Monday, November 16, 2009

Leviathan's Orphans

A mother first: Alexis Hutchinson with her 11-month-old son Kamani (left); below, Kamani with his grandmother, Angelique Hughes. (Oakland Tribune photos.)





Her son needs her at home. The Empire demands her services in its war on Afghanistan. Since nobody is able to provide the child with a suitable home while she's away, the mother quite sensibly decided that her first duty was to her child.


So Alexis Hutchinson of Oakland, California, an Army Specialist -- and, what's infinitely more important, a single mother to her11-month-old son, Kamani -- may wind up in prison. Her son, who was kidnapped and briefly detained by Child "Protective" Services -- may wind up in foster care.


Alexis, who (unfortunately) is not a Conscientious Objector and is willing to be deployed abroad, initially left her toddler with her mother Angelique, who was already tending to a sick mother and sister, and caring for a physically handicapped daughter. Thus it's not surprising that Angelique found it impossible to provide adequate care for Kamani as well. So Alexis was left, once again, with the choice of either abandoning her child, or going AWOL.


To her considerable credit, Alexis chose to defy her orders and look after her child.


As Lew Rockwell of the Ludwig von Mises Institute might put it: This is a dilemma only because soldiers in the U.S. Government's "professional" military, unlike employees in practically any other field of work, aren't permitted to change jobs at will.


It's also useful to remember that the employment contract signed by those who enlist in the imperial military is binding only to one party -- the employee -- and can be revised by the employer at will. Alexis' predicament resulted from a moment of bureaucratic whimsy: Initially told that she would be granted an extension to make suitable child care arrangements, she was told at the last moment that this decision had been rescinded and that she was to report for deployment irrespective of her child's needs.



In their demented drive to regiment the world, those at the helm of the all-devouring Leviathan State ruling our country aren't content merely to destroy families in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. In the service of their murderous designs they're more than willing to rip them apart here on the homefront as well.


Alexis Hutchinson is just one of many enlisted mothers -- most of whom joined the military out of economic desperation -- who have seen their families become collateral damage in the Empire's "Long War."


According to a report compiled by the group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, more than 30,000 single mothers have been deployed to those countries since 2001. In what it probably regards as a gesture of sacrificial generosity, the Army permits new mothers to spend four months with their newborn children before returning to the business of killing other peoples' children abroad.


Many enlisted mothers become single parents due to the Army: The divorce rate for female soldiers is triple that experienced by male enlistees. The pressures are particularly acute for those families in which both parents are in the military.


In 1990, shortly before the first phase of the endless Iraq War began, there were an estimated 65,000 single parents in the U.S. military, and -- according to Newsweek -- an even larger number of two-soldier families. By 1998, two-soldier "service couples" accounted for an estimated 140,000 active-duty military personnel.


Most of the two-soldier married couples appear to be part of the National Guard and Reserves, which are bearing the brunt of the prolonged deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. This wasn't the case in either Vietnam or the 1991 Gulf War.


What's really important: With her husband already deployed to Iraq, Army Spec. Simone Holcomb, mother of a blended family of seven children, refused a second tour because it would have meant the destruction of their family.


In late 2003, Army Spec. Simone Holcomb of Colorado Springs, who had already served a tour in Iraq, learned that she was to be deployed there again, this time with her husband Vaughn serving in the war zone as well.


This created an impossible situation for the couple's seven children, two of whom were the husband's by way of a previous marriage.


With both parents scheduled to be sent abroad, Vaughn Holcomb's ex-wife filed for custody of his children. If both Vaughn and Simone obeyed their deployment orders, they would lose not just those two children -- which would be bad enough, of course -- but all of their children, who would be declared wards of the state because of child abandonment.


As Simone's attorney Giorgio Ra'Shadd pointed out, "when mom gets on the plane [for Iraq], they'll be waving goodbye, turning around, and going into the hands of Colorado state troopers or Denver police because there's no one to care for them."


Accordingly, Holcomb -- in order to defend her children from be evil intentions of the government that employed her -- went AWOL. Owing chiefly to PR calculations, the Pentagon backed down, reassigning the medic to stateside duty at Ft. Carson.


Holcomb's dilemma was the product of a policy decision made more than a decade earlier.


In 1992, the first Bush administration, immediately after what it depicted as an unqualified victory, "appointed a commission to study the issue of deploying parents, especially mothers, to war zones," reported the March 9, 2005 Sacramento Bee. "The panel recommended that single parents with preschool-age children not be allowed to deploy in times of armed conflict, and that in two-soldier families, only one of the parents be allowed to go overseas."


That recommendation, notes the Bee, was defeated by the Bush 41 administration:


"In a letter to congressional leaders, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell said that barring single parents, or one parent in a military couple, from war zones would `weaken our combat capability by removing key personnel.... It's important for us to remember that what we are asked to do here in the Department of Defense is to defend the nation. The only reason we exist is to be prepared to fight and win wars. We're not a social welfare agency.'"


Actually, a good case can be made for the proposition that the U.S. military is the nation's largest social welfare agency.


A little more than a decade ago, Allan Carlson of the Howard Center on the Family, Religion, and Society pointed out that each day the military bureaucracy is responsible for the care of "some 200,000 children in some 800 centers, making the Pentagon the nation's largest child care provider."


In words that would thrill any totalitarian social engineer, Maj. Gen. John G. Meyer, Jr., former
Commanding General of the U.S. Army's Community and Family Support Center, describes the transaction at the center of the military's child care philosophy: "Supporting the care and development of children is a responsibility the military readily assumes in exchange for the loyalty of their parents in uniform."


Appropriately, Meyer spoke those words in the presence of then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, perhaps the most famous exponent of the view that children are best raised by the State and only incidentally the concern of their parents. As Dr. Carlson points out, the "collectivist tone" of Pentagon rhetoric regarding child care is entirely appropriate:


"Since the first Army Family Action Plan, issued ominously in 1984, the focus has been on dissolving real, autonomous families in the DOD's employ and blending the human parts into `The Total Army Family.' This vaguely totalitarian notion actually assumes the primacy of post-family or non-family bonds. As one Army document explains: `We want soldiers, of all ranks, feeling they belong to a " family".... Building the "family" requires a professional sensitivity toward and caring for one another.'"


As is the case with any other collectivist welfare state, the Total Army Family -- with the State acting as both "breadwinner" and "caregiver" -- is designed to abet early marriage, early divorce, and illegitimacy. An estimated 40 percent of military pregnancies involve unmarried personnel; single mothers qualify for superior housing and medical benefits.


While "it is true that our military social engineers have not quite yet achieved the grand sweep of the
Lebensborn program of National Socialist Germany, where state child-care workers tenderly raise the illegitimate offspring of SS troopers," they "have achieved something very close to the family policy goals of Swedish socialism," comments Dr. Carlson. The military has operated as an instrument of social change, "in particular ... eradicating belief in differences between the sexes, and building new family forms under complete control of the state."


Just ten years ago, social conservatives loudly declaimed against putting women into combat roles. Now little if any protest comes from that quarter as single mothers are dispatched to the front, and children are left without parents as "service couples" are sent on simultaneous deployments abroad.



Casualties of a needless war:
Jessica Lynch (l.) stands next to single mother Lori Piestewa, who was killed in the ambush in which Lynch was injured and taken prisoner.
Below, Piestewa's father Terry holds her daughter Carla (center of photo) while they, with her son Brandon (f.g.) take part in a 2004 memorial.





One of the first casualties of the current Iraq conflict was Private First Class Lori Piestewa, a single mother who was driving the Humvee that was ambushed by Iraqi troops.


Although nowhere near as famous as the woman sitting next to her at the time of the ambush -- Jessica Lynch -- Piestewa meant the world to Brandon and Carla, the two small children she left with their grandmother at Arizona's Hopi Indian reservation.



"Grandma, my mom has been in heaven too long," Carla, at the time three years of age, said a few weeks after her mother was killed. "It's time for her to come home."


With the possible exception of the Battle of Midway, nobody presently among the living can recall a U.S. military conflict that involved the actual defense of the united States. It's difficult to see how a government -- how a country -- capable of sending mothers into combat zones could be considered worthy of defense.


In May 1997, I spent the better part of a week at Ft. Bragg in the company of several friends who were active-duty Green Berets. During my first evening there I stayed up until an obscenely late hour listening as my friends commiserated with each other over the institutional insanity they dealt with every day. One of them made a passing reference to dealing with a female military bureaucrat "in a maternity BDU."


It was my misfortune to be drinking something when mention was made of a "maternity BDU," and the term induced an explosive spit-take.


The following morning I tagged along with one of my friends to an auditorium to attend an "Equal Opportunity" (read: affirmative action) lecture. Midway through that tedious event, a young woman about three rows in front of us wearing what appeared to be a standard-issue BDU stood up and left, apparently in search of the rest room. As she passed I noticed that she was visibly gravid -- easily six or seven months along -- and that her attire had been designed to accommodate the condition of impending motherhood.


Nonplussed, I turned to my friend.


"Is that a maternity BDU?" I asked, astonishment dripping from every syllable. After he wearily nodded in affirmation, I exclaimed, "I thought you made that up."


My friend assured me that his imagination wasn't sufficiently perverse to invent such a thing. And my imagination is inadequate to the task of devising an explanation for the fact that there are people in this country still willing to fight on behalf of the government that rules us.


Be sure to listen to Pro Libertate Radio each weeknight from 6:00-7:00 Mountain Time (7:00-8:00 Central) on the Liberty News Radio Network.













Available at Amazon.com












Dum spiro, pugno!


61 comments:

Andrew said...

The great Bill Kauffman wrote about this at some length in "Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism" (2008). He noted, "George W. Bush, a putatively 'pro-family' president, has in fact pursued military policies that are profoundly, heart-wrenchingly, antifamily. This, really, ought to be a central indictment against Bush: he is, by policy, the most antifamily president in American history" (p. 216).

Meet the new boss...

liberranter said...

Child abuse and neglect is a non-issue in the eyes of the Totalitarian State as long as it is the by-product of some act of "greater good" that enhances the State's power. I remember some years back overhearing the queen of neoconservative "family values", Dr. Laura Schlessinger, berate a caller to her program who was in precisely the same predicament as Alexis Hutchinson and Simone Holcomb. At first I foolishly expected that this self-proclaimed "pro-family" shrink, who could always be counted on to bloviate and harangue callers endlessly about children being a parent's number one priority, would tell the caller to do what was in her child's best interests. Instead I heard this hypocritical fraud tell her caller something to the effect of "you signed on the dotted line, you accepted the responsibility of putting on the uniform, now go do your duty." But what else would one expect from a statist, Bush-worshiping, Warren Terra-boosting member of the MSM? After all, this the woman who cheered the decision made by her only son to enlist in the imperial legions to go slaughter Ay-rabs in Iraqhanistan. (Recall, also, young Deryk Schlessinger being being investigated by the Army a couple of years ago for allegedly posting on his MySpace page photos taken at Abu Ghraib of rape, murder, torture, and child molestation, an investigation that was quitely closed without resolution.)

As for poor little Kamani Hutchinson, he's being victimized by two evil, child-abusing arms of the State: the military and Child Abduction Services, not to mention his own mother's obviously less-than-stable extended family. Assuming that he survives his encounters with any of these forces, this little boy is going to need LOTS of help and prayer.

Anonymous said...

will,

i don't see why they could have made concessions for her. there is always a Rear Detachment and I know of one soldier who got to stay back because she had two deployments. Worse come to worse, they could have chapter 8d her out and have avoided this mess. mind you i only have what is written here but this is wrong.

on the other hand, this is what happens when you have a child out of wedlock.

rick

Kent McManigal said...

Just another example of how completely disgusting and without merit the state is. These kids are being sacrificed to the god of the state. I believe no responsible parent would enlist in the first place if they value their childrens' lives.

Anonymous said...

Yet more examples of why nobody should enlist. I've been there, done that long ago, and can tell you a more dysfunctional bunch I've yet to rub shoulders with. If you were forced by a draft, now that I'm older and wiser, I'd simply do nothing. They can toss you in the slammer but they can't make you pull a trigger if you stick to your principles. Who cares what they say they'll DO to you. It's all a lie and at least you'll be alive come time they boot you out. Still, having seen GW, Cheney, and their ilk, and the tragedy they've wrought on all of us, I regret all the more any support I gave that crew of liars before I finally snapped awake. May God forgive me.

Anonymous said...

Whats even more disgusting is that as sure as the sun rises in the east my Bible believing brethren will gather on Sunday and lift up prayers of thanks for the military and all the "freedoms" it has guaranteed.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whats even more disgusting is that as sure as the sun rises in the east my Bible believing brethren will gather on Sunday and lift up prayers of thanks for the military and all the "freedoms" it has guaranteed."
And when I heard my "pastor" say that we had to obey the state no matter what, was the day I, and my wife left. Good luck in America finding a non statist church, we have been to one in Milwaukee, pastored by Matt Trewhella, and one in Colorado, which has since dissolved. The remnant is truly small.
Wayne B.

Jim O'Connor said...

What do people imagine it means to sign up for the US Military? It isn't like any of this is new. We've been a world imperial power for 100 years now. You can't dominate the world if you let those you're paying to do it off easy. Sets a bad precedent. Insert Dread Pirate Roberts quote here.

Anonymous said...

You make some good points, but I think the military has the stronger argument. Anybody who signs up KNOWS they're signing themselves away, and they have no rights save the right to take orders, until such time as they're released. If you don't want that, don't take the king's shilling. All of these people are adults and are capable of making decisions for themselves. If you have or want kids, don't join this military. Simple.

whitebuffalo said...

Let me prefix my comments by saying that as an ex-Marine (they say there is no such thing as an ex-Marine only former Marines, yet I unabashedly denounce my service in the USMC) I completely reject militarism, imperialism, Fascism, and corporatism (pardon the redundancy). However, if I hear the term "single mom" used in a compassionate way one more time I will scream!!!! It is correct to say that these women should be moms first (just as men should be fathers first and not fools of the state) yet these tax-feeders wanting the taxpayers to support them while pretending to be equals as they demand special privileges is despicable. Single moms should not be looked at with pity; rather they should be looked at with contempt. The majority of "single moms" are such because of the choices they alone made and now their children must suffer because of their mother's irresponsibility.

Anonymous said...

Well, there is a silver lining to this story . . .

For centuries men have been trotted off to the state's killing fields while the women were left safely behind. Unfortunately, the last 40 years of feminist mentality, both from women and men with misplaced chivalry, has lead to this situation.

In this country men are routinely trotted out of their homes and their children's lives on the flimsiest of pretexts. Maybe it is about time the true cost of feminist political thinking is due and payable.

Unfortunately, once again, it is the kids that pay the greatest price.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Anonymous said...

This wouldn't be the same WhiteBuffalo commenting over on Vox Day would it? He..he..he! Now that would be interesting

I believe that a lot of bad decisions have been made by women. Namely they hook up with worthless men who don't stick around to take care of their "handiwork". It takes two to tango and sadly the one with the balls, and the one who should be responsible, is missing his. I've also seen wymmin folk run out on their spouse and children leaving the dad to raise the kids. Far more infrequent but it still happens. Do we disparrage single dads for their worthless wives? I would say this... that the military should be the last place you want to have a family.

Anonymous said...

why should anybody worry about the fate of the willing murderess' bastard offspring?

make no mistake - people who enlist are quite aware that they will be told to kill, and are willing to follow the orders to kill.

why should we feel any sympathy to them - or their families?

Anonymous said...

What a crazy world. Pregnant women in military hatching jackets sent off to fight. And single women casually getting knocked up and expecting others to tend to their children. Insanity.

Puck T. Smith said...

Will,

Re: Maternity BDUs.

Based on your previous article I'm forced to conclude that the Spartans were more moral than our leadership. At least they didn't claim the children until after they were born.

Anonymous said...

whitebyffalo,

not all "single moms" are single moms by choice. divorce brings this about as well as death. if the military is to have a policy of putting out those who have children out of wedlock, then it needs to address the men i uniform who are the sperm donors as well.

i'd like to see a return to when being pregnant meant go take care of your kid, the army is not as important. but as you were alluding to, we're gotten so politically correct that institutions are afraid to re-adopt such a policy.

on the same token, if we adopt this policy for single mothers, we must adopt it for single fathers.

break...

will,

one thing i will say in "slight" defense of the commander of the unit; i assume she had that child while in the military. when she became pregnant she had the option of getting out then under chapter 8. it would have been an honorable discharge and the like. but it appears that she chose to stay in which meant she stated that she had a family care plan. thus she holds full responsibility for this mess that has befallen her. however, they should have just put here out of the army. to know she had no family care plan, and then to order her off to war is just stupid. that's on the commanders who did that. it might have been hard to replace her, but trying to send a message at the expense of that child is not wise, and has already backfired.

rick

Anonymous said...

If she KNEW she could not serve, she should not have VOLUNTARILY signed up for military service in the first place. This is now all her problem due to her bad decision.

GunRights4US said...

I'm a former Marine (I will NEVER renounce my Corps as another poster has done) I can honestly say I have nothing but pure hatred in my heart for my government.

That being said, the people that join the armed forces did NOT do so to further the aims of a corporist, statist, regime. They believed (for the most part) that they were and are doing honorable service to their nation. So I would rather that the vitriol be reserved for the evil leadership that has corrupted the mission of these men and women.

As for the residue of people who join "for a job" or for "benefits", they are no better than the trough feeders at the local WIC/Welfare office.

Motherhood and military service are incompatible. Always have been...always will be. If you had a libertarian minded republic with a perfect constitutional bent (hold your breath - never happen) you would STILL need strong men, armed and ready to DEFEND that republic! These women who train with their unit as part of a team, and then desert the team when time comes to earn their paycheck (do their duty?)...well...they are just as repugnant to me as the Obongos and W's of the world.

Bryan said...

In Atlanta this morning on Dave 92.9 fm, one of the DJs, "Barnes", commented after the reading of the news story of Alexis Hutchinson's arrest that "I don't think this woman is smart enough to fight for our freedoms." What a fool!

On a related note, I visited Snellville First Baptist outside of Atlanta a while ago to find two huge banners on either side of the stage. One the left was a bust image of a young female soldier holding her rifle and on the other side, the ever annoying slogan, "Freedom isn't Free." I was absolutely disgusted.

Bryan said...

Correction: It was Jimmy Baron on the morning show of 92.9 Dave FM who commented on Alexis Hutchinson.

Anonymous said...

Our military is currently all VOLUNTEER. If she enlisted knowing she was a single mother, sucks to be her. If she divorced her husband or he died after she enlisted, she could have likely gotten a hardship discharge. To agree with her disobeying orders is an example of how self-centered people are in this country. Personal responsibility no longer exists in this country.

Anonymous said...

The military is "all volunteer". Every military member is well aware of the requirement that they be deployable, and is required to have contingency plans for care of minor children. I'm fairly certain that all military members sign agreements to that effect.

This is a case of a woman who volunteered, accepted payment, and yet, when the time came to fulfill her end of the bargain, she backed out.

How to handle such cases?

Simple: Dishonorable Discharge, forfeiture of all pay, allowances and privileges, a year in prison and REIMBURSEMENT of all pay received to date.

While there's no doubt that the misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan are black eyes to the political establishment, that does not excuse individuals from the duty for which they volunteered.

More to the point, if women are not going to be treated "equally" in the military (i.e. required to take front-line combat positions) they should not be paid "equally" for doing a lesser job. Studies abound documenting the fact that women cannot do most of the jobs that are essential to military operations. They simply lack the strength.

Make an example of this slacker. Let other welfare cases understand in advance that they will be required to do the job they've agreed to do.

Anonymous said...

In the 80s, as an 0341 serving in 'Suicide Charley' Company, 1st Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment at
Camp San Mateo in Camp Pendleton, I was meritoriously promoted to corporal and sergeant in the USMC.

And I'm also another ex-Marine who has completely renounced his service, and I am proud for doing so.

Now I'm a leader in an underground rebel guerrilla unit.

"Sometimes a man pushed too far must spit in his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats."

-H.L. Mencken

Warren said...

The only thing that is bugging me here is the when you join our volunteer corps is that you sighn a contract. I completed my contract and got out, they make it very clear that your life isn't yours while your there. I do feel for her but she signed the contract. I think the problem is that they (females)are there in the first place. I can't tell how many times I saw a new female show up on base that was showing within six months. How can this be anything but discouraging to morale? Any who. I don't come down on the side of our leviathan state because I see the decay but in this case... she knew the rules. They pound this stuff into you in basic training.

And I always think of the admonition to 'be a good servant'. so this 'good servant' served and got the heck out when the opportunity arose.

God bless

liberranter said...

why should anybody worry about the fate of the willing murderess' bastard offspring?

Um, how about because decent, thinking human begins (with whom you are obviously unfamiliar) would never dream of holding a toddler culpable for the transgressions of his parents, or want to see him suffer because of them? Granted, this in no way implies that "we" (whatever the hell that collectivist abstraction is supposed to mean), as disinterested strangers, are responsible for that child's fate or are in any way obligated to assume the responsibilities of parents who are too immature or irresponsible to do so themselves. But little Kamani Hutchinson and other children who share his predicament didn't ask to be born out of wedlock to irresponsible, short-sighted parasites who expect the world to mop up their messes when they fail at life. Heap all the scorn, hatred, contempt, and punishment you want upon Alexis Hutchinson, who clearly deserves it, but leave her innocent child out of it. Only a sadistic, mindless collectivist-nihilist believes in collective punishment, or would see innocent children punished for adult transgressions.

Anonymous said...

Santee

Volunteer Service = pay, benefits, combat(for certain presently). If you do not, or cannot live up to the contract then get out. But, do not continue to stay in and expect the service to build its world around you.

Ain't my America, then manup and vote to change it, or sit the hell down and shut up.

William N. Grigg said...

The following point, or some variant thereof, has been made by several people commenting on this thread:

If you do not, or cannot live up to the contract then get out. But, do not continue to stay in and expect the service to build its world around you.

I ask this question in all sincerity: How can someone "live up" to a contract that only binds one of the parties? The government is free to re-define key elements of that agreement to suit its purposes; when the enlistee does so, he/she faces severe criminal sanctions.

It's also important to point out that the problems described above aren't limited to single, never-married mothers (or single parents of either sex), but also afflict conscientious two-parent "service couples" who find themselves put into impossible situations.

Josh Parris said...

Mr. Grigg (or anyone else),

I remember reading somewhere that the Carnegie Endowment for War (i meant peace, excuse me) did a study, I want to say it was before the "War to End All Wars," that war was the best and most effective way to transform entire societies. Could you point me in the direction of a link or something? I would like to read more about this study.

One thing my dad has always said to me, most recently at the state fair of Texas, when we were seeing hundreds of police and sheriff's personnel (handing out police badge stickers to little kids, interestingly enough. Thy had even set up dozens of tables, over 50 yards long, in which they tried to get kids to come talk to them, get stickers and other goodies, etc.) was that the Insider's really were great at what they do (not that either of us agree with their evil and horrible plans for humanity, obviously). I remarked that its pretty easy when you control all of the media and the vast majority of the educational outlets. I was feeling pretty depressed at that moment anyway, as I was wearing my "END THE FED" shirt and only one person out of the ten thousand I saw made any remark to it. Most looked at me with a puzzled look on their face, then went back to their deep fried cuisine.

Warren said...

True Will, I'd hate to be put in the both deployed situation but that's one of the many reasons I got out.

The way I understood the contract was that I would give them 4 active and 4 inactive years of my life and they would give me 4 year of food, clothing (crappy camo stuff to be sure, or super uncomfortable dress) and a place to sleep ( I was AF so the place I slept was pretty nice) and a moderate salary. I fulfilled the contract for my part and in my eyes they fulfilled their part as well.

It's definitely changed since I got out in 96 but I still find it hard to understan how they couldn't waiver someone out of their tours. That was the most common thing in the AF while I was there. We had plenty of volunteers for TDY so it almost never ended up that a mom had to leave jr behind. It seems there was a waiver for everything. They've got (or at least had) the channels for help if you need it. Breaking their rules is bad form especially if they still have all of the helps they had when I was in.

Kind of feel dirty defending them but...

Man, you can sure make a lot of typos on this thing and the visible text is insufficient to catch them before posting... grrr.

Warren said...

Oh yeah. I do remember a few quips by the more senior folks when talking to their female underlings.

"Children are not military issue". It always came off as a joke but not. In a sense though, they are not and are. The military doesn't endorse pregnancy nor do they keep the men and women separate so these things can be expected.

There is a worse alternative unfortunately and I'm a bit disturbed that I've come to it; they could demand abortions since children aren't military issue. contractually you're military property and you've just made yourself less useful to the military. ouch, I guess it could always be worse.

Peace

Anonymous said...

Josh Parris, in answer to your question about the Carnegie Endowment, do a search for information about the aborted Reece Committee, which was formed in 1953 to investigate tax exempt foundations.
There is a video interview of Norman Dodd, who was director of research for the Reece Committee, done in 1982 by G. Edward Griffin. I believe that interview can be found on YouTube. Actually here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHM

RCozine

whitebuffalo said...

"not all 'single moms' are single moms by choice. divorce brings this about as well as death. if the military is to have a policy of putting out those who have children out of wedlock, then it needs to address the men i uniform who are the sperm donors as well."

According to the ABA 70% of divorces are filed by women. How many of these filings are due to the husband's infidelity or him committing domestic abuse? Not many I would say. At about 7-10 years into a marriage the modern woman decides she doesn't want the man around and either leaves or, using the Justice System (sic), forces him out. I challenge you to assess the 'single moms" you know personally and see how many of these "victims" are single moms because of some evil man or because of the choices they themselves made. A man cannot "donate" sperm without the consent (read: choice) of the woman (OBVIOUS disclaimer: except for rape).

Doug Newman said...

When I saw Cheney's name, my immediate thought was: Why can't these women claim "other priorities" as a reason to not abandon their kids?

I mean, like, Cheney did it and he got to be VP.

whitebuffalo said...

"I'm a former Marine (I will NEVER renounce my Corps as another poster has done) I can honestly say I have nothing but pure hatred in my heart for my government.

That being said, the people that join the armed forces did NOT do so to further the aims of a corporist, statist, regime. They believed (for the most part) that they were and are doing honorable service to their nation. So I would rather that the vitriol be reserved for the evil leadership that has corrupted the mission of these men and women."

How can you have hatred for your government yet be proud of your service as that very same government's hit-man? I plead with you to read Smedley Butler's War is a Racket.

The current crop of young people in the military may not have signed up to " further the aims of a corporist, (sic) statist, (sic) regime. They believed (for the most part) that they were and are doing honorable service to their nation."

Yet undeniably that is exactly what they are doing - serving the corporatist stateist regime. America's youth have been beguiled. But that is, as any good parent would agree, the fault of their own parents' love for "bread and circuses" over their God given love of their own children. Our Founding Fathers feared and loathed a Standing Army. And so it should be with every Liberty loving human being.
The USMC is not an "Expeditionary Force". It is an Imperial Army. And I say a soldier is only Honorable when he defends his own country. When the same soldier attacks another man's country he forfeits his honor. There is no "duty" to sacrifice for the State. There is only duty to serve your family, your neighbors, and your fellow man. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

By the way, as to the slogan, "Semper Fi' (Always Faithful), I ask to what, or whom, are Marines supposed to be swearing to be faithful to?!

Anonymous said...

Enough with this nonsense that says you're "their property". Unless you truly view yourself as a willing slave then that bit of intellectual vomit is ludicrous and a clear sign you are nothing but a boot licking totalitarian. Notice, as Will has said time and again, that one side of the party can, and does, at will change the terms of said "contract" while binding the other side to its ever shifting Faustian bargain. You are not their property and you can end it by simply refusing to obey. Only obedience, like a dog, binds you. Sure, that means "punishment" by these rat bastards, and censure, but who cares when you realize the deal is bent. In the real world they repo cars, foreclose houses, shutter businesses, delcare bankruptcy, etc. etc. So why can't you say "enough is enough" regardless of your marital status or innocent children who get tossed into the mix? Is Uncle Sam and his glorious Legions somehow "holy" and not to be crossed? What fictitious freedoms do these faux freedom fighters pretend to defend? You must somehow think they own you already. SLAVE! I'm amazed, as an ex military man, at how brazen and cold blooded the attitude of people in uniform even after decades of my departure from the military's all embracing smother. And enough with the childish propaganda about how noble and honorable "service" is with these murderers and their lying recruiters. They're worse than used car salesmen pushing "D" paper on the poor and ignorant.

Anonymous said...

white buffalo,

statistics aside, let's apply some common sense here. does this woman looks like she filed for divorce to you?

being in the military, i see this a lot. usually new to the army enlisted females have casual sex with other soldiers and get pregnant. the male soldiers (whom i address as sperm donors) cut an run and leave the woman to raise the child on their own. IOT, the donated sperm and that's about it.

and one more point, i've seen this happen among officers as well.


will,

good point about both parents being in the military and having kids. IMO, if continued service is the desire, one should get out. this is possible. some actually choose this route.

that command group should have cut this girl some slack or cut her loose.

rick

Ivanna Mann said...

Of course, if they would throw out the broads and let gays into the military, as every other military (including Israel) in the world does, (excepting Turkey,) the problem of pregnant female soldiers would not arise. Everyone would walk around with contented silly smiles on their faces.

Not only that, but the Greek gay-buddy legions were the most ferocious and best fighters in their Army. A man will die much sooner defending his lover than his President.

Thank aboudt it.

Then we had the case of Soldier of the Year Jose Zuniga:

"A staunch Republican and patriot who loved the Army, Sergeant Zuniga was a military journalist who served in the Gulf War and was honored as the Sixth Army's 1993 Soldier of the Year. A gay man whose wife was a lesbian, he had been hiding his sexual orientation behind the "happily married" facade. But living a duplicitous life was increasingly hard on him, and his crisis of conscience was dramatically resolved when he delivered a coming-out speech during the gay/lesbian demonstrations in April 1993 in Washington, D.C., before an audience of nearly a million*. The Army reacted swiftly, stripping him of his rank and threatening him with a court-martial for a minor uniform infraction."

* I'd like to see a straight man with that much guts - to open his soul, and risk his entire career and family affection and life to date, in front of the Capitol before a crowd of one million.

Sic Semper Fidelis.
Ivanna Mann.

whitebuffalo said...

Rick writes:

"white buffalo,

statistics aside, let's apply some common sense here. does this woman looks like she filed for divorce to you?

being in the military, i see this a lot. usually new to the army enlisted females have casual sex with other soldiers and get pregnant. the male soldiers (whom i address as sperm donors) cut an run and leave the woman to raise the child on their own. IOT, the donated sperm and that's about it."

Rick, you have just reinforced my point - this woman is a single mom because of the choices she alone made. Again, it was her choice to allow a man (or men) to "donate sperm" to her and just walk away. Her choice, her responsibility.

whitebuffalo said...

MoT writes:

"This wouldn't be the same WhiteBuffalo commenting over on Vox Day would it? He..he..he! Now that would be interesting"

I've never been to that website (until now, to see what you were talking about). So, no, that is not me.

uilodomhnaill said...

The"Family", not unlike religion and government, is a primary tool of the control junkies who work so very hard to destroy individual freedom! That's why religion and government have always worked so hard to integrate it into their power structures.

Rocky Eades said...

Re: "Volunteer" military. Many posters have tried to make a big deal about the so-called "Volunteer" military. If the military were, in fact, "volunteer", then those who "volunteer" would be just as able to "un-volunteer". And as Will has pointed out, the "contract" which an enlistee enters into is, in fact, no contract at all; it is a document of enslavement.

uilodomhnaill said...

Those who do the killing are responsible for their actions. No way to get away from responsibility for one's own actions.

dixiedog said...

I'll just say that I agree with most of the gist of what the veterans above have already stated. I do, however, take issue with WB's generalization of "single moms" as if every single mom in existence is one by choice. I gather that he was specifically speaking of the military women who splay themselves far too often without any thought of potential future consequences, or in some cases knew full well what they were attempting to do - get out of hated assignments. It was beginning to get bad when I was in the AF ('84-'90), as I was in a GLCM squadron and not many women wanted to be assigned to a GLCM squadron, but I reckon it's pandemic today. Sparta did do one thing right, they gifted us with the word "spartan" for a reason ;).

Nevertheless, just in case he meant any and all single moms, I had/have a single mom and it was my dad, who didn't know or much care to learn how to be a real one, that made the choice of divorce for my mother a no brainer. No matter, though, because, ironically in my case, it actually made me a more hardy fella growin' up and I could smash faces into the ground with the best of 'em in school since I had no dad or gang to back me up at any time. I was rough-hewn, somewhat articulate and well-read, yet I didn't really fit into any given clique (or collective), the "thug" set or the "clean cut" set. Thus, I'm not bitter about it today; I don't regret any of the hard knocks experienced and I forgave him. But, in the days of rough and rumble childhood yore I despised the man.

Unsurprisingly, the raising by a single mom probably has, however, contributed greatly to my cynicism and skepticism of folk in general and powerful folk in particular. And, of course, those traits have only been ever more fueled over the years. After all, we have the government that rules us precisely because we WANTED this government to rule us. Ergo, folk who yak endlessly about "the government that rules us" yet miss that critical realization must like watching their ass cheeks flutter as they blow the hot air because that's what they're doin'. The core of "the government that rules us" is filled with folk we went to school with, played sports with, went to church with perhaps, as they are our neighbors. It, particularly at the local and state Leviathanette level, generally reflects us.

dixiedog said...

Pertaining to your radio show last night, Will, I completely agree with your "government should have no say..." but reality is otherwise, naturally. What was it you said? "No skin off my back..." or something similar? It's simply not true. The problem (and it's the most polarizing, irreconcilable problem, IMHO) with this oft stated comment is that statist-minded factions of whatever flavor don't share that mindset. If they did, I'd be a reliable ally of ANY of them because I would know they wish not to compel me to conform to their BS mantra if I choose not to indulge. Lovely! I'm game for that. But...sigh...it's a pipe dream.

Even though some of these factions mouth off loudly how they believe in the "live and let live" principle, they act otherwise. It was indeed amusing watching the closet Leviathan lubbers, who masqueraded initially as "freedom" folk, when Ron Paul was speaking at Google in 2007. They were all smiles and grins when he first was introduced, but as he spoke and made clear his stand of the federal Leviathan having NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY whatsoever regulating ANY conduct/behavior/commerce within individual states or of individual people within those states, their grins and smiles melted away quickly and I laughed.

In reality, they want everyone compelled to live under their yoke provided by a Leviathan they (the "Leninist" collective) control. Thus, it simply can't (and won't) work within the same nation ruled by the same Leviathan, if "the individualist" doesn't agree and, most significantly, won't simply "go along to get along." That unfortunately is what will kill freedom ultimately, the "go along to get along" syndrome that way too many are afflicted with. After all, if it isn't some form of [Ecclesio-Leninist, Islamo-Leninist (unlike "Islamo-Fascist" there's some truth to this moniker), Lavender-Leninist, Pagan-Leninist, Eco-Leninist, Econ-Leninist, Socio-Leninist...Fourth Internationalist, et al] factions beckoning the State on their respective behalf, then other factions not named above will be. And, of course, some of those named factions above can be interwoven and work towards similar goals in terms of Leviathan regulation and control.

The fact is that some mindsets are diametrically opposed to one another, irreconcilable, although as alluded to above (e.g. the "Leninist" collective), all of the "Leninist" factions have one thing in common -- their love of and reliance upon Leviathan. But for individualist folk who believe in and manage to practice self-government, these folk will clash and cannot work together as the entire foundation/premise of "the collective" and "the individualist" mindset is worlds apart.

Anybody have a solution? The only solution I can see, humanly speaking, is to put this farrago asunder once and for all, but instead most of the impetus and mind-molding in progress for decades from entertainment media, news media, Leviathan's incubation chambers (schools), churches, corporations, etc. today is towards more collectivization, more regulation, more welfare, more war, more environmental alarmism and control, more techno-centralization, more centralization in general everywhere.

But then, when I step back and view the "big picture" I imagine the Author and Creator of the universe is really the One writing the script.

uilodomhnaill said...

WHAT KIND OF INDIVIDUALIST BENDS OVER FOR THE MYTHICAL CREATOR???

William N. Grigg said...

Where did you get the notion that faith entails "bending over" for anyone?

I can't see how assuming that human beings are mere matter in motion is a necessary prerequisite for individualism.

uilodomhnaill said...

It,of course is not bending over, for anyone,you are correct. It is compromising reality for mythology,which is the intellect bending over to the irrational. You are correct that you can't see it.

William N. Grigg said...

How is belief in the myth of abiogenesis more rational than acceptance of the scientific principle that life begets life?

Perhaps you should defer answering that question to deal with my still-pending query: How is belief that human beings are only matter in motion a prerequisite for individualism?

isaac stanfield said...

"The intellect" indeed. Good luck uilodomhnaill, I hope you're a talented intellectual pugilist.

whitebuffalo said...

Dixiedog days:

"I'll just say that I agree with most of the gist of what the veterans above have already stated. I do, however, take issue with WB's generalization of "single moms" as if every single mom in existence is one by choice. I gather that he was specifically speaking of the military women who splay themselves far too often without any thought of potential future consequences, or in some cases knew full well what they were attempting to do - get out of hated assignments."

Hey genius, where/when did I ever suggest that "WB's generalization of 'single moms' as if every single mom in existence is one by choice."?????!!!! I never said EVERY single mom in existence is one by choice, I am saying specifically that most single moms are such because of the choices they alone have made (again with the exception of rape).

Anonymous said...

"The government is free to re-define key elements of that agreement to suit its purposes;"

And that should be clear to anybody thinking about signing up. If it's not, then they're not a functioning adult.

It isn't really hidden what sort of deal this is. You're putting your life in their hands and trusting them to not do anything too terrible or pointless with it.

Tom Joad said...

uilodomhnaill,

You said: [The"Family", not unlike religion and government, is a primary tool of the control junkies who work so very hard to destroy individual freedom! That's why religion and government have always worked so hard to integrate it into their power structures.]

Then you said: [WHAT KIND OF INDIVIDUALIST BENDS OVER FOR THE MYTHICAL CREATOR???]

You have muddied the dialogue by equating human politics and human religions with the Creator of the Universe. Man does not even know how the Universe was created - the Big Bang is only a theory, and all Man's science breaks down as one comes closer and closer to that supposed hypothetical singular event.

In addition to proposing the Big Bang, Man has also proposed God. Man has created God in Man's own image. Man has also proposed economic theory, politics, and Man's ability to control Nature. But sufficient unto the present discussion is the absurdity thereof, without listing a Christmas catalogue of human folly.

Step outside some clear night and look up at the sky - qaudrillions of star systems across tens of billions of light-years of space. Yet one set of men says, it all happened by chance but we don't know how, and another set of men says, God made it and we can tell you what He thinks.

Both are arrogantly presumptuous. To think we ignorant and limited animals who call ourselves Man can understand it is foolish. Neither did it happen by chance and neither can our limited intellects understand the Creator of all of that.

So you are both right and wrong. You are right to challenge those who pretend to understand the Creator and all His works, but you are wrong to say the Creator does not exist. He/She/It is beyond our understanding. For proof, as I suggested, step outside some night and bend your stiff neck to look upwards.

If all you can see are little twinkilng lights, then you have my sympathy - you must live a very arid and depressing existence.

Tom Joad.

PS: If that still does not convince you, try this: Look into the eyes of a child that you love, and tell me that glorious being evolved from pond scum and is nothing more than so many gallons of water, so many ounces of sodium, so many pounds of calcium, and so on. Go on. Say it. If you can say that, you are denying your humanity.

Anonymous said...

I think the world has fogotten "why" war exists. It exists to defend the lives of our wives and children and our way of life.

That said, Women should never become solders and this problem shouldn't exist.

kirk said...

She knew before she signed up she could be sent anywhere, no one forced her to join and yet she did and now refuses to go.

Is the military now a form of working welfare wherein the member decides where, when and how they will be posted?

I have nothing but contempt for this woman. She made the choices to become a single mother AND join the military and now she expects others must pay to cover her poor choices. This, sadly, has become the amerikan way.

dixiedog said...

Hey genius, where/when did I ever suggest that "WB's generalization of 'single moms' as if every single mom in existence is one by choice."?????!!!!

You said: Single moms should not be looked at with pity; rather they should be looked at with contempt. The majority of "single moms" are such because of the choices they alone made and now their children must suffer because of their mother's irresponsibility.

Is the first sentence not a generalization? Implication, WB, implication. It is after all more potent than explication in the mind's eye.

I never said EVERY single mom in existence is one by choice...

Sigh...reading comprehension does help. I never said (wrote) you SAID (wrote) anything, until this post! Did you see yourself quoted in italics in the earlier post? No. I'll show that you SAID something by quoting what you actually indeed SAID, like I always have done here.

I wrote: I do, however, take issue with WB's generalization of "single moms" as if every single mom in existence is one by choice.

Then, I even qualified what I wrote above further: I gather that he was specifically speaking of the military women...

IOW, the totality of what you wrote implied the generalization that single women are such due to choices they alone have made.

Is it all clearer now? Please re-read what I wrote again and see if you come away with a different point of view.

Anonymous said...

None of this would be necessary if the US would simply cease meddling in other countries and stop its incessant wars. Such a change in foreign Policy would also prevent further revenge terrorist attacks.

Anonymous said...

"The following point, or some variant thereof, has been made by several people commenting on this thread:" - Will G.


"Is the military now a form of working welfare wherein the member decides where, when and how they will be posted?" - Kirk

Will's response, again, is useful here:

"I ask this question in all sincerity: How can someone "live up" to a contract that only binds one of the parties? The government is free to re-define key elements of that agreement to suit its purposes; when the enlistee does so, he/she faces severe criminal sanctions."

Statists (not sic) never seem to recall the other binding party in this "contract",i.e. the government.

Anonymous said...

wow,

I see a lot of comments like this one

"If she KNEW she could not serve, she should not have VOLUNTARILY signed up for military service in the first place. This is now all her problem due to her bad decision."

It is interesting to see just how many commenters here don't seem to believe in unalienable rights. I had been under the misapprehension that they were the basis for the legitimacy of the republic.


It seems to me that this:

" It's difficult to see how a government -- how a country -- capable of sending mothers into combat zones could be considered worthy of defense.

Says it all.

whitebuffalo said...

Dixiedog,

First let me offer you an apology for the snotty "Hey genius" comment. I try to always be polite and respectful but was a little peeved. Anyway, I apologize for the rudeness.

I don't want to belabor the point but as to your argument:

" You said: Single moms should not be looked at with pity; rather they should be looked at with contempt. The majority of 'single moms' are such because of the choices they alone made and now their children must suffer because of their mother's irresponsibility.

Is the first sentence not a generalization? Implication, WB, implication."

Yes, the first sentence is a generalization; that's why I clarified it with the second sentence using the term "the majority". Therefore the rest of your comments suggesting I meant ALL single moms are moot.

"Sigh...reading comprehension does help."

Yes, it certainly does.

Isaac said...

Anonymous @ 6:35
I think the world has fogotten "why" war exists. It exists to defend the lives of our wives and children and our way of life.
In order to suppress the gag reflex, I will take this as sarcasm.

dixiedog said...

First let me offer you an apology for the snotty "Hey genius" comment. I try to always be polite and respectful but was a little peeved. Anyway, I apologize for the rudeness.

Bah, I don't pay that stuff any mind. No sweat of my back, man. Besides, I usually can recognize written sarcasm anyway ;).

Speaking of implication, I think I owe Will an apology for my "ass cheeks" comment, which after I re-read the post seemed to be aimed directly at Will since he often says, "government that rules us." But actually I was writing about folk who look upon government and the common folk collective as separate unrelated entities with nothing in common. Since I hear Will say it so often on his radio show I just utilized that as a knee-jerk catch phrase to describe such folk without thinking it through.

I'm sorry Will. I didn't mean it to reference YOU personally in that sense. I think you personally do see the reality, but just don't want to indict the common folk too much, which is understandable from your point of view ;).