Marines Are Always Faithful So Why Aren’t We?

In the last few weeks, a videotape of four United States Marines urinating on some dead insurgents in Afghanistan surfaced.  Obviously, this is inexcusable behavior in polite society, but ladies and gentlemen, the places we send our Marines are not civilized places.  Never in the history of the United States have we sent our troops to a civilized place to wage war.  It is disheartening to see how quickly some Americans have turned on the men that provide them safety.

Although the methods and weapons of war have changed in the last century, the one thing that hasn’t changed is the mental and spiritual toll that is exacted from each man who picks up a weapon for his country.  Wars are just as gruesome today as they were in the fields of Europe in the 1940’s.  In fact, fighting is arguably more stressful for soldiers today, due to the cowards that dress in civilian clothes, shoot at Marines, and then go and hide amongst the populace using them as a shield.  This alone would build up hate in the heart of Marines and cause them to do things not necessarily in their character.

Lets turn back the clock about twenty years.  The year is 1993, and Operation Restore Hope in the Bakara Market district of Somalia’s capitol city of Mogadishu has not gone according to plan.  Among the dead are two Delta Force snipers: Randy Shughart and Gary Gordon.  These two men gave their lives protecting a downed helicopter pilot.  Their corpses were later dismembered and dragged through the streets in front of CNN cameras that captured it all.

Fast-forward about ten years from that point to 2004.  Four Blackwater security contractors were ambushed and then hung, burned and dismembered on camera.

In the early days of the War on Terror, there were numerous accounts of American civilians being kidnapped and executed via gruesome beheadings captured on film and broadcasted to the world, the most famous of which was journalist Daniel Pearl.

People tend to act as though this recent story of Marine misconduct is the worst misconduct that has ever happened in our military.  Going back as far as World War II, there is evidence of routine executions of prisoners as well as torture and mutilation of dead bodies.  There are even reports of American servicemen prying teeth from dead Japanese soldiers in order to harvest their gold and silver cavity fillings.  In Vietnam, there was a highly decorated Special Forces unit known simply as Tiger Force, whose job it was to take the fight to the heart of the enemy and instill fear within them.  They did this by scalping and removing the dead enemies’ ears and wearing them like jewelry.

Even more recently was the Abu Ghraib scandal, a stunning look into how things can really get when no one is watching.  These prisoners (who were still alive I might add) were subjected to horrible and dehumanizing treatment.  I will stop short of calling it torture because to my knowledge the pictures never actually showed anyone being physically harmed, just humiliated.  Yet, it is perplexing that Americans, most of whom have little knowledge of any of the events mentioned, look so judgmentally at those fighting in their place.

These Marines should be dealt with and disciplined privately, not publicly flogged by the nation that they fight and risk their lives to protect.  As Congressman Allen West so poignantly said, “As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”  No civilian is qualified to say what is right and wrong on the battlefield.

The long and short of this issue is simple: these young Marines made a mistake.  This mistake, however, doesn’t remove their honorable service to this country.  It has become apparent these brave Marines are being sacrificed on the alter of political correctness.

Mark Mayberry :: University of Tennessee at Chattanooga :: Chattanooga, Tennessee :: @MarkMayberry85

For more on this and other news stories please visit my website Lights Out Politics, and TheCollegeConservative.  You can also follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Student Loans Are Drowning Opportunity

Student loans are an important aid for those attending college, and many students depend on them in order to attain higher education. Because of this, a startling trend has emerged.

In September 2011, the Department of Education released a statement expressing the default rates for student loans for fiscal year 2009:

“The U.S. Department of Education today released the official FY 2009 national student loan cohort default rate, which has risen to 8.8 percent, up from 7.0 percent in fiscal year 2008. The cohort default rates increased for all sectors: from 6.0 percent to 7.2 percent for public institutions, from 4.0 percent to 4.6 percent for private institutions, and from 11.6 percent to 15 percent at for-profit schools.”

Federal education assistance programs are abused at all levels, but the most notably at the institutional level, where students are allowed (granted, by federal authority) to borrow far more money than needed for tuition.  As a result, many students claim refunds in excess of six thousand dollars off of a refund check.  Considering the national graduation rate is stagnant despite climbing enrollment rates, the debt continues to increase among those who choose not to graduate.

Students who receive grants and scholarships are particularly guilty.  Many of them have begun, in a lot of cases, to use grants and scholarships to pay their tuition and then take on federally backed loans to use as spending money.  In fact, the loans are promoted by the government in the form of tuition “assistance” packages.  In other words, the government is encouraging students to take on unnecessary debt.

The government is bleeding money through the student loan system. With more and more students returning to school due to the current recession, it is getting worse.

Government should be working towards a solution, but instead the Obama Administration is doing the exact opposite. President Obama used — or some might say abused — his executive powers to revamp the student loan program and allow students to refinance at a lower rate.  This move made it easier for students to acquire more debt; more debt equals more dependency.

A very simple solution could curb this disturbing trend.  If the government would implement a cap on refund checks at one thousand dollars, this would allow students enough money to pay for books and small incidentals, while decreasing the amount of student loan debt that they could acquire.  A cap would also keep people from entering college to buy cars and televisions, as I have personally seen.  The average student loan debt carried by a college graduate is over twenty-five grand.

The amount of federal aid that a college receives should be tied to their graduation rates — nothing else.  The New York Times submitted a report entitled Sublime Opportunity, in which the Education Trust found that “in 2008, only 22 percent of the first-time, full-time bachelor’s degree students enrolled in for-profit colleges graduate within six years, compared with 55 percent at public institutions and 65 percent at private non-profit colleges.”

USA Today recently reported that for-profit schools, such as trade schools and online colleges, accounted for over half of all student loan defaults belonging to students. In fact, the same report showed that the University of Phoenix receives eighty-eight percent of its total revenue from federal student loan programs.  Oddly enough, students attending these types of institutions only make up about 10% of higher education students nationwide.  For-profit schools must be held to higher standards or risk having their federal aid privileges revoked.

In the previously mentioned article, USA Today projects that student loans will top 1 trillion dollars this year. In order to begin reversing the economic crisis, we must stop allowing the abuse of student loans while decreasing our dependency not only the Department of Education, but also on debt.  With the current dire financial situation in the United States, we cannot allow these abuses to take place.

Mark Mayberry // University of Tennessee at Chattanooga // @MarkMayberry85

Santorum (Still) Takes the Cake in Iowa

“Game on.”  That was the opening statement from a somewhat vindicated and jubilant Rick Santorum.  Santorum found himself at the end of an incredible journey; a journey that included all of Iowa’s ninety-nine counties, three hundred and eighty-one town hall meetings.  The finish line showed Santorum losing Iowa by a mere eight votes but most would conclude that Rick Santorum was the big winner.

There may be more than three tickets leaving Iowa but quite a few are going to miss the plane.  Rick Perry finished in a disappointing fifth place behind Newt Gingrich, who also experienced some difficulties in the Hawkeye State.  Gingrich finished fourth, pulling just fourteen percent of the vote.  Also taking their place in the loser column is Michele Bachmann, who had a surprisingly disappointing showing in her former home state, capturing only five percent of the vote.

Although all the candidates put on their positive face while under the lights, the rumors are already flying.  Rick Perry is said to be returning to Austin to review his candidacy and most believe that Michele Bachmann could potentially drop her bid in the coming weeks and almost certainly after New Hampshire where she isn’t expected to have much of a showing.

Some other notable mentions go to Huntsman and Cain.  Surprisingly, write-in Herman Cain received fifty-eight votes and Huntsman, who forwent Iowa in favor of campaigning in New Hampshire, grabbed less than one percent with seven hundred and forty-five votes.

Mitt Romney was the official winner in Iowa.  While Mitt Romney dumped a truckload of money into the state, he still somehow only managed to beat Rick Santorum by a measly eight votes.  Keep in mind that Rick Santorum spent a total of just $30,000 on television ads in the state of Iowa.  Now Romney must deal with a surging Santorum, who just last week was sat in the low single digits in the polls.

The other winner tonight was Ron Paul who pulled out a third place finish with twenty-two percent of the vote.  While watching the returns tonight, I noticed an interesting statistic that I think many people missed.  At the beginning of the caucus coverage, entrance polls showed Ron Paul in the lead with over forty percent.  His disappointing finish shows an interesting development that I have noticed for a long time: people are apprehensive about selecting him.  This apprehension led to Ron Paul’s third place finish as his campaign picked up only half the support they expected.

A development worth looking at as well is that Newt Gingrich appears to be taking the gloves off with Mitt Romney.  The days of civil politics have ended in the Gingrich camp and he was repeatedly dubbed “the angry politician,” and with good reason.  His post-Caucus speech in Iowa referred several times to the “avalanche” of negative ads brought against him by the Romney camp.  Gingrich also gave mention to Rick Santorum and the positive campaign that he waged through Iowa, adding at the end that he wished he “could say that for all the candidates.”  The Gingrich camp wasn’t the only team being hit with mudslinging in Iowa.  Gingrich took out a full-page ad calling Romney a “timid Massachusetts moderate.”  Romney and Santorum weren’t the only ones to get a shout-out from Gingrich during his speech.  Gingrich also hit Ron Paul on his weak stance on Iran.  Personally, I think we are going to see a whole new Newt Gingrich in the coming days, as he brought forth a new pledge that “we are not going to go out and run nasty ads, we are not going to run thirty second gotchas”, while adding that he does “reserve the right to tell the truth.”

The end of the evening came with what only could be described as a moving speech made by Rick Santorum.  Santorum discussed his candidacy, family, reform plans, and his grandfather.  He told of how his grandfather essentially bought his freedom with his hard work when he moved to the United States.  Rick Santorum captivated the state of Iowa but more importantly he may have captivated the entire country.

In the coming days, Newt is certain to bring “the truth” about Mitt and Santorum is sure to get some much-needed financial support.  This perfect storm could potentially sink the S.S. Romney yet again.  The modern-day David and Goliath story that played out in Iowa was no doubt entertaining and riveting, but what does it mean?  Mitt Romney should be very afraid.  With Ron Paul still sure to pick up steam in the near future and Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, and Rick Perry almost certainly sure to drop their bids, Romney, Santorum, Paul, and Gingrich will remain to vie for the nomination.

Look to New Hampshire to be a hard-fought, week-long battle; who will come out on top is anyone’s guess.

Mark Mayberry // University of Tennessee at Chattanooga // @MarkMayberry85

For more coverage and commentary on Election 2012 go to Truth About Bills and TheCollegeConservative.  You can also find me on Twitter and Facebook.

Kim Jong Un, Secret Basketball Fanatic?

Not much is known about the heir apparent.  On December 19^th, North Korean state news agencies reported that Kim Jong Il had died.  This event has catapulted Kim Jong Un into the seat of power and into the role of “dear leader”.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5IDzWquMW8&feature=fvst]

So what do we really know about Kim Jong Un?  According to the Washington Post, he loves Michael Jordan.  Other than that?  Not much.  Most people assume he was born in 1983 or 1984, however, his mere existence was a moderately guarded secret until 2009 when he was named as the eventual successor to his father.  As a child, he was educated in the west at a private school in Switzerland under an assumed name.  No one, except for possibly a few officials, knew of his true identity.  And while it was reported that he studied and received his college degree from Kim Il-Sung Military University in 2007, he was largely kept out of the public eye until his designation as the next “dear leader” of North Korea.  Jong Un was given the military rank of general but, until the Worker’s Party anniversary celebration in 2010, only one picture was known to have existed of Kim Jong-Un in the West; it was from when he was eleven years old (front row, right).

 

Even the decision to name Jong Un the successor was not free of controversy.  Jong Un’s oldest half brother, Kim Jong Nam, was originally expected to take over power after his father’s passing.  But he was passed over after he attempted to enter Japan with a false passport (he was on his way to visit Disneyland).

The unification of Korea has been both a dream and a sore spot for the North Koreans since the end of the Korean War.  In recent days, the North Korean military has been involved with multiple attacks on South Korean troops.  With a new leader, we could see several different scenarios play out in the Korean Peninsula.  Because so little is known about the new leader of the DPRK, one can merely speculate as to how he will act on the world stage.  Many experts speculate that he could be as hardline and merciless as his father, and it is also believed that his uncle, Chang Sung Taek, will serve as regent until Kim Jong Un is prepared to lead North Korea on his own. The Kim Jong family’s hardline military actions could bring more tension to the region, but who knows? Maybe his western education will influence Jong Un to favor a different approach to governance.

Until they’ve shown otherwise, it would be wise to assume that North Korea will remain a rogue nuclear state.  It appears as if they will continue to bully South Korea, strengthening both their conventional and nuclear arsenals.  Kim Jong-Un’s little-known reputation as fiercely competitive and a heavy drinker leads me to believe that it is incredibly unlikely that the region will become more stable.  But for now, all we can do is wait and see.

Mark Mayberry // University of Tennessee at Chattanooga // @MarkMayberry85

Socialism: Kids Love It

Many of you may be familiar with a new movement sweeping our nation, and, if you are less than thirty-two, they claim to be speaking for you.  Just like Paul Revere warned the earliest Americans that the British were indeed coming, I am warning you today that change is coming, and at the expense of everything we stand for.

This new movement known as Generation WE is a movement that blatantly spreads full-scale communist ideals via a largely youthful and diverse mouthpiece.  They claim to be momentously (and in my opinion dangerously) non-partisan and are looking for “real change” (I guess they didn’t get it in ’08).

The group categorizes themselves as being strongly progressive several times throughout it’s duration.  What astounds me most is the fact that that eight to ten year olds have allegedly come to embrace such worldly progressivism all by themselves.  I thought that most children were more interested in cartoons and candy than in learning of progressive ideas and politics.  I guess times have changed.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vknHKTy1MLY]

This claim of non-partisanship is completely bogus and those who support it are clearly evidenced on the Generation We website, where you can find a list of endorsements for the movement.

Muhammad Yunus, a man who was heralded for starting the Grameen Bank.  This bank practices baseless injections of credit to those who do not have the means of re-paying in order to bolster the economy in Bangladesh.  Sound familiar?  It should, this is the same logic from which the housing crisis was created.

Van Jones, who was the former Green Jobs Czar until his affiliation in the 9/11 Truth movement caused him to resign, has been openly pushing socialist agendas in the United States for a very long time.  In his latest venture, Rebuild the Dream, he has instituted a new contract for America.  In this contract things like a tax on all stock trades, Medicare for all and a new tax bracket on those making over one million dollars a year are advocated.

The list continues with Harry Reid, Adriana Huffington, and many others. This video is the Communist Manifesto revisited.

As we continue our dissection of this video, we also find that there are several other faulty Obama policies.  The first being an argument that the United States has the highest child poverty level in the developed world.  According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, children living in homes that make less than $22,050 dollars per year are considered “in poverty.”  However, they go on to say it is “estimated” that it costs double that to provide for all basic needs which, in turn, raises the rate to 42% of all children.

While child poverty is a problem, I highly doubt that it affects nearly half of our population.  As I recall, we have several programs in our welfare system that are designed to eliminate child poverty.  Children are eligible for state run medical care and various food and monetary programs like WIC and welfare.  So with all of these programs available, how, may I ask, is the poverty rate still forty-two percent?

The environment was not spared from this diatribe either.  The video claims that, in my lifetime, fifty percent of my generation will be diagnosed with cancer and one third with diabetes.  Really?  Fifty percent of my generation will have cancer?  Are they seriously implying that eight-three percent of the human population will be struck with debilitating disease in the next seventy-five years?  At no time in history of the developed world, not even in the days of the bubonic plague, has disease ever flourished like that.  Nonetheless, they’ve found a bunch of innocent kids to spout off these irresponsibly incorrect numbers to take emotional hostages.

One issue that I found almost comical was their call for an end to all military action.  Where does this idea that, if we just stop fighting, world peace will flourish come from?   In the same breath they talk about a just and sustainable world.  Vegetius, a Roman military author, once said, “If you want peace, prepare for war.”  How do you have justice and peace without war first?

The video also paints “baby boomers” in a very negative light.  Most, if not all, of the major job-producing industries in America are run and have been made possible through “baby boomer” money and labor.  Within this same video, there is talk of squandered inherence and high national debt; at the end of the film they talk about wanting billions to find new fuel sources.  Are we mad that we are ten trillion dollars in debt or do we want to further spend on capitalist ventures?  I’m confused.

The complete lack of authenticity in regards to this message tells me that the leadership group behind this video is about one thing: pushing a socialist agenda amongst the youth of America by infecting a small portion and watching it spread.  This is truly the most dangerous form of peer pressure.  Needless to say, I have a profound disrespect for the people behind this message, and I can only pray that this indoctrination doesn’t take hold among our youth.

Towards the end of the video, one of the speakers makes the remark that we as “Generation We will have the power to control the landscape of America.”  I sure as hell hope they don’t.

Mark Mayberry // University of Tennessee at Chattanooga // @markmayberry85

Arab Spring, Ayatollahs, and Bad Decisions

President Obama and Hosni Mubarak

With the recent flare-ups of violence and protests in the streets of Cairo, and around the Middle East, people like me are left scratching their heads.  And I certainly don’t think that I am the only person with a myriad of questions for the president — the first and foremost being, “what did you hope to accomplish by pressuring Mubarak to step down?”  This question speaks to a troubling series of events that is taking shape in the Middle East.

Some have referred to it as the “Arab Spring”, but I refer to it as the radical Islamic takeover.  The countries caving to the “Arab Spring” are all religiously moderate countries, making them an easy target for a radical revolution.  Let’s revisit Egypt, for example.  While the majority of citizens are Islamic, it is not an Islamic republic.  However, it is a nation that has publicly struggled with extremists over the past fifty years.  Anwar Sadat, the third president of Egypt and a Nobel Peace Prize winner, was assassinated by radical officers of Egypt’s military after unprecedented peace agreements with Israel.

Ayatollah Mohammad-Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, Reuters

More recently, the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak earlier this year is finally being recognized as Islamic revolution.  Although some still refuse to see it, Iran’s famed Ayatollahs are not among them.  Ayatollah Mohammad-Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi (left) was quoted earlier this year by the New York Times as saying, “Today, as a result of the gifts of the Islamic revolution in Iran, freedom-loving Islamic peoples such as the peoples of Tunisia, Egypt and nearby Arab countries are standing up to their oppressive governments.”

If the Ayatollahs see this for what it really is, is it not unsettling that the rest of the world doesn’t?   Sure, Mubarak was a violent and despotic ruler, but truth be told, he was friendly with the United States.  America is now in a position where it has ousted an ally and, chances are, we won’t be as lucky with the next guy.

My next question for President Obama: shouldn’t we be concerned with our own well-being first?  Look, we need to be looking out for America’s interests.  It is not in America’s best interest to promote an atmosphere where radical Muslim groups like the Muslim Brotherhood to have any realistic chance at grabbing power.  This chance, mind you, grows more likely every day.  Why is it important for America to maintain a level of political control in Egypt?

Egypt is the owner of something most people take for granted — the Suez Canal, a major water-way for trade.  Can you imagine if Egypt decided to revoke its use at the behest of their new Islamic friends, namely Iran?  What would that do for commerce?  What would that do to the costs of goods here in the U.S.?  The Suez Canal is only one of many foreign happenings that a leaderless Egypt currently has their hands in.

Perhaps the biggest problem arising from President Obama’s lack of judgment regarding Egypt is his stance on Israel.  Israel borders Egypt, and under Mubarak held a tentative peace.  Now pretend that Egypt becomes an Islamic republic similar to Iran.  Tensions have started to escalate along the Egypt-Israel border; will that lead to yet another failure in the President’s handling of situations in the Middle East?

Finally, I think it is important that we consider the appearance of our President’s actions to Israel.  Not only Israel, but what is the message that we are sending to our allies in the Middle East?   Hosni Mubarak was our ally, as was Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.   Then on a whim, and in direct opposition to the precedent set by presidents before him, President Obama switches teams.  In fact, the real danger lies in the fact that no one even knows who is on this new team, nor will we for possibly months or even years to come.  This move to try and nation-build by proxy in the Middle East has, without a doubt, created the chaos that Radical Islam thrives on, and the current occupant of the White House has much to do with it.

Mubarak was a danger to his own people, as was Gaddafi.  If radical Islam decides to take hold in these largely secular countries so be it, but why, Mr. President, are we going to encourage it?

Mark Mayberry // The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga // @markmayberry85