in the world, she had respect. Why? She could out do any one of us. She made it a point to be able to do more push ups than us (and not girl push ups either), she could do more pull-ups than any of us ( and I am not talking about flexed arm hangs) and she ran the 18 minute 3 mile. And when I say us, I mean the group of 450 19-24 year old male Marines in the squadron, not an easy group to beat, but she did almost every time.

The only time I really got to know her was when I was a marksmanship coach for the squadron. I was her pistol instructor and helped her through her annual qualification. I used “instructor” and “helped” loosely because she was, on top of everything else, one of my best shooters ever. She had the form down, was very patient and methodical and had the strength to hold the weapon with control that and delivered precise and accurate shooting. In the Marines, marksmanship is kind of a big deal, so for her to deliver precise, consistent shooting, not just a few good shots was impressive for myself and the other Marines.

The women rewrote the book for me on what women in the military are capable of. I don’t know if she has any inclination to be part of a combat MOS, but I feel that the leadership and professionalism she showed while in a non-combat roles shows that woman have the capability and potential to serve in such positions in the future.

Against women in combat roles:

Marine atop gun turret.

Many of you ladies reading are about to get very upset. I am sorry if you feel I am not being fair to the gender, that is not my intention. Remember that what I am writing about is what happened to me and is all very true. I am trying to provide all points of view on the subject so please try to keep an open mind throughout.

In truth, I don’t see any reason that women can’t do anything in the military that men can do. My mom always had fun pointing out that there wasn’t anything a man could do that a woman couldn’t do. What I think is the key determinate in this argument isn’t what women can’t do, it’s what men can’t do that is holding women back.

Men can’t get pregnant. (Oh dear God he went there!) Now this sounds like someone attempting to throw up a catchall to prove that all women shouldn’t ever be able to join the armed forces. It isn’t. But it is a fact, women alone can conceive and carry a child and this fact has grave repercussions in the military world. Let me explain.

Suppose that you are getting ready for a deployment to Afghanistan for a 7 month tour. You will be sent to some very dangerous areas where you need every member of your team. Your unit isn’t in combat roles, but there is still a lot of work to be done and the presence of threat is very close, as it is a combat zone. Now, two weeks before you deploy everyone is arriving from pre-deployment leave and PFC Sarah has news. Everyone is happy for PFC Sarah, sort of, because they know that will be deploying a man down. You can’t deploy when you are pregnant after all. So now a team of 10 is a team of 9. That means that for the next 7 months, everyone will have to work harder and have less security during risky operations or difficult procedures. But hey, we are just breeding one more warrior in the fight against terrorism right? It’s ok we can manage.

But what if it happens, 4 more times? That is exactly what happened during my second deployment to Iraq. In a platoon with 9 women, 4 became pregnant within weeks of leaving. 1 was actually sent home from Iraq in the first week of the deployment when her mild case of mono turned out to be a severe case of pregnant. So now the platoon was down to just 4 women left of the original 9.

That may not seem like a great deal, but not only did this mean of all their work was split between those who remained, but they were also not able to fulfill a very important role. We worked at an entry control point to a major base. There was a great deal of local civilian traffic here. Everyone who came an went had to be checked, including the women. Do you think the U.S. government wanted those dirty male Marines all over the local populace? No, we needed females to do it. And many times we had to call in just to have someone check if someone had a weapon under their clothing. Ah, SOP how I miss you.

This wasn’t an isolated issue either. This freak epidemic of mass pregnancy happened throughout the squadron both times we were deployed. I liken it to a college where you don’t have to take finals if you are pregnant and then two weeks before finals you have 5 of 9 women in a particular class (and more than 20% overall) of the women show up pregnant. Would you think it was an accident? Would you think they were all accidents? Others were sent home in the middle of an Iraq deployment because they became pregnant in Iraq (please trust me when I say that it is not a romantic place, so it is curious to me that this could happen at all.) Female Marines who are or were recently pregnant are also given different standards to uphold than their non-pregnant counterparts. This makes sense with limits, being that there is some point where they must be deployable at some predetermined point in the future. For example I had a Sergeant who was very much overweight and never took part in scheduled physical training. The reasoning, she had had a kid. “But wait, her kid can talk.” Where is the line? When are we supposed to start upholding standards?

As for me, I don’t think it is that hard not to get pregnant. With today’s health care and knowledge it seems impossible to me that this many people could accidentally become pregnant preceding a time of great personal struggle. My wife and I agreed long ago that we would not have children until we were in a house, graduated from college and both had good jobs. It has been nearly eight years and we are still not ready, but we are also not pregnant. I think for that reason I have little sympathy for those who become accidentally pregnant. I feel that having children is never truly an accident and the fact that when this happens it leaves a lot of good people, men and women, down a (wo)man.

I couldn’t agree with you more sir.

In my mind there has to be some sort of accountability in the military community to combat this growing form of malingering in the ranks. The civilian population also needs to see that this is indeed a problem and an epidemic for the military. Efforts to address this evoked civic outrage two years ago when Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo threatened court martial for four soldiers who became pregnant, as well as the male soldiers who fathered the children after disobeying expressed orders to avoid such happenings. The National Organization for Women (NOW) said the policy to reprimand them was “ridiculous.” “How dare any government say we’re going to impose any kind of punishment on women for getting pregnant,” NOW President Terry O’Neill said. “This is not the 1800s.”

I would like to agree with Ms. O’Neill. In the civilian world that I now enjoy and that Ms. O’Neill seems to be only experienced with, someone telling Jennie and I we can’t have children is unacceptable. But in the military it is different. It may seem draconian, but that life is much more extreme. It’s more violent, dangerous, harder and we need each other more. We are Marines (soldiers, sailors, airmen, coasties.) We aren’t accountants, teachers or postal workers. When we lose a person we can’t hire someone on for a few months until Sarah is back. When we lose someone it is a loss, and to those who are left to complete the mission, it might as well be a casualty.

Tech. Sgt. William Greer / U.S. Air Force

In conclusion, I feel that women in the military have outstanding potential. I have seen some of the most amazing feats of excellence performed by female Marines. My conclusion however, is that the achievements and virtues of these and many other individuals, do not represent the whole. As a whole, they aren’t ready for the responsibility of combat MOS’s. When 1 women is unable to deploy it’s a tragedy for it’s unit, when 60% are unable to deploy it’s a statistic, and a damning one. For as long as women in the military can not accurately be relied upon to deploy in sufficient strength and readiness, to complete the mission through the course and then to return home to their family life as men do, they as a group are not ready for the difficulties and responsibilities of combat warfare. In such theaters when you lose someone, it isn’t just a burden, like it was for our platoon, it places everyone else in danger. It leaves open the likelihood that others will never see their families so that some could start one of their own. When there are women  who choose to use pregnancy as a tool to avoid duty they do a grave disservice to the Capt. Dienharts of the armed services, who have earned the right to serve in any manner they should wish.  When this pattern ceases to be a problem, I will be one of the first ones cheering for some more fresh boots in the thick of the fight.

-Jon

I have tried to provide links to both parts of the debate so that you can make up your own mind on where you stand on the issue. If you know of another good link to either side of the debate, please post it in the replies. Any retaliatory remarks will not be posted as I tried to be fair. And please, let’s not make this about rape. People love to site that “what-if” because of it’s moral impossibility to judge, however rape accounts for such a low amount of pregnancy cases be they civilian, military or otherwise that I will not justify it as a meaningful addition to this debate.

Facts Regarding the Women in Combat Roles. Women in Combat: Issues for Congress, The Impact of Pregnancy on U.S. Army Readiness 

Arguments for:

Five myths about women in combat Great article written by a female Marine Corps Major. I really liked this article and agree with most of what she says in it (except  myth 3, sorry ma’am).

Military.com posting a poll that American’s support women in combat roles.

Now that the gay thing is resolved, can we let soldiers be openly female in combat?

Remove ban on women in combat

G.I. Jane Breaks the Combat Barrier

Women in Combat: Study Recommends Ending Military’s Last Male Bastion

Arguments against:

Soldier’s Duty Is Country First, Pregnancy Later

Knocked up and deployed: An Army captain’s view

Navy gives new urgency to retaining pregnant sailors

More women in combat means more mothers with PTSD

A discussion group on “Service Member Pregnancy During Deployment”

Senators Demand General Rescind Order on Pregnant Soldiers

Remember also that my personal point of view is currently more against a change in the current system. This is mostly due to my personal experiences and for that reason I admit that I may have some biases preventing me from fairly showing both sides.

Scene outside one Occupy casualty scene in Vancouver.

I am a student at the University of North Texas, the site where this week Darwin Cox, 23 was found dead in his Occupy Denton tent colony. The more I thought about it the angrier I became.

First I must say, although I disagree with much of their assumptions and their premise for this movement, I respect their right to meet and peacefully protest. They have the right to speak out against a system they believe isn’t working in their favor. This is guaranteed them in the constitution. I promise you, I fought for it. We as a democratic people must remember that everyone has the right to gather, organize and be heard.

What I saw this week on my native campus, however was deplorable. A young man died in one of those tents. Some would say this isn’t news, being that he isn’t even the first. As I write this he is the 8th death of  members taking part in Occupy protests. What happened in this case is that a man died and those citizen patriots, those virtuous idealist and martyrs of American justice, abandoned him. Saturday night police were directed to the occupy tents on the University of North Texas campus in Denton Texas. When they arrived on the scene the encampment was empty, the tents vacant save for the tent where Mr. Cox was found. This much is certain.

Building near Occupy Denton Camp

So my questions are “Where was everyone else?” “Where are these high minded idealists?”” Where are these people protesting that it is our responsibility to take care of one another?” “Where are the people who say that it is job of those in society to protect the weakest among them when one among lay dead in his tent?”

These ideals seemed to disappear the moment that reality hits. When a group of irresponsible delinquents preaching as if they understand moral virtue and societal goodness come together to result in a man’s death how do they deal with it? They all scurry away like roaches brought into the light.

Occupy Oakland member waves a defaced United States flag.

At the root of this I think is the nature of Occupy itself. Within this group is the beating heart of an anarchist movement where a leaderless mass together topples the “system”. You know what is an interesting aspect of leaders? They are the people who accept responsibility for their actions, in victory and in tragedy. What you have demonstrated here on the University of North Texas is simply gross negligence and a lack of basic human decency.

My viewpoints are harsh, but that is because I believe in higher principals. I served two tours in Iraq with the United States Marines. I may have hated the people I worked with day after day, but we learned early on that the most important human qualities are shown when supporting the fallen, the wounded and the weak. We learned that leaders do not just take credit for a win, but lead through adversity, and take responsibility when they fail. Let me try to control myself long enough not to get into the “Leave no man behind’ ethos.

Another scene from Occupy Oakland

For such an inherently hypocritical, insidious act to occur should tell the rest of us that no matter what Occupy protests, they are not ready to influence our way of life. They have shown a history of lacking a true respect for human life and well being while demanding to be shown the same. They are demanding to rewarded by society when they seek to add nothing to it. This is the true nature of occupy, a group of kids out to party, making demands and giving out speeches about human rights, but when adversity hits they have neither the intestinal fortitude nor virtue of spirit to what is truly right.

Memorial for Occupy Members

Rumors have been flying around the campus lately about the situation surround Cox’s death. Many refer to illicit drug use known go on in the camp. The weather here has just taken a turn so the boy may have frozen. There may be other factors. Each of these reasons has been linked to other deaths in the occupy movement and now even talks of sexual assaults. But at this time I don’t think it matters if Darwin Cox died from drug use, from exposure or violence. There were people at those tents who should have been capable of preventing his death. These same people cry out justice, yet they won’t take responsibility for their actions. They cry out against corruption yet they have shown no character with which to corrupt. They scream for equality yet they still live as one of theirs is dead. Whatever your views on the rationality of Occupy you should know this. The 1% did not kill Darwin Cox. A greedy government did not kill Darwin Cox and no “system of repression” is responsible either. Occupy killed Mr. Cox, or at least did nothing to stop it.

(Edited December 20, 2011) I have been asked to provide citing for my article.

Citings, Sources and Assumptions:

My first source is an official letter sent by the president of the University of North Texas immediately after news of Cox’s death. This was the first news I received of the incident. You can view a copy of the letter posted here. President’s Letter to UNT students.

As to the statements about drug use, you can find that on Occupy Denton’s blog posting they admit that the Cox has suffered from drug use and that it is likely the cause of his death. Occupy Denton site.

Other acts that have occurred in an around Occupy camps can be followed by clicking the links there. Sexual assaultViolence, Drug use

For those feeling the post to be to biased a news link has report where Occupy Denton’s official spokes person spokesman Garrett Graham is provided here. He also mentions that Occupy members were present, however other reports state that the camp was empty when police arrived.

News of Cox and other’s drug involvement and poor self-policing system at the camp is also reported here.

For those concerned about weather, here is information for the city of Dallas on that day. Remember that the death occurred at around 4:15 PM and while this day was cool, this was not weather that should be able to kill a 23 year old man.

My assumptions from this information are that the man died of drug use while on the encampment. I believe from information shown that other occupy members were present and knew of his and others drug use. What is certain is that while their spokesman said he was said that before his death he was “uncommunicative, lathargic and had a fever” which does not support other reports, some by Occupy, that his death was likely due to his drug use. What is also certain is that signs of the situation were seen by members who failed to seek help for Cox, the members fled the scene before police arrived and that illegal activity was happening at the camp, against both state and university rules, without being policed by the members of Occupy Denton.

This was why I wrote this post. It isn’t because I do not support protesting. If you read my comments at the bottom I make this very clear. I feel that when a moral populous stands up for perceived wrong doing of their governing body that that is a righteous and democratic act. I use the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955 as an example of protesting done correctly by a moral group of citizens. What I saw and read about in Denton was not something that would have happened if the members of that group showed the moral excellence they demand in others.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers

%d bloggers like this: