As he left the Constitutional Convention Dr. Franklin was asked what manner of government the founders had bestowed upon us. He answered, "A Republic, if you can keep it!"

"As we celebrate Constitution Week (Sept. 17-23), it would be wise to heed Franklin's challenge. A constitutional republic is not an easy form of government to maintain. It requires wise leaders more interested in the public good than in holding and using power. It requires an enlightened citizenry that understands and exercises its rights and duties and is willing to fight to preserve them. Moreover, both wise leaders and enlightened citizens must arise with each new generation, prepared and able to make the system work."

John Cooke, Marshall Croddy

Thursday, September 21, 2006

San Franciso Chronicle

These guys have it right. We need to understand that our much loved Republic is fragile. It requires constant attention to its care and feeding. Patriots cannot assume that it will survive on its own with no effort on their part. The coming elections are just a battle in the war for the hearts and minds of generations to come. We must not let setbacks or poor showings blunt our zeal or our will. We will step up and see to it that this great experiment in government that our founders bequeathed us lives on and prospers, in spite of those who would subvert it. As an afterthought, make sure the schools in your area are actually teaching the Constitution as it is during this time. Offer to lecture or form discussion groups with students and young people. They are the future. They must carry the fight when we are no longer able or here to do it for them. They must be made to understand that this really is the greatest nation on God's earth and its survival is worth the fortune, the blood and the honor of each and every one of us.

“Subject to and under the authority of Presidential Security Directive 9999 (or whatever), you are ordered to be detained for investigation relating to activities deemed dangerous to the national security.”

Are any of us likely to hear this utterance reminiscent of Nazi Germany or soviet Russia? Who knows? Posse Comitatus forbids the use of the military on US soil to enforce civilian law. Of course Posse Comitatus is a fragile thing at best. There are already God knows how many Executive Orders that provide for the suspension of Posse Comitatus in times of national emergency. How safe are we?

None of the previous Presidents seemed to want or desire to take that last fatal step into tyranny and oppression of the masses. It seemed a very remote possibility. Until now…

I am not a conspiracy nut nor do I spend much time dwelling on the hundreds of FEMA detention centers around the country. There may well be some nefarious purpose for them, but as yet, there doesn’t seem to be any way of actually implementing the process of rounding up “enemies of the state.” The military is something of an enigma. It is hard to say how many officers and soldiers would simply refuse to obey an order to detain or , heaven forbid, fire on American citizens.

When men and women join the military service they are required to take an oath. That oath is as follows:

“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

On the surface this is pretty cut and dried, but let’s look at it more closely. The new soldier swears (or affirms) to support and defend the Constitution, not the President or the Governor, or anybody else… just the Constitution. He or she further swears (or affirms) to bear true faith and allegiance to that same Constitution. Then things get dicey. They further swear (or affirm) that they will obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over them.. Yet, this phrase is not as simplistic as one would first surmise. There are qualifiers for that obedience. The orders will be followed according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Here things get more interesting. The UCMJ requires uncompromising obedience to all lawful orders whether from the President or some other official or ones officers. The penalties for disobeying a lawful order are swift, and in time of war, life threatening. A soldier can literally be executed for disobeying a direct order …. a direct lawful order. Additionally, a soldier is required by that same UCMJ to disobey an unlawful order. Wow! Pretty heady stuff! Now it comes down to what constitutes a lawful order. Disobeying any order can place a solders well-being at peril. The definition of what makes an order lawful or unlawful lies not with the soldier or good conscience or public opinion, but with the whims of the military court deciding the issue. Talk about subjective truths. The soldier is literally in the hands of a group of officers who may or may not be in a generous and forgiving mood.

This is scary for most military men and women. Some few could care less. They will do whatever they are told and let someone else deal with the consequences. How many times have soldiers in trouble used the old “ I was just following orders?” This is not, however, a defense. Just ask Lt Calley. None the less, this attitude does exist in the military and it is troublesome. Thankfully, most of the men and women in the military have some sense of what is right or wrong. Will that sense override their oath to obey their President and officers? Interesting question. I think in the clutch it will. Having been in the military, and coming from a military family, I believe that the men and women we trust our very lives and freedom to will rise to the occasion.

BUT…..

During the 2008 campaign in Colorado, our goofy President made the following statement: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

WHAT? Does this bother anyone other than myself? What exactly is the One proposing here? It would seem that he is painfully aware of what we have been discussing here. The military would probably balk at anything like violating Posse Comitatus. So how is an ambitious President going to rein in those pesky activist citizens that oppose his benign “rule”? Well, let’s see. Hitler and Stalin had a similar problem. They solved it by creating the largest most oppressive “civilian security force” in history. Uh wait. Isn’t that what Obamaroo is suggesting? So, if you can’t rely on the military to do your dirty deeds, you create a civilian security force that is bigger than the military, better equipped, better funded, and wholly answerable to the President alone.

What are the chances of this happening? Slim and none? Maybe not. Under the present regime, it is possible. Reid and Pelosi would probably go along as would most of the Democratic tiddlywinks and the RINOs in the house and senate. It would take some doing but it could be done. After the elections of 2010 it becomes very unlikely. So what can we expect in the near future? Who knows, but I shall be watching very closely.

I printed out the core concepts of the Tea Party. They closely match the core planks of the Constitution Party platform. I suspect this may be coincidence rather than a case of anything sinister or dishonest. Like minds think similar thoughts and have similar values. I thought I might take each core concept and spew forth my two cents worth. As usual, I don’t expect, nor do I wish, blind agreement with what I have to say. Civil disagreement and discourse is the hallmark of a healthy society. Only lemmings have universal agreement and look at what it gets them … a suicidal dip in the ocean.

#1 ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE HERE ILLEGALLY.

Well, yes. Federal law makes it a misdemeanor crime to enter the country without proper documentation and authority. Illegal aliens are criminals by definition. Remember, I previously stated that words have distinct meanings. The accepted definition of a criminal is one who commits a crime or has been convicted of committing a crime. The noun is unambiguous. If you commit a crime, you are a criminal and your act was illegal.

Excuses such as “we take jobs American won’t take” are just that, excuses. They do nothing to mitigate the crime. This is nothing more than an attempt to justify the illegal behavior. And the “reconquista” concept is also an illegal attempt to justify criminal acts. The fact that the southwest United States was acquisition by conquest is of no importance in the discussion of illegal immigration. How the land came into the possession of the United States has no bearing on the commission of a crime. The land was ceded to the US as a result of military action against the government of Mexico. Right or wrong, the land in question is internationally recognized as being part of the United States. To enter the area in question under the premise that it still belongs to Mexico is ludicrous … and still illegal.

The last time I checked, one who applies for citizenship must swear or affirm that they have no criminal history that would disqualify them for citizenship. Since we have ascertained that entering the country without proper documentation or permission is a criminal act, it would seem to me that illegal aliens have, by their own criminal act, removed any hope of becoming legal immigrants or citizens. Amnesty therefore is a moot point. One does not reward criminal behavior.

#2 Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable

While this statement is undeniably true, how we deal with the problem is another can of worms. Most companies are now multinationals. They are going to move their manufacturing or service operations wherever it costs the least and maximizes profit. This is a fundamental concept of capitalism. The companies cannot be faulted for trying to keep their stockholders happy. One the other hand, this behavior can understandably be seen as unpatriotic by some. The only way I can see to attract new manufacturing jobs, or jobs of any type, is to improve the economic climate for companies. Since it is not beneficial to reduce wages and as a result the standard of living, we must look to other means for attracting business. This is generally done by reducing the tax burden on businesses such that they can afford to pay higher wages and still retain profitability. Taxing success is detrimental to economic health. Punishing companies for being profitable is counterproductive and kills the hopes of generating new jobs that pay a decent wage. Taxes of any stripe are the antithesis of a healthy economy. Returning the federal government to it’s constitutional sources of income would be a great start to economic recovery.

#3 Stronger Military Is Essential.

This is a subject that is dear to my heart. I may seem to be digressing from the core premise here, but I will do so in any event.

Yes, a strong, technologically superior military is vitally necessary to our survival as a nation. It is only by demonstrating that we have the power and will to protect ourselves that we provide for our way of life and that of our children. We must be ever vigilant and prepared to take forceful action against those who would cause us harm. Investment in the people and equipment is imperative to secure our peace.

Having said that, I would caution against the misuse of the military power we underwrite as citizens. The decades following World War II found the government to be abandoning the self defense aspect of a strong military and moving toward a “projection of political will” instead. Thus, in Korea, Viet Nam, and other theaters of conflict, we were frequently found to be wasting young American lives on the alter of political expediency or worse, some politicians ego. We now find ourselves in the role of policemen to the world. We perform “nation building” and ”export democracy”, all by way of military force. This is WRONG! When discussing the need for a standing army, the founders were concerned about the role the military would play. They envisioned it as the protector of the land and people of the new nation. While it was true that early on we projected military power abroad, it was done to protect American citizens and property against those who would attack us first. The Barbary Pirates were one example. The Navy and Marines were dispatched to deal with the problem and did so with efficiency and alacrity. Then they came back home. We have no business expending the lives of our military men and women to satiate the ego of our commander in chief, or to benefit the special interests that permeate the halls of government. The military should be for the defense of the nation … period. Unless there is a compelling national security interest, we should keep our noses out of other countries business. I adhere to the premise “friend to those who would be our friend, protector of our own.” Please understand, I AM NOT A PACIFIST! I do however believe with all my heart that the lives of our warriors are sacred and should be spent reluctantly and with solemn respect for their sacrifice, honor, and courage.

I received yet another e-mail challenging my position that the Constitution, and indeed all founding documents, are most emphatically not living documents that must change in accordance with the needs of the society they govern. The person, who shall go unnamed here, insisted that societies needs supersede the wishes and ideas of a “bunch of old men” from the distant past. This in spite of the fact that these old men were some of the most astute and able thinkers of any period of history. Collectively, they probably have never been bested for their raw intellect and wisdom.

The unnamed also insisted that words evolve to mean different things to different people. I took umbrage and pointed out that if that really were the case, we would probably degenerate into a mute society, as eventually, words would have no common meanings at all and each person would ascribe whatever meaning he or she desired. Of course, our neighbor, who has a different lexicon, would be unable to make heads or tails out of what we were saying. The modern day equivalent of the Tower of Babel.

Of course this won’t happen. We will continue to generally give words common meanings that we can then use or abuse to our detriment. BUT, having said that, I would make an exception as to the written word. Once a thought or idea is put to paper (or parchment, or stone, etc.) the words are forever locked into the meaning in common usage of the time, evolution of the vocabulary notwithstanding. An example is in order I think.

I am old enough to remember a classic musical of the 1960’s, “West Side Story”. The story line and such is not really important to my point. Suffice to say it is a story of star-crossed lovers. A “modern” Romeo and Juliet if you will. At one point in the musical, Maria, the female lead played by Natalie Wood, sings a spirited song called “I Feel Pretty”. The lyrics as written were:

“I feel pretty, oh so pretty.

Oh so pretty and witty and GAY!”

OK. HOLD ON! Maria … GAY? Is she singing about being of the non-hetero genre? No, of course not. At the time the musical was written, gay meant happy, spirited or joyous. It had absolutely nothing to do with her sexuality. So in the context of the musical, the word gay means something totally different than it does today. Should the writers and creators of the music let their efforts become the property of a group who has usurped the word gay? I say NO! The written word is forever associated with the meaning in use at the time. Period, end of lesson.

I agree wholeheartedly with Justice Antonin Scalia. The Constitution is NOT a living document. Rather, it is an ENDURING document. His words, not mine. Believe me I wish I had come up with the line.

I am a 67 year old grump living in Royse City Texas. I have had the good fortune to have grown up during a time of war. World War II was concluding and patriotism was at a climax. We fought a major war and ACTAULLY FOUGHT TO WIN!

Then came Korea and Viet Nam and the concept of wars for bragging rights and Presidential legacy. My Father served in WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. Praise God he returned healthy and whole. My family was one of the lucky ones. I served in the United States Air Force.

Patriotism faded into history and it became fashionable to spit on our warriors and badmouth the country and it's policies. This was the birth of the "ME" generation. Selfish and arrogant the followers couldn't find enough bad to say about America.

I was a lifelong Republican as well as republican. That has changed. I am an ex-county coordinator for the Constitution Party of Texas. I have lapsed into inactivity there as it was discouraging trying to drum up interest in the Constitution and other founding documents. My attempts at organizing fell on deaf ears for the most part and I tired of the effort. I am one of those dinosaurs that believe the Constitution means the exact same today it did when signed and ratified. It is not a "living" document to be bastardized according to whim or popular opinion. I believe that the nation was founded on God's "natural laws" and if it is to survive, it must return to those precepts.

I still write articles on occassion, but even that has slowed markedly. I am of the opinion that most "Americans" could care less what happens to them. I sincerely hope I am wrong. Perhaps this November and the aftermath will reinvigorate my combativeness. For now, I am tired. I observe and sometimes comment. I no longer preach or teach (yes I actually lectured on the Constitution and such). My wife and I will not pass by a member of the Armed Forces without thanking them for their service. It's the least we can do.

Perhaps, someday in the future, I will be called on to give up my blood and my life for the country. I fervently hope I am not found to be lacking in will or character when that time comes.