Constitutional Governance, For a Change

Recently, the chief political correspondent for The Colonel's Corner -- the Colonel -- sat down for a wide-ranging on-the-record conversation with Brenda Cannon Gregory (aka: the Comely and Kind-hearted Miss Brenda), the woman whose write-in candidacy for President is sweeping the nation like a cool breeze soothing a slumbering electorate in the midst of a hellish election nightmare.  What follows is the verbatim transcript of what one hopes will be the first of many such candid and illuminating conversations over the course of the next eight and one half years.

TCC:  "Mrs. Gregory, thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to answer a few questions."

BCG: "My pleasure, Colonel.  And, call me 'Miss Brenda.'  I know we'll have to retrain you to call me 'Madam President' after the election, but for the time-being it will be less taxing on your pea-sized brain to keep it simple."

TCC:  "Uh, okay...  So, Miss Brenda, let's dispense with the pleasantries and get right to the subject.  How would you describe your philosophy for governance as President of the United States?"

BCG: "The Constitution; the whole Constitution; and nothing but the Constitution."

TCC:  "Would you care to elaborate on that?

BCG:  "Not particularly.  Besides, what part of those simple ten words is so hard to understand?"

TCC:  "Well..., I, uh...  Okay, um, well.., how, then, would you say that your governing philosophy differs from Barack Obama's?"

BCG:  "Who?  Oh, you mean Valerie Jarret's spokesperson.  Look, I'm not basing my campaign on the failures of the current administration.  I will say this for Mr. Obama, he reads out loud extremely well."

TCC:  "Will you be using a teleprompter in your speeches?"

BCG:  "Why?  None of my speeches will ever be longer than a minute or two.  If you can't make your point quicker than that, you don't have a 'point.'"

TCC:  "Makes sense."

BCG:  "Look, forty years living with the Colonel has trained me to keep it short and simple."

TCC:  "Heh, heh..., wait, what?"

BCG:  "Next question!"

TCC:  "Yes, ma'am!  Um...[the Colonel shuffles through his stack of notecards], okay, let's talk about what you see as your priorities as President."

BCG:  "The first constitutionally-mandated responsibility of the President, as chief executive, is faithful execution of the law as found specifically expressed in the Constitution, and as enacted by legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President."  

TCC:  "Do you believe in the use of Executive Orders."

BCG:  "Only as a means to enforce a specifically expressed Constitutional requirement, or to enforce an Act of Congress.  Not to create law.  Any other use of Executive Orders is an expression of dictatorial powers not expressly given the President by the Constitution, regardless the well-meaning intent or efficacy of the order.  If I see something that I think needs to be done, that is not currently expressly authorized by legislation, I will work with the the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader to have legislation passed to address the need."

TCC:  "Miss Brenda, executive orders and bureaucratic regulations over the last three decades have resulted in trillions of dollars of cost to the American taxpayer..."

BCG:  "And that's what I'm talking about.  Look, I'm sure that the originator of every executive order and non-legislated regulation believes that they are doing good.  Some may even be able to prove that their idea, in the form of an order or regulation, satisfies a critical requirement or provides a solution to a pressing problem.   But, good intentions, or even proven effectiveness and efficiency is not an excuse for extra-constitutional activity by our Federal government.  That's what I mean when I say "...and nothing but the Constitution."

TCC:  "Are you saying that Congress would do a better job at regulation than a professional bureaucracy?"

BCG:  "No! Not at all.  But, that's not the point.  The point is, as our nation's founders meant when they went to war for, among others, the principle of "no taxation without representation," that there should be no federal regulation without representation.  In other words, the Constitution gives the power of regulation expressly to the Congress.  There is no Article in the Constitution establishing an unelected bureaucracy with the power to indirectly tax the citizens of the Republic."

TCC:  " 'No regulation without representation'.  Catchy.  Mind if I make some money putting that phrase on bumper stickers?"

BCG:  "Be my guest.  The best economic stimulus is unfettered entrepreneurialism."

TCC:  "Can I put that one on a bumper sticker, too?"

BCG:  "You're a businessman?  Thought you were a free-loading journalist..."

TCC:  "Who are you calling a 'journalist?"

BCG:  "Next question!"

TCC:  "Yes, Ma'am.  What is your policy on National Defense?"

BCG:  "National Defense is best considered as a series of concentric rings, beginning first with the national security decision-making and policy apparatus and then second with the interior of our national territory and working outward.  Electing me will take care of the first ring.  Secondly, an effective American national defense for the 21st Century requires development of 21st Century internal infrastructure.  To begin with, our critically vulnerable power grid must be immediately shielded to protect against catastrophic failure, whether as a result of a man-made or solar attack.  Our highways, bridges, railways, and air traffic system, once the envy of the world, are now woefully behind and crumbling.  I will work with Congress, and the states, to fix our infrastructure and push it into the next century.

TCC: "But, won't the cost of such programs be prohibitively expensive, given the fact that our nation already has a 20 trillion dollar debt?"

BCG:  "Thought we were talking about national defense?  You want to talk about economic policy, now?

TCC:  "Uh, no..."

BCG:  "The next concentric ring out from infrastructure is borders.  The most compelling case for a 'clear and present danger' facing citizens of the United States is uncontrolled migration across not just our land borders, but via our ports and airports.  I believe that that vast majority of the people coming into our country illegally are otherwise law-abiding and can be productive members of our society if integrated and assimilated properly.  But, if only 1% of the nearly 1 million coming to our shores each year are coming with criminal malice aforethought that represents a light infantry invasion each year the size of the operating forces of the entire United States Marine Corps."

TCC:  "Ooorah!"

BCG:  "You really should do something about that cough, Colonel.  Sounds terrible.  As I was saying, and I'm keeping this as simple as I can for you, the first component of national defense is decision-making, the second is internal infrastructure, and the third component then is border security..."

TCC:  "How would you handle immigration, then?"

BCG:  "Are we talking about immigration policy, now?  Thought we were discussing defense policy?"

TCC:  "Um, okay.  Please continue."

BCG:  "The fourth component in our national defense, the fourth concentric ring outward, if you will,  is our military.  We must continue to invest in the highest quality people and the best equipment.  And, we must ensure that our military is trained and equipped to do one thing -- win on the battlefield.  Any proposed changes to the time-tested fabric of the force should only be made if it can be proven without a doubt that the change will increase effectiveness on the battlefield.  Just maintaining the current level of effectiveness is not enough -- our potential adversaries are not standing still; they continue to grow in capabilities and effectiveness."

TCC:  "Are you concerned about ISIS?"

BCG:  "Of course.  And, we'll deal quickly and effectively with that threat.  I'll ask for a formal declaration of war from the Congress and..."  

TCC:  "A declaration of war!?!"

BCG:  "What part of 'the Constitution, the whole Constitution, and nothing but the Constitution' did you not understand, Colonel?  Look, I know that you are hamstrung by a lack of education -- Ole Miss, Troy, and the Navy War College aren't exactly noted for producing great political thinkers -- but you've got to concentrate on the bottom line of my governing philosophy.  If it isn't expressly covered in the Constitution, the President isn't allowed to do it. 

TCC:  "Okay, let's say the Congress gives you a formal declaration of war against the so-called Islamic State.  How do you attack and defeat 'em?"

BCG:  "Well, that's where all of you military professionals, on whom the nation has spent a fortune educating and training, come in.  I'll turn to the Secretary of Defense, give her the mission, and tell her to let me know when she is done.  She, utilizing the brains for which I selected her to be my Defense Secretary, will turn to the military combatant commanders and give them a mission.  Look, this ain't brain surgery.  There might be some rocket science involved, though..."   

"But, look.  ISIS is not an existential crisis..., yet.  At most, at present, it is a nuisance.  A big nuisance, mind you, what with all of the humanitarian crises fallout.  But, if we continue to attack ISIS incrementally instead of all out, we do run the risk of them getting their hands on WMD.  Then they become an existential threat.  I won't let them get to that point.  Look for a victory parade down Pennsylvania avenue some time before my first State of the Union Address.   

TCC:  "What about China and Russia?" 

BCG:  "What about 'em?  You want me to get Congress to declare war on them, too?  Now we're really talking about rocket science; not to mention splitting an atom or two.  And, that's what will keep Jinping and Vladimir in check.

TCC:  "Okay, let's switch gears and talk about the economy..."

BCG:  "It's all in the same gear, Colonel."

TCC:  "Huh?  Well, um..., What is your tax philosophy?

BCG:  "If I had my way, there would be a simple flat federal consumption tax, somewhere around 10%.  And, I would reduce taxes on corporations, which are always passed on to the consumer in the form of increased prices for goods and services, to zero.  With a zero corporate tax rate, and no corporate subsidies, the United States would become the world's business capital. Period.  Imagine the wealth flowing to the United States under that situation! 

TCC:  "I don't think that would pay for all of the current federal programs..."

BCG:  "Exactly!  I will work with Congress to phase out all federal social programs and return that responsibility to the states where it rightfully belongs per the Constitution."

TCC:  "But, the states can't afford to fund all the welfare programs."

BCG:  "Look, I know this is taxing (get it?) your mental capacity somewhat.  But, the Constitution established a governmental system known as 'federalism.'  Contrary to popular belief, the concept of 'federalism' that is the basis for our Constitution does not give the Federal government responsibility, nor even authority, for social programs.  Federalism envisions the individual states bearing that responsibility and authority.  Don't take my word for it, go read the Federalist Papers for yourself."

TCC:  "So you would have the states take over and pay for social programs in their own states.  Won't that lead to different outcomes?  Won't some states do a far better job of taking care of their resident citizens than other states?

BCG:  "Yes, yes, and yes!  Emphatically yes!  That is the whole point of States' rights under federalism and as guaranteed in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution:  'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'"  The states that do the most effective and economically efficient job of taking care of their resident citizens will reap the rewards of increasing vitality and economic growth.  This competition between states will actually spur greater and greater good to the welfare of the citizens."

TCC:  Thank you so much for your time, Miss Brenda.  Can we finish by quickly addressing your immigration policy? 

BCG:  I fervently believe in the motto: e pluribus unum.   Out of many, one.  The reason the American Republic stands as the greatest nation the world has ever known is attributable to three facts.  One, our republic was founded on the greatest social compact ever devised by man -- the U.S. Constitution.  Two, that Constitution provided the umbrella of personal freedom and limited government under which a continent brimming with world-class resources was conquered.  And, three, that continent was peopled by representatives of humanity from around the globe who found unprecedented freedom of expression, and who were drawn together as one people yearning for the exact same thing for themselves and their progeny -- Freedom.  We still stand as the globe's greatest expression of that most shared of human traits -- the desire to live in freedom.  Our constitution still stands as the world's greatest guarantor of freedom.  We should celebrate that, and we should share it.  My immigration policy, indeed, my entire foreign policy, constitutionally in concert with Congressional action, will seek to share the unmatched level of God-given human rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States to all people, on our territory and on theirs.     

#TCAK-HMBforPresident

The Call of Citizenship

"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon." -- Napoleon

The Colonel has increasingly moved toward entrance into the camp of those whose version of past events is decidedly different than the majority opinion.  It happens to people who really study history objectively and comprehensively.  Most don't, and remain blissfully ignorant.

The Colonel is looking at you, Americans.

  

In the decades leading up to America's third major civil war (See King Philip's War of 1675 - 1678, and the misnamed American Revolutionary War of 1775 - 1783, for the first and second major civil wars), American politicians sought to preserve the union of states by compromising over the heinous practice of chattel slavery.

With the change of presidential administrations in 1861, under a new political party (the Republican Party) specifically organized to end the practice of chattel slavery throughout the entire union of states, American politicians effectively discarded the canard of compromise.  Southern politicians led their states in a revolt against the central government (a move they claimed, not altogether erroneously, echoed the revolt against the central government in 1775), and Northern politicians rallied their states in an effort to "preserve the union."      

Neither position was particularly popular to a majority of citizens in either region.  But, as is nearly always the case throughout history, and is certainly true today, the views of a malcontent minority  receive the most attention.  

Let's be clear -- the base cause of Southern secession was indeed the desire to preserve the institution of slavery.  Full stop.  Historians sympathetic to the antebellum south have cloaked that root cause in the threadbare cloth of "states rights," but the overarching "right" the southern states sought to preserve was the right to maintain the institution of slavery.  Period.

And..., let's be likewise clear-eyed regarding the real reason Northern politicians were so intent on preventing Southern secession.  Southern politicians weren't nearly so interested in whether western states would enter the union as "slave" or "free" as they were in the prospect of "tropical" lands to the south (much more conducive to agriculture based on slave labor) joining the union.  Northern politicians feared dilution of their power in that possibility -- they had prevented President James K. Polk from annexing all of Mexico (as he easily could have) at the conclusion of the War with Mexico in 1849.  Annexation of just the northern half of Mexican territory (the half least suited to agriculture based on slave labor) added enormously rich lands to the Union without the prospect of diminishing Northern politicians' power.  An independent Southern nation's manifest destiny would not be westward.  Had the Confederacy succeeded in establishing its independence, the Southern nation might very well have rather quickly extended itself to include at least the Caribbean and Central America.  Such a nation would have become an economic power-house with which the remaining states in the diminished United States would have had a difficult time competing. 

    

The vast majority of citizens on either side of the Mason-Dixon Line were not overly enthusiastic about the prospect of war in 1861 (just as the vast majority of colonists were not enthusiastic about the prospect of war in 1775).  Their politicians were, and they generated enthusiasm (as politicians always do) by rationalizing war as a means of projecting ideals (North) or protecting property (South).

And, so we find ourselves today -- politicians on one side of the aisle (the ideological Mason-Dixon Line, if you will) generating enthusiasm for projecting ideals (socialism) and politicians on the other side provoking an opposing reaction for the protection of property (capitalism).  But, in reality, as it has nearly always been, the politicians on either side care far less for their side's ideology than they do for the personal power that accrues to the leaders of the ascendant movement.  

Politicians are able to accrue personal power, at the expense of those they purport to serve, because the vast majority of the people are unwilling to do the hard work of citizenship in our Republic.  True citizenship is not a label; it is a calling. 

The call of citizenship requires education.  

A worthy citizen of our Republic should have an appreciation of the objective, unvarnished version of the Republic's history.  Public education textbooks do not provide this.  If a citizen's study of his republic's history ends with public school education, he or she is not answering the call of citizenship. 

A worthy citizen of our Republic should have ready access to our Constitution, through even the most casual study of which the least educated of us can determine for ourselves whether a politician's proposal passes the Constitutionality test.  If a citizen depends on the courts to tell him or her what is Constitutional, he or she is not answering the call of citizenship. 

The call of citizenship requires acceptance of responsibility.

A responsible citizen is one who leaves our Republic in better condition and in better hands than he or she inherited it.  Our Republic is indeed an incredibly valuable inheritance, and each generation of Americans should do all in their power to at least preserve the principal of that inheritance by observing and preserving the principles upon which that inheritance was initially bequeathed.

A responsible citizen ensures that his or her progeny are prepared to inherit the riches of our Republic.  Leaving this up to our public schools (love you, teachers, but you know the Colonel is right) is not a responsible action. 

The call of citizenship requires the sacrifice of service.  In some form or another, above and beyond just being a productive member of society, every citizen should seek a way to serve the other members of our Republic.  The older, if not necessarily wiser, the Colonel gets, the more he doesn't view his service in uniform as particularly sacrificial -- he was adequately compensated for his service.  

So, he'll seek to serve by sacrificing his time and continuing to write.

    

Height Supremacy

It always surprises the Colonel when he hears complaints about white "supremacy" and the actions of supposed white "supremacists."

He for dang sure ain't never known or seen one in action.  Not during his career in the Marines, nor during his retirement here at the shallow northern end of deep southern nowhere. 

But, the Colonel can testify for hours on end about the egregious endeavors of countless height supremacists.   

That's right.  You know who you are.  You and your not-so clever jabs and nicknames thinly disguising your bias toward someone of lesser physical stature.

You didn't think you were height supremacists, but your words spoke volumes.  Consider the following not all-inclusive sampling of nicknames the Colonel lived with -- and he's not making one of them up.   

"Short round."

"Inky-dink."

"Half-pint."

"The Fly."  Well, that one may have been hung on him by the members of his first rifle platoon because (and the Colonel quotes),  "The Lieutenant eats (barnyard excrement) and bothers people."

"Guilder."  You know, because the Colonel could have been a member of the munchkin lollipop guild. 

"Mini-me." 

"Small-fry."

"SU."  Pronounced "sue" -- acronym for "short and unimpressive."  Actually hung on the Colonel by a boss.  That boss was projecting a bit -- he towered over the Colonel by no more than an eighth of an inch.  The Colonel supposes height supremacy knows no altitude limits. 

"Edapolian."  Hung on the Colonel by his seminar group at the Air Command and Staff College, supposedly for his views on imperialism and territorial expansion.  Not so bad, you say.  They could have picked a taller imperialist...; say, Genghis or Attila.  Frankly, if you're gonna hang a height supremacist moniker on the Colonel for his unabashed imperialism, he would much prefer a nod to the great (and quite diminutive) James K. Polk whose nickname, "Little Hickory," would be far more preferable.  (Then again, Polk's other nickname -- from his campaigning -- was "Napoleon of the Stump," so...)  

"Little Doug."   The Colonel shares Douglas MacArthur's birthday -- January 26--  and the latter's penchant for dramatics.

"Pup."

"Knee-high."

The Colonel could go on -- his list of growth-impaired grievances is long -- but, you get the picture.

Or, maybe you don't.  Maybe you secretly harbor your height supremacists views.  Maybe you think there ought to be a separate world for those of us whose existence below your sight plane pose a dangerous trip hazard.

Or, maybe..., you aren't a mere height supremacist at all.  Maybe you're just an out and out heightist -- someone who views all of us below your sight plane as (no pun intended) beneath you.

Someone just not as capable as you.

Someone whose outward genetic appearance prompts your disdain.

Whatever, dude.

That's your problem.

It was never the Colonel's.  In the long-run, it didn't stop him.

The Marines don't grant honorary colonelcys. 


Now, if you will excuse His not-so Highness, the Colonel has some trouser legs to hem up...      



   

Liberty Loves Company

The Colonel is not a big fan of walls and fences -- they tend to limit the freedom of both physical and spiritual movement within as well as without.
   
It will be no surprise to the half dozen regular readers of posts hereon (who prove by their persistence not so much loyalty as a complete lack of any other use of their valuable rod and cone time) that the Colonel is, among other things that set most folks' teeth on edge, an unapologetic proponent of a revival of the strategic movement that is the second most important reason for our Republic's greatness.

The first most important reason for our Republic's greatness is, of course, the remarkable form of limited government, with expansive protections of individual and state rights, guaranteed by our Constitution. 

The second most important reason for our Republic's greatness, and the spiritual renewal for which the Colonel calls, is expansion.

Expansion is as much a spiritual concept as it is a physical requirement for greatness.   

Were our ancestors as timid and cowed by tyrannical governments as we  -- more concerned about what the dictatorially bureaucratic few allow than by what the God-given rights of man demand -- the United States of America would never have become the greatest nation the world has ever seen (the Colonel has seen most of the other candidates for that laurel either personally or by historical study and can easily attest to our Republic's place at the top of the list).  Had 18th Century Americans obeyed the restrictive dictates of a distant king, they would have remained huddled behind the Alleghenies.  They would have exhausted the resources on the Eastern Seaboard and then stunted both physically and spiritually. 

Our ancestors did not remain huddled behind the Alleghenies.  In fact, well before they officially declared independence, they openly disobeyed that distant king's royal decree that they remain so huddled and headed west.  They crossed the physical wall of the  Alleghenies -- free rangers determined to live free and prosper.

Funny thing about freedom -- it breeds a desire for more of it.  Once a man shakes off the shackles of fear of the unknown, declares his independence of the bureaucratic boundaries imposed upon him by other men, and claims his God-given birthrights of life, liberty, and property, he becomes a truly FREE man.

Free men don't depend on government for their bread.  Free men  collectively agree to limited government in order to provide a level economic playing field, infrastructure, and liberty to earn their bread.  

Free men collectively agree to maintain a common defense against entities that would restrict their freedom.

Another funny thing about freedom -- it breeds a desire to share it with others.  Liberty loves company more than misery does.  A company of free men may share hardship and deprivation, but they will never count it as miserable.  This old Marine infantryman knows a little about voluntary shared hardship and deprivation and he retains only the fond memories of free men toiling to maintain freedom for their families and countrymen, and toiling to secure the freedom of others whose tyrannical governments deny it.  In that there is no real misery.

Today our Republic is embroiled in the myopic inward-focused politics of grasping for a larger slice of the power pie.  It's what happens to all empires when they cease expansion.  An inward focused empire erects walls to protect the power pie.  One power-seeking political faction builds outward-facing walls to maintain the power status quo ("we got ours; get your own").  Another power-seeking political faction builds internal walls to restrict individual freedom ("you got too much; you gotta share it").

When a nation thinks there's only one pie -- forgets or forsakes the ingredients for baking more pies -- it loses the spirit of liberty.  Our nation has lost the spirit of liberty.

When the greatest nation on the planet loses the spirit of liberty, the rest of the world suffers.  The greatest gift a free people give to another people is the ingredients to the freedom pie.  We've forsaken the ingredients for our own unrestricted freedom pie bakery, and worst still, are refusing to share it with others. 

What our nation needs is a return to the ideal that liberty loves company. 

That's why the Colonel is an unapologetic American Expansionist.  He believes, without a shadow of a doubt in his military mind, that the American form of government is the greatest, most liberty-protecting, freedom pie baking form of government the world has ever seen.  He believed that fervently in the halcyon days of his young adulthood when he swore a solemn oath backed by his very life to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."  That fervor has only grown with time, and he is no less bound by that oath today than he was at 18.

The Colonel believes with every fiber of his being that our Republic must continue to expand if it wants to endure.  

There's a very good reason, the Colonel believes, that the founders of our Republic did not choose to name the new nation rising from the spiritual revival of liberty, the United States of North America.  There was no intent to restrict the blessings of liberty. Certainly not to the eastern seaboard of the North American continent.  Frankly, there was no intent to withhold the blessings of liberty guaranteed by the Constitution to anyone, anywhere.

Article IV, Section 3.1 of the Constitution of the United States, ratified by the original 13 States, specifically foresees the expansion of the Republic -- with only internal limitation as to geographic location: 

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

States have been Constitutionally admitted to the union of the original 13 States that were physically separated from the then-contiguous states of the Union -- California, Hawaii, and Alaska, for example. 

Other sovereign nations have been Constitutionally admitted to the Union as states -- Vermont, Texas, and Hawaii. 

Most of the current states Constitutionally admitted to the United States subsequent to the original 13 were people living in territories claimed by the United States as a result of occupation following hostilities with other nations -- France, Great Britain, Spain, etc.  The United States still possesses territories liberated and seized as a result of hostilities with Spain -- Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands in the Pacific; and Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands in the Caribbean -- all of which could Constitutionally be admitted as states.  

Parenthetically, the Colonel believes that no such Constitutional right of statehood belongs to the District of Columbia, as Article I, Section 8.17 of the Constitution makes clear: "The Congress shall have Power To… exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such Dis­trict (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Con­gress, become the Seat of the Gov­ernment of the United States…"  Indeed, Madison, the chief architect of the Constitution, wrote in the Federalist #43 that,

"The indispensable necessity of compleat authority at the seat of Government car­ries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every Legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insult­ed and its proceedings be interrupted, with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general Government, on the State comprehending the seat of the Government for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the Government, and dissatisfactory to the other members of the confederacy."

So, no statehood for the federal District of Columbia.

Statehood, then, for the other U.S. territories if they so desire?  The Colonel says, unequivocally, YES!  And, by logical extension, statehood for future territories in the Americas, or elsewhere,  liberated from tyrannical governments unable or unwilling to guarantee their suffering citizens their God-given rights of life, liberty, and property. 

Our Republic was not founded to be static -- neither physically nor spiritually.  Liberty loves company.  Loving your fellow man means sharing the ingredients of the liberty pie with him.  The Colonel knows of no other constitution in the world that produces a liberty pie as sweet as the one to which he has pledged his own sacred honor.    

What is the logical, honorable extension of the Colonel's argument?

Expansion of the Republic.  We're not the United States of North America.  From the Hudson Bay to Tierra del Fuego, we should be the United States of America!     
       

   

                    

             

Free the Children

The Colonel is an abolitionist.  He fervently hopes that he will live long enough to participate in the coming war to free the children, and the subsequent "reconstruction" of states found in rebellion to the Constitution.

In 1860, the people of the United States elected Abraham Lincoln to the office of President.  For several decades prior to his inauguration, the issue of slavery had divided the nation culturally and politically.  Generally speaking, the largely agrarian southern half of the nation viewed slave labor as an economic necessity -- particularly on large acreage plantations.  The much more industrialized (and rapidly becoming more so), and small farm dominated northern half of the nation, which benefited from massive European immigration flows to its manufacturing centers, was far less economically dependent on slave labor.

As the Republic grew, adding new states whose clout in Congress affected the balance of political power, legislative compromises kept a rough political balance between "slave" and "free" states; but the inhumane practice of chattel slavery remained a belying blight on the moral standing of a nation that professed the God-given rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to "all" men in its founding documents.

As abolitionist fervor grew in the northern states and the southern states felt their 10th Amendment rights ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") under threat, and sectional tension increased, "slave state" politicians (most of whom were slaveholders -- as opposed to the vast majority of their constituents) saw secession from the Union as the only means of maintaining their socio-economic status quo.

"States Rights!" was the secessionist battle cry.

Of course for the states in rebellion, "states rights" ultimately meant a state's right to maintain the institution of slavery.  The southern canard that the Civil War was fought for "economic reasons" and was "not about slavery" fails to admit that the South's "economic reason" was slavery. 

"Free the slaves!" was the Union battle cry.

But..., not necessarily at first.  "Preserve the Union!" was actually the initial battle cry, reflecting the main war aim of Lincoln and company.  It wasn't until several early battles, far bloodier than anyone had imagined, presaged a long war that would have a far greater cost in men and material than anyone had imagined, that the necessity for wrapping the Union cause in religious fervor became evident.

Abolitionist sentiment, whipped to a religious fever pitch from Northern pulpits, soon became a far more palatable reason for continuing the horrors of war than merely preserving the Union.  The Battle Hymn of the Republic, with its stirring abolitionist themes, actually didn't make an appearance and gain any usage until well into the war    

"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,

With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me.

       As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free..."

                                                    

In an article "Did Religion Make the American Civil War Worse?" published in August 23, 2015 edition of "The Atlantic" Allen Guelzo wrote,

     "If, in Jefferson’s words, the Constitution had erected a 'wall of separation' between the church and the federal government, there was no corresponding wall between church and culture. Closed off from making policy, churches organized independent societies for Bible distribution, for alcoholism reform, for observance of the Sabbath, and for suppressing vice and immorality. And, they grew. By the time the French liberal Alexis de Tocqueville took his celebrated tour of the United States in the 1830s, he was amazed to find that while 'in the United States religion' has no 'influence on the laws or on the details of political opinions,' nevertheless, 'it directs the mores' and through that 'it works to regulate the state.'"

Guelzo's premise (based in part on books by Harvard president Drew Faust, and Yale’s Harry Stout) was that religious fervor in the mid-1850s was a major contributor to the unprecedented carnage wreaked by the Civil War and that the United States' war aim of preserving the Union, if not initially driven by religious zeal to right a moral wrong, came to that notion as the only way to justify continuance of a war whose horrendous human toll was orders of magnitude beyond what had been expected at its outset.  Guelzo warns,

"A nation guided by realpolitik knows when to cut its losses. A nation blinded by the moral gleam of a 'fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel' and charmed by the eloquence of a president with an uncanny knack for making his assessment of political problems sound like the Sermon on the Mount, obeys no such limitations."

In other words, a sense of a particular immorality, especially a wrong against humanity, buoyed by religious standards and proscriptions, becomes not just casus belli ("cause for war" for you LSU grads), but ultimately the force that propels one side so imbued to victory, no matter the cost.              

In this, the Colonel thinks, is a warning of things to come in our Republic.  

The Colonel believes that a great moral question -- greater even than the inhumanity of slavery which divided our Republic in the early 19th Century and led to the greatest loss of life of any war in our nation's history -- divides our nation today.  He speaks, of course, of the issue of killing a child in the womb.  Just as slavery set afire the hearts of the religious 150 years ago, today's commercialized killing of defenseless children is kindling a like flame.  The Colonel knows; it burns in his, and not much stirs the cold, flinty cinder that passes for a heart deep in the military recesses of his chest.

The Colonel believes a Second American Civil War is all but inevitable.  The sides of the conflict are setting up much like they did 150 years ago.  "States' rights" will again be the secessionist battle cry.  "States' rights" meaning the right to maintain the legality of the commercialized procedure that kills an innocent and completely helpless child in the womb, without limitation.  

Apologists for the procedure that ends an innocent and completely helpless child's life misappropriate the term "slavery," referring to a woman "inconvenienced," "punished," or "handicapped" (their very own words) by carrying an "unwanted" (again, their words) child to full term as a "sexual slave."  Imagine Lincoln's or Martin Luther King, Jr.'s reaction to such a comparison. 

Apologists for the procedure that ends an innocent and completely helpless child's life hang their legal hats on the "settled law" (their words) of the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade.  In Roe, the majority (in a 7 - 2 decision) ruled that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to end an innocent and completely helpless child's life, but that the state's interests in regulating the procedure that ends an innocent and completely helpless child's life -- the woman's health and the innocent and completely helpless child's viability -- were limited to regulation of the procedure that ends an innocent and completely helpless child's life to the third trimester of pregnancy.

There was a similar law-settling U.S. Supreme Court case prior to the First American Civil War.  In the 1857 Supreme Court case, Dred Scott v. Sandford , the majority (in a 7 - 2 decision) ruled that people in the United States who had been imported as slaves or were offspring of slaves, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Court ruled that Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories, and that the rights of slaveowners were constitutionally protected by the Fifth Amendment because slaves were categorized as property.   

In other words, men and women of African descent were NOT afforded the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  A clearly outrageous claim, since repudiated by a catastrophic war and amendments to the Constitution.  What was "settled law" precedent by an overwhelming majority of the United States Supreme Court, was swept aside in a tsunami of blood and humane reason buoyed by religious belief in the sanctity of all human life.  

Never mind that most Constitutional jurists and scholars believe  that Roe's constitutional underpinnings are fabricated out of the thin air of convenience rather than any studied jurisprudence.  No, we are to accept it as "settled law" and an enshrined right simply because it has been on the books for two generations.

By that reasoning, the heinous and inhumane institution of racial segregation should still be accepted practice.  In 1896, the Supreme Court case Plessy v. Fergusson the majority ruled (7 - 1) that, in accordance with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (the very same Constitutional Amendment from which the 1973 session of the Supreme Court drew a hitherto unknown right to privacy on which to base a woman's right to a procedure to end the life of an innocent and helpless child), states could practice racial segregation of public facilities as long as the denied race had access to roughly equal public facilities of their own.  

Outrageous, no? 

And yet, Plessy was the settled law of the land for three generations.  The "separate but equal" precedent of Plessy was unanimously (9 - 0, for you LSU grads) overturned by the Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.  

That's right, segregation was settled law for fifty-eight years.  

Frankly, the Colonel can not fathom the depths of depravity one must go to place an innocent and helpless child's right to life below that of a man's right to drink from the water fountain of his choice. 

So, here's what the Colonel believes is on the horizon for our Republic:

As more and more judges and justices are appointed to the courts of our lands based on loyalty to the Constitution instead of subversion and perversion of its protections of liberty (of all persons) and prohibitions of government tyranny, the injustices and harm done over the last half century by judges and justices legislating from the bench will be overturned and reversed as surely as Brown overturned Plessy.

This, of course will not sit well with those who prefer personal convenience over constitutionality.  The Colonel refers to those socialists who couldn't care less about the Constitution and who have congregated in a minority of states that are increasingly hostile to the federal government's enforcement of the Constitution in matters of life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness for its CITIZENS.  When Roe, and other cherished socialist decisions, are challenged and lost, the socialist legislatures of those states will take more and more anti-federal steps, the likes of which will make the current anti-federal sanctuary laws look like child's play.  

The federal government's hand will eventually be forced. 

Federal troops will be sent to restore constitutionality.

Don't think it can happen?  Look at Little Rock, Arkansas in 1956 or Oxford, Mississippi in 1962.

What's the worse case scenario?  Socialist-governed state secession from the Union.  Want to talk about precedent?  Try Fort Sumter and the next four years of carnage on for size.

The official United Nations estimate of the death toll of the legal Atlantic slave trade in the 18th and 19th Centuries is seventeen million.  That number eclipses the loss of life during the First American Civil War by over 20 times.  

Nearly fifty million innocent and completely helpless children have lost their lives to the legalized and, shamefully, commercialized practice of abortion.  That number eclipses the loss of life in all of America's wars by nearly a factor of 40.

The Colonel is okay with a Second American Civil War to free the children, and the subsequent reconstruction of the socialists found in rebellion to the Constitution.  It's what he is trained for.   Heck, it's what he swore a solemn oath to do.  But, if you aren't trained or sworn to that end, perhaps there's another way.

How about we compromise?

What if instead of the federal government subsidizing the commercial killing of innocent and completely helpless children, that money was instead set aside to fund the adoption of those children by people who desperately want them?

Might just derail the coming train wreck that will be the Second American Civil War.  

Of course, that would ruin the chance for the Colonel and his kind to march into secessionist territory and stand on the necks of the rebels.  But, that's the nature of compromise.                   


    

Nomenclature

“You may be 38 years old, as I happen to be. And one day, some great opportunity stands before you and calls you to stand up for some great principle, some great issue, some great cause. And you refuse to do it because you are afraid…. You refuse to do it because you want to live longer…. You’re afraid that you will lose your job, or you are afraid that you will be criticized or that you will lose your popularity, or you’re afraid that somebody will stab you, or shoot at you or bomb your house; so you refuse to take the stand.

Well, you may go on and live until you are 90, but you’re just as dead at 38 as you would be at 90. And the cessation of breathing in your life is but the belated announcement of an earlier death of the spirit.”

     -- Martin Luther King Jr.

Here's where the Colonel stands.  The Colonel is a critically thinking, classically liberal, socially conservative, anti-fascist, (little "r") republican, (big "C") Constitutionalist.

If that nomenclature seems incongruous or doesn't make sense, then you are one, some, or all of the below:

     a) a spoiled, public school-educated member of the very fascist organization known as ANTIFA;

     b) a public school-educated Millennial who thinks the very fascist organization known as ANTIFA is actually anti-fascist;

     c) a low-information voter from either side of the political divide who spends more time generating and sharing Facebook memes poking fun at the other political party and its leaders, than engaging in the critical thought and continuing education required to logically and civilly defend your position on issues of the day;

     d) an LSU or Bama graduate;

     e) a current member of the U.S. Congress

     f) someone with a real life, who has far more important things to do with their time than to spend it, as the Colonel does, researching and writing about the arcane.

Allow the Colonel to break down his name and nomenclature for you:

Colonel.  Military rank achieved during nearly three decades of service as an infantry officer in the United States Marine Corps.  (The Colonel remains at a loss to explain how a man of meager talent and ability as he could attain such rank and will have you know that he retired before the Marine Corps made the colossal mistake of making him a general.)

Classically Liberal.  The great thinkers from whose minds and experience the concept of classical liberalism sprung -- Adam Smith, John Locke, Thomas Robert Malthus, Jean-Baptiste Say,  David Ricardo, Thomas Jefferson, and other critical thinkers -- saw free market capitalism as the greatest guarantor of both an individual's opportunity to achieve self-actualization (not a term they used at the time) and a society's opportunity to thrive economically.  A classical liberal sees the modern social liberal (read: socialist) welfare state as antithetical to the above and actually preventive of individual self-actualization and society's economic prosperity.  A classical liberal believes in a limited government (like the one designed by the crafters of the U.S. Constitution) which purpose is limited to:

     -- the protection of individual rights
     -- the provision of services not provided in a free market
     -- the provision of a common defense against foreign invaders
     -- the enactment and enforcement of civil laws
     -- ensuring a stable currency and appropriate infrastructure for             communications and commerce 

* It should be noted that, contrary to the currently popular and uneducated socialist canard, the perceived comparative decline in economic opportunity and standard of living for the most recent generations is NOT due to any excesses or imperfections in free market capitalism, but rather, has been brought about primarily as a result of the socialist abandonment of free market capitalism in favor of the welfare state and central economic planning.  Many uninformed social liberals point to Sweden as an example of the success of their concept of "democratic socialism."  The truth is  that Sweden's abandonment of classical liberalism and free market capitalism to experiment with radical democratic socialism nearly wrecked their economy and was demonstrating dramatic declines in individual liberty and economic productivity until recently arrested by classical liberal governmental and economic reforms that have restored Sweden's vibrancy -- in other words, Sweden looks so good today precisely because they are returning to free market capitalism and away from statism and the welfare state.  

Socially Conservative.  The foundation of the Colonel's social conservatism is his personal relationship with his Creator (the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), made possible by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, faith in whom animates the Colonel by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  The Colonel takes no side on any social issue without consideration of God's will for him.  God's spirit not only convicts the Colonel of personal sin, but also grants him (and all who seek His will) spiritual discernment to know what is right in His eyes and what is the Colonel's right actions toward others.  In other words, the Colonel's social conservatism is not his personal position -- it is the position God convicts him to take.  It is the position of grace toward all other humans.  

*The Colonel recognizes that he ain't real graceful toward others most times -- this post included.  He ain't perfect, but God's not through with him yet.    

Anti-fascist.  Websters Dictionary defines fascism as: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition [italics, the Colonel's]." 

Fascism, as the Colonel opposes it and as is otherwise defined, is a concept for the creation of a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture.  Practitioners of fascism are uninhibited in their use of violence as a tool for persuading others to accede to their viewpoint. 

(The very fascist organization which moronically calls itself ANTIFA is the very living, breathing, hypocritically incarnate definition of fascism.)     

Dictatorial, or authoritarian, fascism has been the end result of nearly every society's headlong dive into the socialist shallow end of the governmental systems pool.  Those who wish to impose a socialist system on the American people (in direct opposition to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution) disguise their motives by placing the word "democratic" in the title, "Democratic Socialism."  To the history-challenged and politically uninformed, this makes this brand of socialism sound almost benign.  But, make no mistake, democratic socialism is in fact mob rule over a forced wealth redistribution (as opposed to voluntary charity) system that will always place the most charismatic tyrants in charge.
    
The goal of democratic socialism, in its proponents' and practitioners' own words, is:

"that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives." (Platform of the Democratic Socialist Party of America)

The above sounds really nice and all..., but it ain't what our nation was founded on and for -- far, far from it.  Our current system of government (at least the one enshrined in our Constitution) already guarantees the opportunity for "ordinary Americans" to "participate in the many decisions that affect our lives."  Which leads the Colonel to his last points.

The Colonel is a (big "C") Constitutionalist.  The Colonel loves and reveres the Constitution of the United States and the representative republic (NOT a democracy) that it (by "We the People") created and sustains.  And not just because he swore a solemn and everlasting oath to "support and defend" with his life.  The Colonel loves and reveres the U.S. Constitution because he KNOWS it, and in the knowing -- in the continuing study and rediscovery of its genius and corrected flaws -- the Colonel finds an abiding appreciation for the checks and balances that both give voice to the "ordinary Americans" and protects them from their own excesses of partisanship and avarice.  

The Colonel is a (little "r") republican because his knowledge of history and albeit marginal ability to think critically informs him that unchecked democracies always implode into tyranny.  The U.S. Constitution was written by men whose knowledge of history and ability to think critically informed them that, in the Colonel's words, "There's a fine, popular line between freedom and tyranny. A strict interpretation of the United States' Constitution keeps that line bright and visible." 

Far more learned men than the Colonel, acting on far more wise principle than he, subordinated their own partisanship and avarice to create and sustain the Constitution of the United States and the representative republican form of government for which it is the Peoples' guidebook.  

Far be it from the Colonel to consider, let alone advocate, any other system of government for the People of America... and the Americas. 

All the foregoing being said, if the People of our land do decide in democratic fervor to once again "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them," the Colonel stands ready to assume the mantle of responsibility as a relatively  benevolent dictator.

Let's pray, for all our sake, it never comes to that.   

Pre-Traumatic Speech Disorder

The Colonel has spent the better part of the last week feverishly crafting the most important speech of the political year here at the shallow northern end of deep southern nowhere -- the regularly irregular State of the Tallahatchie Republic address.  

As is his custom of nearly a half century, the Colonel likes to pitch his ideas to, and practice his oratorical flourishes with, the comely and kind-hearted Miss Brenda...

"My fellow Tallahatchians, the Colonel comes before you this evening..."

"What?  Are you talking to me, knucklehead?"

"The Colonel is practising his speech, dear. Just listen and tell me what you think."  

"Speech?  What speech?"

"The Colonel's regularly irregular State of the Tallahatchie Republic address, of course.  You know that it is the most important speech of the year here at the shallow northern end of deep southern nowhere..."

"Take a deep breath, knucklehead.  You're babbling again.  And for pete's sake, quit referring to yourself in the third person!"

"The Colonel doesn't babble!  He might pontificate.  He can ramble.  But, he never, ever babbles!"

"What's that, knucklehead?  All I heard was 'babble, babble, babble.'  And, what's that funny hand motion you're making?"

"It's not a funny hand motion  -- it's a knife hand.  Draws attention and adds visual punctuation to the Colonel's babb..., er..., speech.  Look, dear, just listen while you sit there doing your needle point."

"But, you're standing in front of Gibbs!"

"Who?"

"Gibbs!  Leroy Jethro Gibbs.  NCIS is on and you're standing in front of the TV.  Now there's a real Marine."  

"Uh, dear, you do know that Gibbs is a fictional character?  The whole show is the height of implausibility.  Why, the NCIS folks the Colonel dealt with when he was on active duty couldn't get the bullet out of their shirt pocket, let alone bring down international terrorists!"

"There you go again, knucklehead.  Babbling about your glory days.  Look at you, now.  You buy a few acres and now you think you're king of your own country."

"Not king.  More like a relatively benevolent military dictator."

"Yeah, right!  More like an irrelevant boorish popinjay."  

"Who you calling irrelevant?  Please, just listen to the speech and see if it strikes the right tone.  If the Colonel doesn't get it right, the republic might devolve into civil war."  

"Civil war?  Knucklehead, there's not but two of us living out here at the end of the road to nowhere.  As long as you stay out of the way of the TV, the state of our union will be strong.  Go give your speech to the chickens."

Just as well.  The Colonel can't decide whether the central pillar of his address should be his plans for expansion of the Republic via privately financed invasion route infrastructure enhancements, or raising the comely and kind-hearted Miss Brenda's wages.

Maybe the chickens will give the Colonel some feedback on his ideas for a moon colony...    

Preposterous Future

The Colonel thinks a lot about the future these days.  Anyone who is a serious student of history can't help but.  It's been said that history doesn't repeat itself..., but it rhymes really well.  The Colonel believes that one of history's greatest lessons is the inevitability of certain themes repeating themselves.

There was a time, early in his life, that the Colonel bought into the naive school of thought that mankind was "progressing" beyond the base natures by which the actions of competing civilizations had been ordered.      

But now, with the advantage of age and experience, the Colonel sees the future as certain as the past.  His crystal ball is murkier than a stock tank in a West Texas drought, but it really doesn't take any particular clarity to predict more of the same.

In an interesting, if a bit hyperbolic and stilted, book, "The Coming War with Japan," published in 1991, the authors' preface began with the following:

            "Imagine being alive in the summer of 1900. Europe was powerful, peaceful, and rich. Could you have imagined the devastation of 1920, the fall of the Kaiser, the Russian Revolution? Could anyone, then, have imagined the summer of 1940? Germany resurgent, France crushed, Britain fighting for its life. Or, in the summer of 1940, could anyone have imagined 1960? Europe divided and occupied by Americans and Soviets, the British and French empires gone, a nation called Israel arisen. In 1960, could anyone have imagined the summer of 1980? America in retreat, defeated by Vietnam, reeling before the Iranians, allied with Communist China. One would ask about the man in the summer of 1980 trying to imagine the summer of 2000, but he would already be so flabbergasted by the summer of 1990 that there would be no need to force him to strain his already stricken imagination. In 1980 anyone who predicted the collapse of the communism would have been ridiculed. Yet if there is one thing that the twentieth century ought to have taught us, it is that the commonsense approach to history is almost invariably doomed to be wrong, and that the most preposterous expectations are usually closer to the mark."
 
The Colonel would add to this train of thought that the man in 2000 could scarcely imagine the events of September 11th, 2001, and the subsequent Global War on Terror.  Nor could that man imagine, given the horrific attack on America, that war fought in a fecklessly limited and incremental fashion, and stretched over nearly an entire generation.

War is the natural condition of man.  A major war has convulsed the globe in nearly every generation dating back as far as one wishes to study.  Minor wars simmer constantly.  The Clausewitzian view of war is that it is an extension of politics.  If so, then politics is defined by conflict between competing worldviews and the desire for power and control of resources.   The causes for war have not been eliminated nor even diminished with the progress of "civilized" nations.  Even attempts to prevent war or to punish aggressors and "make right" (restore borders and sovereignty) requires the application of force with the tools of war, notwithstanding limited efficacy of diplomatic and economic sanctions.   

So, any futurist forecast for the remainder of the 21st Century must include war, and lots of it.

Thankfully, just as there is a symbiotic link between tactics and technology -- each spurring change and advancement in the other -- there is always a globally beneficial technological byproduct of war, even if some cultures or societies are destroyed by that war.  As horrific as were the costs of the two world wars in the first half of the 20th Century, the survivors (both victors and vanquished) were the beneficiaries of technological advances spurred by the tactical exigencies and casualty responses of those wars.

Now, before those of you with hands over mouths in abject horror click to more palatable reading fare, please know that the Colonel is not making a case for the morality of war.  Far from it.  War, in and of itself, is amoral.  The Colonel is merely making a case for the acceptance of war as an inescapable consequence of the nature of humanity, and positing that societies that prepare for war's inevitability are more likely to survive and thrive in the aftermath.

The Colonel's foundational premise is this:  War happens, and will continue to happen.  

Given that, what would be the best strategic course of action for our Republic over the next 50 to 100 years?  Allow the Colonel to, in the words of the above quoted book's authors, dispense with "the commonsense approach... [which is] almost invariably doomed to be wrong," and propose his own set of "most preposterous expectations [that] are usually closer to the mark."


Possible Major Wars of the 21st Century

Europe.  The fault lines over which future major wars will rupture the crust of extant societies and their allies are as numerous and germane as they ever were.  Today, Europe seems historically serene and cooperative, notwithstanding current tensions over immigration and economic bloc bureaucracies.  But age-old animosities, and desire for relative power position and resource control, simmer like volcanic hot spots over which the thin veneer of continental cooperation floats.  There were three major and several minor wars in Europe in the 80 years before the middle of the last century (and that prevalence of war in nearly every generation was not unusual in Europe's history).  Post-WWII U.S. occupation of Europe and the subsequent nuclear annihilation consequence of the NATO - Soviet Cold War (not to mention wide-scale destruction requiring multiple generations' work from which to recover) has prevented a major war in Europe.  But, the tamping lid of U.S. occupation has all but been completely removed.  Soviet expansionism has been replaced by resurgent Russian Imperialism, the most effective tactic of which at present seems to be active meddling (if not outright interference) in the electoral affairs of nations with which it sees itself in competition or wishes to draw within its orbit.

Russia, whose influence, in a perfect world, could be a force for stability and cooperation in Europe, will instead continue to foment instability to its own advantage.  This instability will manifest itself in conflict between European nations, notwithstanding the supposed stabilizing effect of the NATO alliance and the European Economic Community.  Major war in Europe within the next two generations is all but guaranteed; and, while it may not necessarily involve Russia directly, it will be as a result of Russia's actions to undermine European cooperation.

Asia - Pacific Rim.  Europe is not unique in the possession of casus belli fault lines.  China's relentless long march from colonial backwater to nascent global economic and military superpower has finally begun to suck all the oxygen out of the room, and the rest of the region is on notice.  China has many of the same ethnic and religious undercurrents that gave us the term "balkanized" with the removal of the Tito lid in Yugoslavia.  To keep 1.4 billion citizens' focus off of ethnic tension, China uses economic growth and nationalism.  Economic growth cannot be maintained in perpetuity. So, the Chinese leadership has inexorably built a world class military with which to leverage nationalism through -- you guessed it -- war.  

Within Asia exists the same sorts of ancient animosities and resource control tensions as seen in Europe.  While America's Pacific strategy has waffled and swung widely over the last half-century, the direction of China's strategic activities has not altered significantly.  The nations of the Pacific Rim have begun calculating with whom to rely in their best interests -- the U.S. or China.  American military tripwires are laid throughout the region and the possibility of an increasingly active projection of Chinese force (not to mention China's erratic client -- North Korea) coming in contact with the forces of the United States or its allies is higher than it has been since 1975.  Even the slightest miscalculation by the Chinese could lead to open conflict, from which Chinese nationalistic pride (and political leadership survival) will not allow it to pull back.  A major war in the Western Pacific Rim within the next two generations is as great a possibility as that of war in Europe.  

Africa and the Middle East.  The fault lines in North Africa and the Middle East need little explanation.  Interestingly, the region's future will be heavily influenced by the two major players mentioned above -- Russia and China.  Russia seeks renewed influence and resource control in the Middle East, and China sees sub-Saharan Africa as a critical source of rare metals and materials vital to its military modernization and nationalistically motivated space endeavors.  Both nations have been at least as active in the region as has been the United States.  The nations of the region are making the same calculations about the long-term reliability of the United States as are the nations of the Pacific Rim.

The United States' "Global War on Terror," largely centered on this region, has been tactically successful, but strategically ineffective.  First of all, the limited war has been fought against a tactic -- terror.  War against a tactic is ludicrous.  Had the war against Japan in the early 1940's been fought the same way, the United States would still be locked in a low-level tactical struggle with Japan.   Successful war is waged not against an adversary nation's tactics, but against that adversary's will to continue to employ that tactic or materially support organizations that do.  

While the Global War on Terror has served to assuage the United States' anger over 9/11, and kept terror organizations on their back feet, it has largely been a generation of lost blood and treasure without a significant decrease in the material support by nations in the region to those terror organizations.  If anything, material support from adversary nations has increased.

Until Western nations, led by the United States, carry the fight to the nations materially supporting organizations employing terror tactics, there will continue to be terror attacks throughout the West. A critical component of this fight must also include ramping up the nascent attempts at discrediting the underlying jihadist ideology.  But, the fight will not be won with the current "Long War" philosophy.  Western societies in general and American society in particular have no stomach for long limited wars.  Nor should they. 

At any rate, notwithstanding multiple American administrations' attempts to broker a substantive and comprehensive peace based on the errant goal of solving the actually narrow "Palestinian issue" (read "Arab excuse"), multiple sectarian fault lines, tribal animosities, and squabbles over borders imposed at the end of the colonial era will continue to act as casus belli for minor wars for generations to come; with potential development into major regional conflicts with Russian and/or American involvement.  

The Americas.  The Colonel intentionally left the Western Hemisphere for last, because he fervently believes that the future of the aforementioned regions has great bearing on the strategy that he believes our Republic must adopt with regard to the "American Hemisphere."  In comparison with engagement and encirclement strategies in Europe, Asia-Pacific, Africa, and the Middle East, a Western Hemisphere-centric approach to the strategic imperatives of commerce, resource control, and defensible frontiers is a far easier strategic endeavor.  

The Colonel does not propose a complete withdrawal from the other regions of the globe.  Engagement with long-time allies does not have to cease or even diminish, even if our Republic's focus shifts dramatically from the regions in which those allies exist to a truly "America First" strategy.  The Colonel's "America First" strategy is not the narrow, populist, isolationist view of the majority of the current administration's political base.  Far from it.  The Colonel's "America First" could be called  the "American Hemisphere First" strategy.

But, let's keep it simple, shall we?  

An "America First" grand national strategy would seek to strengthen the entire Western Hemisphere, drawing all the nations of the hemisphere into a tight, mutually beneficial relationship.

Look, the people of our hemisphere -- North, Central, and South America -- have far more in common with each other than with the peoples and cultures of most of the rest of the world.  Even the language barrier is far less of an issue than exists among the nations of Europe or Asia, or even among the nations in the current Russian Federation.

The Colonel's vision of a perfect world is a pan-hemispheric Republic stretching from the Hudson Bay to Tierra del Fuego with a maritime-centric military strategy designed to, a) ensure world-wide freedom of navigation for commerce, and b) hemispheric oceanic control for defense.  Land forces would be maintained and structured primarily for continental defense, recognizing the near impossibility and unnecessary expense of maintaining land forces large enough for decisive major action on the African or Eurasian continents.  Strategic strike long-range bombers, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles -- the strategic nuclear triad -- would be maintained (modernized and structured for continued efficiency) for nuclear deterrence.   

There will be major wars in the Eastern Hemisphere within the next two generations.  The United States need not be involved, unless the American Republic is willing to spend blood and treasure that will make the expenses of the wars of the 20th Century pale in comparison.  If our Republic is to make that expense to make decisive impact in those major Eastern Hemisphere wars, then we should be rewarded with world-wide empire.  If our Republic is not willing to take on world-wide empire, then we should at least ensure the security and prosperity of the Western Hemisphere.  A pan-hemispheric republic is the logical answer.     

Preposterous, you say?

Was it preposterous for Americans to cross the Alleghenies and push to the Mississippi River, doubling American territory?  Was it preposterous to purchase the Louisiana Territory, again doubling  American territory?  Was it preposterous to annex the Northwest territory and the territory north of the Rio Grande, again doubling American territory?  Was it preposterous to purchase Alaska?  Was it preposterous to add Hawaii to the Republic?

The entire American Experience is preposterous!  Greatness comes to those who seize on the preposterous idea, and act on that preposterous idea. 

Expand the Republic!