Monday, January 18, 2010

It Has Always Been "The People's Seat"

What does the battle between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley really mean? Why has this race captured the attention of an entire nation? Why is the media fascinated with this race? The answer is simple….hope and change.

It is more than just Republican against Democrat, Liberal against Conservative; it is the understanding of the principle that we are a representative republic and not an elected aristocracy. It is the appreciation of knowing that it is the “people’s seat,” and not the throne of a self-professed nobility, who believe that it is their seat to hand down from one lord to the next. It is the hope that every generation remembers that it is the elected who answers to the people, and that change can never come at the expense of our founding principles…….. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…”

Believe or not this campaign is not even about Scott Brown (who is an incredible person first and valid candidate second). This is about the simple belief that it is the consent of the governed that have been preordained to control their own destiny, and will not be “subjects,” ruled by a few bigheaded elitist. Elitist whose fingers burn whenever they touch the Constitution, whose ears bleed when the Declaration of Independence is read aloud, and who have grown blind and deaf to the will of the people. Elitist who expel any original thought once they are elected, and whose asses grow accustom to a chair that is on loan to them.

There are events that happen to every generation that reaffirms the founding principles that are at the very core of this “great experiment” known as America. Every once in awhile “We the People….” is more than just a catchphrase used by politicians to harvest votes. "We the People…” becomes the rallying cry not just against something, but in support of an idea or cause worth fighting for. Revolutions aren’t just won with bullets, especially in America. Every so often a course of action becomes so apparent that the American people “take to march” and fight for a cause greater than the individual.

The Brown vs. Coakley is the manifestation of everything our Founding Fathers expected from us. Massachusetts’ own Sam Adams knew that every generation would need to be “eternally vigilant” as to the cause of our own liberty when he said – “The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.” Today, the new “Sons (and Daughters) of Liberty” are preparing to fire the second shot heard around the world. This is not about the “41st vote,” or “derailing” President Obama’s agenda, but a stand against tyranny and arrogant authority. This about reminding those in Washington that the only thing that is inevitable is that if they chose to govern in a manner that is contrary to our Republican principals, than their days are numbered.

Benjamin Franklin, was standing outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention ended, when he was approached by a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia, who asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it."

Regardless of whether Scott Brown wins or not, the message will be clear. Every race, every campaign, and every candidate will have to prove that they understand that it is the people’s seat they seek, and that they are just temporary occupants. In the end, it is important for all Americans to remember that it is our “Republic,” ............if we “can keep it.”

Thursday, January 7, 2010

The Character of Conservatism Part Five: Against Anti-Republican Tendencies

Against Anti-Republican Tendencies

When Thomas Jefferson entered the White House as our third President he was well aware that the nation was divided after an intense election process and the final result. Vice-President Jefferson defeated President Adams in an election that had both candidates being declared an enemy of the Constitution, an exaggeration born from campaign enthusiasm, but had the eyes of a young nation peering cautiously at their new President.

Even today some question Jefferson’s interpretation of the Constitution and maybe that is justified (the Louisiana Purchase is often cited as a break from Constitutional intent). But it is important to remember that not only did President Jefferson not participate in the Constitutional Convention, he was separated from the process by an entire ocean (Jefferson was serving in France as the Constitution was being written), so we should not look to him for any in-depth elucidation. One must look to the Federalist Papers written by James Madison (The Father of the Constitution) for a truthful explanation of the Constitution’s intent. Fortunately Jefferson (and a young America) benefitted from a close friendship with Madison, and Jefferson often sought the counsel of Madison during his presidency on matters regarding Constitutional interpretation.

But at the time of his first inauguration, Jefferson understood that there were forces already in play trying to move America away from the first principals of our republic, the belief that liberty and rights are central values, and that the people were, as a whole, sovereign. Jefferson first inaugural speech rejected the concept of inherited political power, and declared with confidence, an expectation that every citizen to be independent in their performance of civic duties.

The character of conservatism can be found in two of President Jefferson’s writing; the Declaration of Independence (a foundational document of Conservatism) and his first Presidential Inaugural speech.

Friends and Fellow-Citizens:

CALLED upon to undertake the duties of the first executive office of our country, I avail myself of the presence of that portion of my fellow-citizens which is here assembled to express my grateful thanks for the favor with which they have been pleased to look toward me, to declare a sincere consciousness that the task is above my talents, and that I approach it with those anxious and awful presentiments which the greatness of the charge and the weakness of my powers so justly inspire. A rising nation, spread over a wide and fruitful land, traversing all the seas with the rich productions of their industry, engaged in commerce with nations who feel power and forget right, advancing rapidly to destinies beyond the reach of mortal eye—when I contemplate these transcendent objects, and see the honor, the happiness, and the hopes of this beloved country committed to the issue, and the auspices of this day, I shrink from the contemplation, and humble myself before the magnitude of the undertaking. Utterly, indeed, should I despair did not the presence of many whom I here see remind me that in the other high authorities provided by our Constitution I shall find resources of wisdom, of virtue, and of zeal on which to rely under all difficulties. To you, then, gentlemen, who are charged with the sovereign functions of legislation, and to those associated with you, I look with encouragement for that guidance and support which may enable us to steer with safety the vessel in which we are all embarked amidst the conflicting elements of a troubled world. During the contest of opinion through which we have passed the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak and to write what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; that this should be more felt and feared by some and less by others, and should divide opinions as to measures of safety. But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter—with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people—a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.

I repair, then, fellow-citizens, to the post you have assigned me. With experience enough in subordinate offices to have seen the difficulties of this the greatest of all, I have learnt to expect that it will rarely fall to the lot of imperfect man to retire from this station with the reputation and the favor which bring him into it. Without pretensions to that high confidence you reposed in our first and greatest revolutionary character, whose preeminent services had entitled him to the first place in his country's love and destined for him the fairest page in the volume of faithful history, I ask so much confidence only as may give firmness and effect to the legal administration of your affairs. I shall often go wrong through defect of judgment. When right, I shall often be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of the whole ground. I ask your indulgence for my own errors, which will never be intentional, and your support against the errors of others, who may condemn what they would not if seen in all its parts. The approbation implied by your suffrage is a great consolation to me for the past, and my future solicitude will be to retain the good opinion of those who have bestowed it in advance, to conciliate that of others by doing them all the good in my power, and to be instrumental to the happiness and freedom of all.
Relying, then, on the patronage of your good will, I advance with obedience to the work, ready to retire from it whenever you become sensible how much better choice it is in your power to make. And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity.


Jefferson’s first inaugural address was an example of the perfect political speech, and I do not mean that in the negative. What I mean by that is that it was crafted by its author to address its immediate audience, the Legislative and Judicial branches of the government, to remind them that they not only served at the will of the people, and “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …..,” but it was the intent of Jefferson “to unite a proper energy in the Executive, and a proper stability in the Legislative departments, with the essential characters of Republican Government,” a belief that was expressed by Madison to Jefferson in September of 1787 (in a letter from Madison in Philadelphia to Jefferson in France).

Jefferson’s speech was meant to set the tone to address issues facing our young nation as a united Republic, the most important, to work together to remain true to originally intent of the Constitution. But more than this, Jefferson’s had an opportunity to reaffirm what he originally wanted to say in the Declaration of Independence. Most know the line …”Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…” But few know that Jefferson originally wrote…”Life , Liberty and the Pursuit of Property…” Jefferson understood that governments true role was first and foremost “provide for the common defence,” and conduct itself in a manner that creates the smallest footprint upon individual liberty:

“Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”

Jefferson’s first inaugural speech is the essence of a liberty based Republic, a sentiment later reaffirmed by Ronald Reagan:

“Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the—or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment……….
“…… defines liberalism as meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government…….the full power of centralized government"—this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.”

One of the fundamental natures of conservatism is the understanding that our republic can not withstand the weight of its own oppression when it chooses to interfere with the liberty of others by confiscating from those willing to work and give it to those who are not.
The strength in Jefferson’s first inaugural address is its dedication to the genuineness of Republicanism, the governmental foundation that America is built upon. Jefferson spoke to unity without compromise to one’s own principal, a tone that would later be captured so brilliantly by Ronald Reagan.

Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence would come to serve as the foundation, his first inaugural speech the frame, and his presidency the crown that would all later be known as Jeffersonian principal, and by progression, an evolutional component of the character of conservatism.

Sunday, January 3, 2010

Battle of the Bulge: Pregnant Soldiers in Combat

Recently much has been made about female soldiers becoming pregnant while serving in a combat zone. Maj. General Anthony Cucolo III, determined to maintain combat readiness, has made clear that there would be repercussions (for both male and female soldiers) should they chose to engage in behavior that removes them from their duty:

"Anyone who leaves this fight early because they made a personal choice that changed their medical status or contributed to making someone no longer deployable is not in keeping with a key element of the Army's warrior ethos – 'I will always place the mission first,'" Cucolo said. "I believe there should be professional consequences for making a choice like that."

US general in Iraq defends tough pregnancy rules

It is important to note that the soldiers are not being punished for being pregnant; they are being reprimanded for violating their oath, and committing to actions that made the solider unable to perform their assigned duties. I understand, primal urges are hard desires to resist; but that is what we ask of our soldiers every day, to be at the optimum of their mental and physical best.

There is nothing new with the military, and by extension combat commanders, taking steps to ensure full combat effectiveness. Pregnancy is just another in a long list of physical and/or mental changes that are known to deter fighting readiness, and can result in punitive actions against the solider:

Being overweigh, excessive drug or alcohol use, self-injury, reckless behavior, even getting a sunburn (if it affects the soldier’s ability to perform their duties to their fullest) can result in an official warning.

Unfortunately, the debate has taken a wrong turn. Pro-abortion groups, liberal feminist organizations (such as NOW, which called the policy "ridiculous.” “How dare any government say we're going to impose any kind of punishment on women for getting pregnant," NOW President Terry O'Neill said. "This is not the 1800s."), anti-war groups want to somehow make this an issue about choice in favor of pregnancy (a hard sell considering their fanatically support for abortion at all cost). Each of these groups has ulterior motives, none of which have anything to do with the combat readiness of the US Military.

But the most operant intervention is when politicians decide to intervene for self-seeking motives, and not in the best interest of the combat status of a unit serving in a hot zone. Four US Senators, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-California), Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) prematurely sent a letter in opposition to General Cucolo’s orders:

"We can think of no greater deterrent to women contemplating a military career than the image of a pregnant woman being severely punished simply for conceiving a child," the senators wrote to General Cucolo. "This defies comprehension. As such, we urge you to immediately rescind this policy."

The heavy tone of the letter is not only indicative of the Senator’s misunderstanding of the true role of the US Military, but the factual crisis General Cucolo was trying to address…….the selfish actions of a few soldiers under his command that were jeopardizing not only the mission, but the lives of fellow soldiers. It is the actions of these soldiers, some more than likely getting pregnant to avoid a long deployment, which “defies comprehension.”

Additional links:

Senators Demand General Rescind Order on Pregnant Soldiers

Knocked up and deployed: A Combat Commanders Point of View

UK Military Concerned About Pregnant Female Soldiers