The Government and Border Security

First, I should probably begin with a disclaimer.  I refer to myself more and more as a Libertarian, but I do not adhere to every tenet.  One of the areas I apparently depart with many Libertarians on is borders.  I do not believe in pure "open boarders," and I guess I should explain why.

The Preamble to the Constitution establishes that the people ordained our system of government to, among other things, "provide for the common defence [sp]."  From the Federalist Papers, we know that the Founders believed that a stronger central government was more capable of handling this responsibility than a weak confederation of states.  That is one of the many reasons they advocated the people giving up a portion of their liberty for the stronger Constitution over the weaker Articles.

A government cannot defend those who have granted it its authority (the people via the consent of the governed) without first delineating and securing the boundaries of the territory it plans to defend (that territory claimed by the people for their exclusive use).  For the government, this means not only keeping out invading armies, but also ensuring that those who enter from without have been properly vetted for the protection of those within.

Our world today is a global one, there is no denying it.  People will come to the United States to visit, to work, to learn, and to live.  We cannot completely shut off our borders, and I am not advocating that.  But despite our global world, it is a dereliction of duty by the government (upon which we have bestowed power) to fail to provide for rigorous checks at the borders.

I understand that many of those who seek to enter are seeking opportunities they cannot find in their native lands.  I do not propose denying them those opportunities.  I believe that opportunity is what brought many of our relatives to America.  I do, however, propose ensuring that all who wish to enter, and especially all who wish to make a life here permanently, are not a danger to the people of the United States.

I will also not deny that our current immigration system is broken, and in need of reform.  Those we have elected seem to have no real interest in fixing it, other than as a political talking point for votes.  Many factors play in to that, from misguided liberal beliefs to perceived capitalistic needs.  But how can we demand that the government protect us (a misguided demand, but one for another rant) and still cry that attempts to secure borders are racist.

Personally, I don't care if the illegal alien is Mexican or Irish, Iraqi or Italian.  There are rules.  You may not like them, but they are there, and your legal options are to obey them or change them.  Ignoring them because you don't like them is illegal.  That is not a question, it is a statement.  Stop acting shocked that a criminal got arrested.

So what do we need to do?  Well, we probably need to take a serious look at our system for allowing in guest workers.  This could have many positive benefits, including protecting those that come here to work, instead of forcing them into the shadows where they can be exploited.  There is obviously a demand signal for their labor, and there is obviously a labor force willing to fill it.  There is also obviously a serious gap between the demand signal and the legal way of filling that signal.  There should also be a way for a guest worker to apply for citizenship.  There is absolutely no reason why a wage level guest worker should have less of a chance at the American dream than a white collar worker from an immigration standpoint, PROVIDED they have followed the rules to come here.  We also need to take a look at the citizenship process altogether.

We need a way to balance our security with our economic, growth, and humanitarian desires.  This will demand a top to bottom re-evaluation of our immigration system, and it needs to be predicated on the assumption that our elected leaders care about our borders, and will enforce the laws that we establish to govern them.

Guns Won't Solve the Problem

Across the country, Second Amendment rights are on the march.  While the anti-Second Amendment (anti-2A) crowd is fighting it tooth and nail, gradually more and more Americans are realizing that their personal security is their responsibility, and no one else can keep them safe.  The anti-2A crowd loves their emotional arguments, and one I frequently hear is "Guns won't solve the problem," usually in reference to a murder or active shooter situation.  Well, they're right, but it doesn't matter, because they're making the wrong argument.

When they try to make the argument that guns won't solve the problem, they are making a high level argument - they're saying that one particular tool won't solve the overall problems of murder, rape, robbery, etc, or the specter of homegrown extremists or active shooters.  And they are correct.  These problems are complex, with many underlying factors - poverty, affluence, lack of a sense of purpose, greed, hunger for power, a need to belong, mental illness - and to believe that the introduction of a single tool is going to address all those underlying issues is ludicrous.  So, in a sense they are correct - more guns won't solve the high level problem.

Here's the thing - guns aren't supposed to solve the high level problem.  In the hands of a properly trained citizen, guns are a tool used to defend against a low level problem - the immediate act of violence.  I don't carry my Glock to prevent crime in California, or even in the next town over; I carry it to prevent an attack against the innocents in my immediate vicinity.  A gun won't solve the problems and evil choices that lead an individual to attempt a rape or murder someone in the course of a robbery.  However, along with a proper mindset and skillset, a gun can be used to stop the attempted rape or murder, leaving the victim alive and free to make the impact on the world they were born for.

It's important for responsible citizens to understand this fact, not just because it's useful in an argument, but because we all need to realize that guns are not a "one size fits all" solution.  A gun is a tool that must be coupled with a proper mindset and skillset to be effective in defending the innocent.  In fact, in a best case scenario the gun will never enter the equation - the citizen will recognize and avoid the trouble in the first place, or the police will be immediately available to assist the victim and arrest the perpetrator.  But we must realize that Hope - as shiny as it looks - is not a plan.  That is why we carry, and why we fight for the right to do so.  Not because we are under any illusions that we are solving the very real high level issues, but because we realize that there are people who have made a choice to do evil, they have no qualms about it, and the only thing between them and the innocent are good men and women who have made the choice that evil will not win the day.

Choose right, train hard, live free.

The Poor, Politics, and our Responsibilities

This is what the Lord Almighty said: “Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.”

- Zechariah 7:9-10

One who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and one who gives gifts to the rich—both come to poverty.

- Proverbs 22:16

Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.

- Proverbs 14:31

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

- James 1:27

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

- Micah 6:8

                Over the years, I've begun leaning far more Libertarian than I ever thought I would.  I've ended up here mostly by taking the time to actually compare the two primary parties’ stances on various issues with real life, by talking to people who have different backgrounds than me, doing a lot of research on what the parties promise versus what they deliver, and by spending a lot of time thinking independently. One topic that comes up frequently in the debates between the parties is the poor, specifically, drastically different approaches between the parties in how to help/manage the poor.

                First off, as you can see from the verses above, we are commanded to help those in need.  And by the way, as I discussed in my last post, Jesus never commanded the government to do anything, He commanded His people. So, first and foremost, we (Christians) are to help those in need. This is not debatable. In fact, if you read back into Deuteronomy, you'll find specific stipulations regarding provision for the needy, such as leaving the corners of a field un-harvested for the needy to glean, and allowing the needy to come into the fields behind those who are harvesting and gather grain. While we are obviously no longer under the ancient law, this speaks to God's concern for those in need, which Jesus acknowledges "will always be with us." 

The modern Republican school of thought treats all poor individuals as if their lack of provision is completely their own fault. While I agree there are people in the world that choose to exist in a consistently dependent state due to their own laziness, I would argue that these are a minority. I would say the vast majority, especially after the most recent economic downturn, are hard-working individuals who find themselves several tax brackets below their former life, simply because one day they had a job, and then one day they didn't. Other factors, such as changes in health, lack of education, and societal issues also play a role. I don’t put these out as excuses, but as legitimate reasons why someone might need temporary assistance in overcoming a financial obstacle.

On the opposite hand are Democrats, who seem to think that the only way the poor will ever break out of their status is through aggressive government intervention, especially taxes and policies designed to take from those who have and give it, no questions asked, to those that fit a certain tax bracket. As several reports have revealed, this doesn't really work either, as people sometimes find that it is easier to remain dependent on the government than to actually go out and re-enter the workforce. While I am sure there are individuals on both sides that are well-intentioned, the parties as a whole are really just courting votes.  

Republicans want to be the champion of big business, thereby getting their votes, and Democrats want to be the champion of the poor, thereby getting their votes. Politics is nothing if not a cynical game of playing one side against another.

                So what is to be done? As I stated, if we want to live the Christian life as Jesus taught, we will help the poor. We can do it through monetary means, whether to your church or a local food bank. We can do it through giving our time, perhaps to Habitat or a soup kitchen or to a job skills program. There is no shortage of ways that we can give. I will grant you that it may seem as though what we have to give is nothing more than a drop in a flood, but God honors that as well. Jesus himself stated of the widow, "Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had." It should also be noted that as a widow, she was actually supposed to be taken care of by the people, and wasn't necessarily obligated to give, yet she did. Imagine if the entire 50% of the population that says they are Christians gave to others, even if it was only $100 a month. In fact, let's limit that to working age people, ages 25-54. According to the CIA Factbook, that would be 64 million people. If each person gave $100 a month, we are talking about $6 billion for the needy, every month. Obviously, that is just an illustration, as not every person would be able to give $100 a month, but even $1 a month nets us $64 million for those in need.

                To the Republicans I would say: capitalism is a wonderful thing, until we start making money just to make money. It is not the amount of money we possess that indicates how wealthy we are, it is how we impact the world with that money that shows how truly wealthy we are. It doesn't take a lot of digging to see that there are plenty of people in the US with lots of money and the power that goes with it. But if you'll forgive me a movie quote, "with great power comes great responsibility." Predatory lending, making money on the backs of your workers and then cutting what you've promised them, and other hallmarks of our current capitalistic society are the very definition of oppressing the poor. Capitalism has lost its moral compass, and capitalism without a compass can oppress just as easily as the Communist governments we so despised just a decade or two ago and do it far more cunningly.

                To the Democrats I would say: yes, we are obligated to help the poor, but do you honestly think that the best way to do that is to forcibly take money from those who have earned it and pour it into a bloated government bureaucracy that many would argue exists only to perpetuate itself? I've worked for the government for 11 years. I can tell you firsthand how inefficient the government is at doing anything, and I worked in one of the more efficient military branches. Add in the fact that the government is run by elected individuals who seem to be more interested in getting reelected than actually ensuring the government runs smoothly, and I think you can see why people don't like the idea of having their taxes disappear into a black hole. I don't think there is any Biblical precedent for a government-run welfare system.

                So what will it take? 

                A change in heart. 

                A change in the hearts of those who think they are entitled to that multi-million dollar mansion and Ferrari when they could easily live in a standard single family home and drive a Toyota. These people only perpetuate the cycle of rich versus poor and give Democrats a fat target to point at. Yes, "the laborer is worthy of his hire," but what are you doing with that money? Building a lavish lifestyle for yourself, or making the world a better place long after you inevitably leave it?

                A change in the hearts of those who think that they are entitled to other people's hard-earned money and a "comfortable" life on someone else's dime. These people also perpetuate the cycle and give Republicans examples of why we should just let the poor fend for themselves. To look at the other side of the verse, "the laborer is worthy of his hire," but if he's not working, he's not a laborer, is he?

                A change in the hearts of those who know that there are needy in the world, but say to themselves, "someone else will take care of it," or, "the government will help them." Jesus never said that the government should help them. He said you should.

Separation of Church and State: Divorcing Politics from Faith and Accepting Responsibility

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

-Romans 12:2

The 2016 Presidential campaign has officially begun.  Never mind that we are over 18 months away from actually voting - the time has come for the plethora of political candidates to inundate us with messages of why they are the right choice to either save American or transform America, depending on what their particular political persuasion is.  Undoubtedly mixed in will be commentary about whether or not America is a Christian nation, how we should vote for a particular candidate because he/she shares our Christian values, and how "you can't possibly be a Christian and vote for candidate X."

Let me just say it now, and say it very clearly - STOP.  It is time to divorce politics from faith.  Note I didn't say divorce faith from politics, but politics from faith.  I phrase it that way for a very particular reason: I truly believe that both political parties are attempting to manipulate Christians for their own political power.  And we as Christians are letting them.  The Democrats say we should vote for them because they want to take care of the poor, and isn't that what Jesus did?  The Republicans say they are going to restore the moral foundation that our Founding Fathers laid, and then what?  Is everyone going to magically start reading the Bible and attending church?

There is quite the debate over whether or not we are a Christian nation.  If you look at the poll numbers, by the way, we are a "Christian" nation.  Over 51% of the population identifies as Protestant, with another 23% identifying as Catholic.  So yes, officially we are a "Christian" nation.  In this debate though, we lost sight of a greater issues: we are a "Christian" nation, but are we a nation of Christians?  What is the role of faith in politics?  Do we focus on entirely the wrong issues, abdicating our own role to "go ye therefore and teach" and substituting laws and the government to affect change in people?

This is only my opinion, but I think that we have become very confused.  The Founding Fathers were Christian, to an extent.  Exactly how Christian they were by the Biblical standard is up for debate, but they acknowledged a higher being, and yes, many referred to God.  However, when they established America, they paid particular attention to ensuring that church and state were separated in their roles.  They had a lot of reasons for doing this - Europe had suffered mightily from the interference of organized religion in government.  Their faith influenced their decisions, but America was designed to be a nation of freedom, where you could live your life and practice your faith, whatever it was, without fear of being forced to accept another's faith.  America is not, and has never been, a theocracy.

Yet today, we seem dead set on passing laws that force people to bend to a particular viewpoint.  This occurs on all sides of whatever debate we are currently engaging in, but I can't influence the other side, I can only speak to mine.  Is the role of a Christian to ensure that "Christian" laws are passed, thereby ensuring we remain a "Christian" nation and forcing everyone to remain morally straight?  Or is the role of a Christian to reach the world with the message of the Gospel and save souls?  These are very difficult questions, as there are no simple answers.  So, WWJD?  Well, I'd love to insert a great Bible verse here where Jesus tells us how to vote, but all I can seem to find is Matthew 22 and John 6.  In the first chapter, the Pharisees attempt to trap Jesus by getting him to say that paying taxes to Caesar is immoral.  Jesus refuses to take the bait, saying “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”  In John 6, the crowds  see Jesus's miracles and want to make him king.  So what does he do? "Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself."

Jesus's mission (and by extension, our mission) was not to bring about his Kingdom through politics, but to bring about his Kingdom through transforming lives.  Why is this important for us today?  Because no matter how many "Christian" laws we pass, it is all for naught unless we change lives.  I grew up hearing lots of people grumble about how the government and liberals had somehow doomed the nation.  Lots of "we never had this problem until they took the Bible out of schools."  Guess what?  We never had this problem until we stopped teaching our own children the Bible and left it up to the schools.  Schools have our children 5 days a week, 8 hours a day.  Last time I checked, there were 24 hours in a day and 7 days in a week.  I have to really examine myself now that I have two children of my own.  Am I leaving their Biblical development up to the Christian school I send them to?  Am I leaving it up to Sunday school?  Or am I teaching them every day how Christ taught us to live?  To be honest, I'm not proud of my answer to that question.  

If we truly feel that America has strayed from its roots, we cannot allow ourselves to focus on government and politicians to save us.  The only thing that can save us is Christ, and "how, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" (Romans 10:14)  We cannot change our nation's moral trajectory by passing laws.  We will never be a Christian nation because we pass laws.  We will be a Christian nation because the Christians of this nation reach out to others and win them to Christ.

I'm not asking you to refrain from politics or political debate, nor am I saying not to vote.  There are many legitimate concerns that need to be addressed - the budget, defense, and so many others.  All I'm asking is that you stop allowing people who stand to profit by manipulating your faith from doing so.  If you read the Bible, and study it, and truly feel that you are being led to vote a certain way, then I won't stop you.  However, if you are caught up in the latest moral crusade to save America from itself, but have yet to witness to your neighbor, maybe you should examine yourself first before you decide to dictate to others how they must live.

My Personal Values

I was raised in a very religious household with very traditional values.  I grew up watching John Wayne, Gunsmoke, and other western and military movies that, while not necessarily accurate portrayals of war, strongly emphasized the ideal of the courageous, honorable man/soldier/cowboy.  As “cheesy” as those movies were, they greatly influenced my personal core values, which are an amalgam of the various military core values: honor, courage, devotion, respect, and service. 

Merriam Webster defines Honor as “high moral standards of behavior; a keen sense of ethical conduct.”  Without honor, true leadership is impossible.  My Captain (O-6) mentioned his theory on life during my check-in with him: “Only three things matter when you are at the end of your life – your relationship with God, your relationship with your family, and the honor with which you have lived your life.”  Living a life with honor is not easy.  My honor guides me through tough choices, often leading me into the difficult path; when I fail, my honor condemns me for my compromise.  Every day I face another battle to maintain that honor, but I know that without it, I cannot look my subordinates in the eye and hold them accountable.

            One of John Wayne’s most famous lines is: “Courage is being scared to death, but saddling up anyway.”  I will be the first to admit that I have not always taken the courageous route.  Courage dictates that sometimes I take the hard way, knowing that the end result will be worth the tribulation.  Courage means that instead of running from things I fear, whether physical danger, a personal conflict, or a painful admission of failure, I must face them head on.

            Devotion (or commitment for the Navy/Marine Corps) means sticking with something, and can tie in strongly with honor.  During my life, I have made many commitments: to the Coast Guard, to my wife and family, and to God.  Being devoted, defined as “the fact of state of being ardently dedicated and loyal,” means that I will carry those commitments through until I am no longer physically and mentally able to do so.  Devotion ties in strongly with honor, in that my honor, my “keen sense of ethical conduct,” requires that I keep my commitments.  If I do not keep those commitments, I have no moral standing to require others to do so.

            Respect can mean several things, but it essentially boils down to the ages-old Golden Rule: “Treat others as you would want them to treat you.”  This is something that I believe is severely lacking in today’s society.  I may not agree with the values or personality of everyone I meet.  In fact, I may object strongly to their point of view.  However, I can have a discussion or even a debate, and still treat them with respect.  I do not have to belittle or demean them; I do not have to shout them down.  I should never treat others as if I am above them, as if my time, my money, or my possessions are more important than theirs.

            Service - a lot of people equate service with serving in the military, but that is not necessarily the case.  I can serve in my church, in the local community, in government, or as a first responder.  The key is that I am making other people’s lives better through my actions.  Respect and service complement each other as well.  If I truly wish to serve people, either in my community or inside my unit, I have to first respect them enough to care about their needs, which in turn drives my service to them.

My Vision

“I will live my life of service with honor, courage, devotion, and respect.  I will embody these core values, and hold myself and those around me accountable at all times.  I will seek out challenges in life and leadership and strive to better myself every day.  I will face difficulties or danger with resolve and conquer them.  I will uphold my oaths to my God, my family, and my fellow man.  I will respect those that I serve, whether in my chain of command or in my community.  Above all, I train, equip, and lead my team to accomplish the assigned mission no matter the obstacle.”

My Prayer

LORD,

Help me today to trust Your plan.

Help me to grown in Your Word.

Help me to honor my oaths to You, my family, my brothers, and my fellow men.

Help me to end the day stronger, better, and more skilled than I began.

Help me to meet today's challenges with strength.

and LORD, help me to live today in peace, but if that is not Your plan, help me to meet my enemy with courage and skill.

Amen.