I have been engaged in dialogue lately with fellow conservatives, many third party types, on the Constitutional Party Platform on Defense.  Among other things, I took issue with the allegation that the President of the United States assumes authority the Constitution does not give him to deploy forces without a declaration of war from Congress.  To summarize my argument, it takes special appropriations to fight a war and Congress makes those appropriations (not to mention passes resolutions authorizing the use of force), therefore there is no illegal assumption of authority.  Shame on Congress if they don’t declare war, but our separation of powers remains intact.  I shared the following account with them during the debate.  It’s not a hot topic, but I pass it on to redstaters in case there is interest.

Congressman J. Moran (KS-R) was a guest speaker on January 13, 2009 at the Command and General Staff College. He spoke for attribution, unlike the majority of our guest speakers.  During Q&A, one of the students stood up and asked (paraphrasing), “Is congress ever going to declare war again or are we going to keep fighting without ever declaring war?”

His response was very thoughtful. First, he laid the background for his answer with a discussion on the role of the Commander in Chief (CIC). He admited that the Constitution is not definitive on exactly what authority the CIC of the Army has and by no means are congressmen in agreement on their opinions.  If the Army is not going to do anything until congress declares a war, there is not a need for a CIC, the generals just take the Army to war after congress declares it. There are members of congress that think the executive branch has authority to do something with regards to troop movements, the limits just aren’t clear. In the end, there is a struggle between the two branches of government to find a balance.

Then he gave a very candid and seemingly sincere (he is a politician after all!) answer to the question. He admitted that no one in congress wants to declare war because it is politically unpopular. It is easier to just let the executive branch be responsible.  He elaborated on this a bit and then told us of some soul searching that he has done over the course of the “Iraq War”. He was one who voted for the authorization to use force in Iraq and has mulled that decision over in his mind quite a bit since then. He concluded that he would never again vote for an authorization to use force. He will either do his Constitutional duty, pushing for a declaration of war, which commits the entire nation to the cause, or not.

Fellow student, MAJ Richard Wellman gave a rundown of Congressman Moran’s visit in a blog, which included the following:

“He stated that he felt Congress has been remiss on how it handles its constitutionally mandated authority to declare war. The representative feels that Congress should make the hard decision to declare war instead of taking the easy way out by just authorizing the President to use force in the open-ended manner that has been occurring under the Bush Administration.”  

Find a complete rundown of Congressman Moran’s comments here.

FYI.

 Let me analyze the President’s recent attention on Rush in military terms.

One theory of war holds that the enemy has a Center of Gravity (COG), which is the hub of all his power. Take out the COG and you win the war. Usually a COG can’t be taken out in one decisive action, but rather happens by taking out intermediate Decisive Points (DP) that lead up to destruction of the COG.

It is clear that the left sees conservative talk radio as the conservative COG. The Fairness Doctrine may be the A-bomb that can take it out in one stroke…I don’t know. Regardless, the President’s attempt to alienate Rush from the GOP is obviously an attempt to achieve a DP in the overall campaign to take out the COG.

For anyone who thinks Rush doesn’t hold any influence with the conservative base, consider that the most powerful man in the world is actively campaigning against him.

Does anyone else think that a Conservative Political Organization (527) with the Rush Limbaugh brand and endorsement behind it can rally the conservative base to fight (financially) liberalism?  

Rush mentioned on his show the other day that maybe conservatives need a lobby.  There is a grass-roots effort, nascent at this point, to create a PAC with Rush’s weight behind it.  The first step is to get a message through to Rush.  If anyone has special access to him, please help get the messages below to him.  Everyone else, I request that you send Rush the following message, using the same subject line in order to draw attention and hopefully get it into his hands.  24/7 subscribers can use their private email on his website.  Everyone else can send to ElRushbo@eibnet.com.

Thanks in advance for anyone willing to help get this going.

Subject: RushOn.org PAC initiative

Dear Rush,

Are you interested in endorsing a grass-roots, conservative, Political Action Committee named RushOn.org?  Your endorsement as the former CINC of Operation Chaos, Founder of the EIB Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, etc, etc, would be key in rallying the conservative base to support this PAC and counter the leftist agenda of the new administration. 

The RushOn.org domain owner recently sent your legal department the following letter.  I understand he has also attempted to contact you via Private 24/7 email.  Many of us stand waiting to support a conservative PAC/Lobby with you’re the power of your brand and endorsement behind it. 

Please consider it and let him know. 

Respectfully,

[Own Name]

To: H. Newsom

Legal Department

Clear Channel Communications, Inc.

200 East Basse Road

San Antonio, TX 78209

Greetings,

I would like to ask permission to use the name RushOn.Org to launch a Conservative Political Organization. I would like you to please forward this request to Rush, himself for his consideration.

Being a 24/7 subscriber, I first saw the name RushOn.Org on the back cover of the Limbaugh Letter as a parody of MoveOn.Org. I tried to call up RushOn.Org on the Internet, but found that it did not exist. My initial instinct was to protect Rush’s good name, so I quickly purchased the RushOn.Org domain. I did not want some left wing nut job getting hold of it to post anything negative towards Mr. Limbaugh.

After acquiring the name I began to think that I might be able to use it to help Rush and the other Conservative talk radio hosts by fighting against the Fairness Doctrine. After further discussion with other conservatives, we agreed that such a site could form the basis for a true Conservative Political Organization (527) that could take on Conservative causes and help to fight against the Left Wing in a manner similar to MoveOn.Org. Other than the similarities in name and function, the methods and underlying motivation for RushOn.Org will be quite different than MoveOn.Org.

We currently have RushOn.Org up as an informational site only, with articles dedicated to Conservative topics. Now, with Mr. Obama telling Republians NOT to listen to Rush, I think the time is optimal for officially launching RushOn.Org. I would welcome any discussions Rush would like to have concerning the use of this website and/or Political Organization. Your quick attention to this request would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Dave

Increasingly often, I run across individuals who mistakenly believe that the underpinnings of socialism are the Christian values of love and charity, i.e. taking care of the poor and needy.  Invariably, they are good, well-intentioned individuals and it almost pains me to burst their bubble.  I don’t know what percentage of people who support liberal agendas do so misguidedly, but a concerted effort by conservatives to educate and convert them is in order.  The underpinnings of socialism are the non-Christian values of greed and control. 

“But, didn’t Jesus teach that we should give to the poor?”  Yes, here is what he taught:

Matt. 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Furthermore, he taught that giving to the poor should be a personal and private act. 

Matt 6:2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet …3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

 Alms by definition are voluntary contributions.  At no time did Jesus suggest that anyone should be compelled to give to the poor, or that his followers should forcibly take from one person in order to provide for someone less fortunate.  Rather, voluntary acts of charity are to spring from love — love towards God, and love towards neighbors.  Note again in the following passage that Jesus gives no hint of coercion or force:

Matt. 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom… 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me…

 

37 Then shall [they] answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?…

 

40 And the King shall answer … Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Jesus’ ideal of giving to the poor is very different from the socialist doctrine of taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots.  One doesn’t have to be a Christian to appreciate the differences.  Furthermore, socialism is not only antithetical to Christian values, it is also incompatible with the principles of our Constitution.  The following is one of the best descriptions of socialism that I’ve ever read and highlights the underpinning values of greed and control: 

Socialism… is the theory and practice of coercive collectivism.  It is the evil fruit of greed for other men’s possessions and greed for control over other men’s labor.

 

“This greed for goods and power is as old as man and as widespread as the human race.   It goes by many names, disguised in many forms, as men think up many excuses for robbing and ruling their fellows.

 

“Socialist theory is a modern excuse, an elaborate rationalization for this greed and for the organized looting and despotism it seeks to achieve.   But its materialism, its collectivist point of view, its reliance on violence and coercion, even most of its economics, are as old and as common as sin.

 

“It holds out to men the hope that they may reap where they have not sown.  It teaches that man is the creature of his environment, and that he may be happy and good if he gets enough wealth, regardless of how or where.  All that is needed, says the Socialist Tempter, is to bow down and worship the Socialist State, turning over to it authority and power to take wealth where it finds it and to direct labor as it wills.   Just a little class hatred, a little lying propaganda, a little violence on the picket lines, a little suppression of adverse critics, and a few generations of compulsory education in Socialistic thought, then surely we shall see the bright new day of equality, peace, brotherhood, and freedom!  So says the Socialist.” – Dr. V. Orval Watts, Political Economist, quoted by Ezra T. Benson, December 10, 1963, BYU Speeches of the Year

Socialism is about greed and control, not love and charity.  We need to get the word out and set the misguided straight.  We must aggressively counter what I perceive to be a growing trend to accept the principle of re-distribution of wealth.

(cross-posted at blogspot.com)

The Christmas truce of 1914 as detailed in a thought provoking article (read here) featured on Veterans Today touches on a few topics that are near and dear to my heart:

Enjoy this video clip from YouTube.

(cross posted at blogspot.com)

Although I intend most of my blogging to center Constitutional themes, inevitably occasion will impress me to offer up a thought or two with a military theme.  This entry is one of those exceptions.

After I posted the first entry to my diary, Redstate member Kenny Solomon posted a comment thanking me for my ongoing service and commitment.  Quite often, fellow citizens from all over the country who don’t know me thank me for my service after discovering I serve in the military.  Candidly, this embarrasses me.  I don’t serve for honor or recognition or expect any thanks for what I do, and I admit that I don’t handle compliments well either.  Nonetheless, the tremendous outpouring of support and appreciation directed towards service members by grateful compatriots is deeply touching and I dedicate this post to highlight a few personal examples and reciprocate a most heartfelt thanks to all who go out of their way to extend these sentiments.

The first time a perfect stranger ever thanked me for my service was on September 14, 2001.   I had been on active duty for just over six years.  My family was on vacation in California and September 11 still dominated our thoughts.  President Bush had declared a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance and at noontime, Disneyland ceased all activity to observe a moment of silence.  I didn’t know exactly what the implications of the attack meant for the military, but I knew there would be some.  Evidently, I was not the only one; later that day, a mother and daughter thanked me sincerely for my service.

This experience is now common.  Most of my military brethren report a similar trend.  However, the surge of support has not just been limited to expressions of gratitude. 

Sometime during my first week or two in Iraq, a couple of my Soldiers came into the shop, each carrying a US Postal Service Flat Rate Box (O-FRB1).  I marveled that their families were so quick to send them care packages.  It turned out that the packages were from one of the many, many organizations sending care packages to troops.  Over the course of my tour in Iraq I saw hundreds and hundreds of these care packages distributed.  I never had to buy toiletries by virtue of the abundance available from care packages.  I can’t think of anything we went without.  These packages contained everything imaginable: candy, chocolate, Twinkies, Oreos, chips, dips, cookies, crackers, summer sausages, snacks, knives, scarves, gloves, personal hygiene items, games, books, Christmas cards, Christmas trees, thank you letters…you name it, they sent it!  

I regret that I didn’t write down all of the organizations, churches, schools, businesses, and individuals from which I saw a package or letter flow through.  The list would be very long if I had.  I would like to be able to thank each one by name.  There were various Any-Soldier and Adopt-a-Soldier type organizations.  Many church groups, community organizations, and schools also contributed.  I read several books sent over by knife maker A.G. Russell.  His boxes also contained pocket-sized copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution along with an assortment of products (not cheap) from his own business.  A box arrived once that was full of handmade scarves.  I will always cherish the one made by Marilyn A. Borros of Lakewood, Ohio that I drew from the box. 

Finally, let me highlight the U.S.O.  Besides sending care packages and entertainers to Iraq, they organized one of the most touching experiences of my life at the Dallas Fort Worth Airport.  After deplaning, we walked through a long gauntlet of cheering airport workers and passengers on our way to customs.  Departing customs towards the buses that would take us to another terminal, we walked through an even longer, more densely packed gauntlet of boy scouts, cub scouts, girl scouts, brownies, athletic teams, veterans, and many other locals.  Applause thundered, cheers and thank-yous rang out, cameras flashed, flags waved, hands clapped our backs and shoulders, hands reached out to shake ours, gifts were pushed at us, personal cell phones were offered to make calls home, welcome back and thank-you banners were everywhere.  It was all I could do to maintain my composure and I lost it as soon as I was on the bus.  I choke up whenever I think of it.  A young Soldier exclaim as he walked onto the bus behind me, “I feel like a rock-star!  This makes it all worthwhile.”

You citizens who extend your support to the troops have done more to support the war effort than you probably realize.  Some people wonder why the Army consistently meets its recruiting goals despite long and multiple deployments – I don’t.

So to all who reach out and support us service members in your various ways, please accept my deepest gratitude and know that you’re efforts are not unnoticed and make a huge difference. 

Merry Christmas.

‘I, …, do solemnly swear 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.’  (US Code: Title 5, Part III, Subpart B, Chapter 33, Subchapter II, Sec. 3331)

This is the oath I took when commissioning as a Second Lieutenant in 1995 and three times since in conjunction with promotions.  I tend to agree with Abraham Lincoln who opined that no “transatlantic military giant” would ever invade our country and take over our government.  Rather, he said, “if [danger] ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad.  If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” (Lyceum Address, January 27, 1838)

I’m sure that many who took the oath of office often ponder on the concept of a “domestic enemy” to the Constitution.  Thus far, the Army has never called on me to support and defend the Constitution against a domestic enemy.  I imagine that insurrection or rebellion of some kind will be the only conditions under which they will do so.  However, I’ve come to the conclusion that an armed insurgency will not likely spring up within our borders, at least not during the remainder of my military career.   

Yet, the Constitution has always been in need of supporting and defending against fellow citizens who wittingly or unwittingly erode its foundations through political and/or social action.  As a citizen first, pledging allegiance to the flag, and a duly sworn defender of the Constitution second, I have attempted to do this my entire adult life.  Now, with this same end in mind, I join the blogosphere.

Our Constitution is built on the premise outlined in the Declaration of Independence that all people “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  If our Creator intended us to enjoy these rights, it follows that depriving or taking away any of these same rights is an evil pursuit.  At least this should be the logical conclusion of anyone who has faith that a Creator did in fact endow us with certain unalienable rights. 

The bible details a strategy used by Michael and his angels to prevail over evil pursuits:  “ And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels…And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.” (KJV Revelation 12:7-11)

I follow the same strategy, as I understand it, in my efforts to defend the Constitution from all enemies.  First, I strive to follow the will of my Creator according to the dictates of my own conscience and importune Him that the blessings of liberty will endure in this land.  Second, I unabashedly profess my belief that our Constitution is divinely appointed and that all political action must be consistent with the preservation of our aforementioned unalienable rights.  Again, I am initiating this blog as another means to accomplish this.  Finally, I am ready to die in defense of the Constitution if it comes to that, and have already sworn to do so. 

I’m sure that there are many domestic enemies of the Constitution who purposefully pursue its demise.  Lacking a crystal ball, I doubt I will be able to name many of them.  Regardless, I don’t have any illusions that my efforts can bring about a change of heart in such, whoever they are.  Therefore, my purpose is add my voice to what Samuel Adams described as the “…irate, tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men,” to motivate the persuadable portion of our population to embrace Constitutional principles recognize what actions endanger them.  

The direct result of Constitutional erosion is a decrease of liberty.  Our Constitution will never collapse all at once, but rather by degrees.  As frogs boiled alive by slowly heating up water, so can Americans find themselves serving a despotic government unless wide-eyed patriots resist all efforts that will weaken the Constitution and fight to repair damage already inflicted upon it.  As a defender of freedom, my writings will center mostly on themes relating to our divinely established rights.   These fundamental concepts undergird our form of government and are an important lens through which to evaluate the issues of our day: e.g. abortion, national defense, self-defense, social programs, expansion of government, and even foreign policy. 

I urge all defenders of freedom to demand Constitutional justification for all political action, existing policy and law.  Likewise, where justification does not exist, I urge you to demand that your representatives take action to abandon or reverse such measures.  Further, I recommend that you make every effort to center all political discussions and debates on Constitutional principles.  In military terms, we call this Mass, Economy of Force, and Simplicity.