hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to 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, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Why nuclear disarmament is an unwise promise

By Gene Myers

Claiming freedom from the ideologically driven policies of the recent past, the Obama administration has promised a “new pragmatic approach” to everything from the economy to national defense, including U.S. deterrence strategy. This implies a strategic view that embraces the old notion of politics being the art of the possible — a return to negotiation and compromise in solving the nation’s problems.

New political dawns often bring heightened expectations from supporters of the new governmental incumbents. In the case of defense policy, in particular nuclear defense policy, a return to old internal Cold War-era ideological clashes is likely in the offing, clashes that will strain national leaders’ ability to negotiate the “possible.”

The arrival of what could be called a moderately liberal executive branch reinforced by Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress along with a heightened awareness of the new dangers posed by rogue nations and global terrorist factions will likely resurrect Cold War desires to once and for all rid the world of nuclear weapons — and to strike while conditions appear optimal. As it has always been, nuclear disarmament is indeed a worthy goal but one not lacking in either difficulty or real national dangers.

The task for the new president is to convince the world that the U.S. is indeed serious about at least more closely approaching disarmament by further reducing nuclear stockpiles while at the same time doing what is necessary to assure the nation’s safety. Of course, the issue then becomes, does what is necessary include maintaining nuclear deterrence — possibly against the will of some “no nukes” advocates? Such ideological nuclear nirvana may eventually be in the cards, but the continued need to ensure national safety in a still-dangerous world has seemingly stacked the deck against it. For the present, let’s look at ways to make the current world less dangerous.

Virginia Lieutenant Governor candidate Patrick Muldoon offers voters an important choice in Virginia’s 2009 Lieutenant Governor race.

It is a choice between more of the status quo authoritarianism that has permeated Republican and Democrat politics in recent years and proven not to work; or, between the U.S. Constitution, freedom and God. To me, the choice is clear.

We must elect Patrick Muldoon as the next Virginia Lieutenant Governor if we are once again to move towards the freedoms that our Founding Fathers envisioned and to through-off the yoke of centralized control and planning of the authoritarian state.

"Enough already of the hand-wringing and night sweats about the demise of the conservative movement!

Conservatives aren't challenged because of the basic principles that define us, but by the failure of the principles being translated into policy and practice.

Ghandi once said, "If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today."

I would be so brazen to say that if conservatives would really live according to the principles of classic conservatism, all of America would be conservative today.

The crisis is not one over the precepts, but the practice. It's not that we've failed in our doctrine, but our "doing."

Conservatives believe that the best government is the most local government possible and that the 10th Amendment means something and should be followed. Yet, the supposedly conservative Republican Party has been a drum major for the expanded role of the federal government.

Our founders feared a highly centralized and endowed federal government, instead preferring a system of strong and virtually independent states so that no one person, party, or power broker would exercise a great deal of control.

The inherent danger of allowing too much power in the hands of the few was the heart of the major dispute between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson won, believing that the dispersing of power among the states would by design keep the federal government from becoming too consuming and powerful in its approach to governing. The genius of the 10th Amendment, as is true of all of the Bill of Rights, was that it deliberately limited what the government could do - not what the individual could do.

The 10th Amendment defines the limits of the federal government in 28 words: "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."

Over the past few years, Republicans have been either acquiescing in or encouraging the acquisition of more power and control by the federal government - in policy shifts in education, health care, and even how a driver's license looks.

During my 10 years as a governor, a constant battle raged with my own federal government over such programs as "Real I. D.," which was a federally conceived idea to force states to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to re-format the look of a state-issued drivers license so it would become the equivalent of a federal ID card.

Of course, no member of Congress wanted to come out and advocate an actual federal ID card, so forcing the states to make the driver's license the substitute seemed brilliant to Washington...

...Perhaps no other example is more glaring than having painfully watched so-called Washington conservatives abandon the most fundamental principle of conservatism - fiscal restraint. A Republican administration pushed for and got the authority to spend $700 billion that we had to borrow from our grandchildren's future so we could do what government has no business doing - picking out winners and losers in the private sector marketplace.

It was especially disgusting to me to watch some of the very leaders who had smugly dismissed my candidacy for president because I had the audacity to speak out against the excesses of Wall Street and Washington as early as February 2007 now stand up and flop-sweat as they explained why they were about to support the government taking off the striped shirts of the referee and put on the jersey of a team to play the game for one team against another all in the name of "saving the markets."

By abandoning our bedrock conservative principles, and those of our founding fathers, they risked ruining our country to save the markets.

What gives me hope is my belief that the party of Reagan will reunite behind the consistent conservative policies that have made our country great - policies that empower individuals, families, and entrepreneurs, not government, to shape our own destinies. If we do that, we will not fail.

Mr. Obama rolled out his new healthcare plan on March 5, 2009. He claimed that the current, poor healthcare system in this country is responsible for our current economic woes and is also responsible for a personal bankruptcy every thirty seconds. Later, when asked, the White House was unable to substantiate the personal bankruptcy every thirty seconds, but it sounded good on the 6 o'clock news.

Does anybody believe that Obama's healthcare plan costs will be lower while covering more people who do not pay into it?

In his ongoing quest to bring socialism to this country, Obama recently received the glowing endorsement of Sam Webb, chairman of the Communist Party USA. In a speech in Cleveland Ohio at the end of January 2009, Comrade Webb called Mr. Obama "an ally.”

Stay tuned…more to come on all of this.

Cuccinelli said “I believe that I can win in November 2009 because I stand strongly for conservative principles and I have proven that I can explain them in a way that demonstrates to your average Virginia family that I can make a positive difference in their daily lives.” Cuccinelli went on to list some examples, cutting red tape, fighting tax increases, protecting liberties while keeping families and children safe, and fighting government waste and focusing spending on core responsibilities like transportation, education and law enforcement.

The Senator, a veteran of three successful campaigns in Northern Virginia, described himself as being firmly in the GOP mainstream: “I have always stayed true to the conservative principles that I have

advertised in my campaigns, and that is simply because I am a conservative at heart. It’s not just positions, it’s who I am. I am unapologetically pro-life and anti-tax, and I have been the biggest defender of the 2nd Amendment and property rights in the Virginia State Senate since my arrival. And I have done all this in some of the toughest political territory for a conservative, not merely in Northern Virginia, but in inner Northern Virginia, right here in Fairfax County – the single biggest vote prize in a statewide race.”

Cuccinelli drew attention to his statewide donor base and extensive support from “low dollar” contributors and grassroots activists, who are typically considered the backbone of a successful campaign. He noted that he has always won his races despite being outspent due to efficient, high energy and volunteer-intensive campaigns. Cuccinelli stated his intention to “run a campaign that the founding fathers would be proud of. A campaign that consistently applies conservative principles to today’s pressing issues.”

Cuccinelli invited support for his race and pledged to bring his conservative principles to the way he operates the Attorney General’s office. He praised Bob McDonnell’s efforts to review the Virginia code and cut back on outdated or in-effective regulations. Cuccinelli indicated he would expand that effort to examine under-performing and obsolete state programs.

A litigation, business and patent attorney and partner in the law firm of Cuccinelli & Day, PLLC, Cuccinelli was first elected to the Senate of Virginia in a 2002 special election. He serves on the Senate Courts of Justice Committee and has worked closely with the Attorney General’s office on key public safety and public interest legislation.

Cuccinelli was the chief architect of 2007 legislation tightening protections for private property owners and strictly defining the circumstances where the government’s eminent domain power may be used. The Northern Virginia Senator also has a passion for helping those who, in his words, “through no fault of their own, are unable to help themselves.” He was an integral part of crafting this year’s mental health system reform package, a subject on which he has submitted legislation since 2004.

For more information, please visit http://www.cuccinelli.com/ .

Endorsed by Noel Gibeson, Republican National Committee member

In 2005 a low-level CIA analyst named Leandro Aragoncillo was arrested for stealing and giving classified FBI documents to the Philippines. His arrest charged him with printing and downloading 101 FBI documents and providing 31 secret documents to Philippine sources. A separate investigation was trying to determine whether he did something similar when he worked as an administrative clerk in the U.S. Marine Corps assigned to the White House staff.

In another case, Pentagon analyst Lawrence Franklin plead guilty to three felony counts for spying for Israel in exchange for prosecutors dropping three other felony charges against him. He provided information to two people working for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a pro-Israeli lobbying group. Although AIPAC fired these two employees, AIPAC has long been associated with Israeli spying against the United States. As is typical in all these cases, both AIPAC and the Israeli government deny everything.

There are many other past and current cases of U.S. citizens entrusted with their country’s secrets doing similar, reprehensible acts of espionage, oftentimes for sheer greed – for money.

Whatever their motivations are for spying they are irrelevant. They agreed and swore an oath to safeguard and protect classified information. It does not matter at all if they had a bad childhood, they don’t like a certain policy, their wife left them, they support the goals of another group or country, or their cat was struck by a car.

If they commit treason then they must receive the most severe form of punishment that this country can offer them: death, and not just any death, but death by hanging. It is no more cruel and unusual than the electric chair, the gas chamber, or lethal injection. And it also has the added advantage of making a public statement to other would-be spies that if they spy, then they too will be hanged.

However, lower standards of conduct and law apparently apply to liberals like disgraced Clinton Administration National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. He was the one who stole and then destroyed numerous top secret documents from the National Archives in order for them not to prove an embarrassment to his administration. He was fined $50,000 and ordered to perform a 100 hours of community service. He probably should have received 20-25 years hard-time in prison. And if he were in the military or a civil servant charged with the same offenses, then he probably would have received at least 20-25 years in prison; so much for equal protection and application of the laws.

But spies are worse. They are as bad as a terrorist and some instances, even worse than a terrorist. Aggressive pre-screening, in-service counter-measures, and aggressive investigation, prosecution and sentencing of these people is what is required. Certainly, no quarter must be given to routing them out, finding out what damage they caused, convicting them and then promptly hanging them.
________________________________________________________
Noel Gibeson is President of the Mount Vernon Institute

One comparison of “military efficiency” between the resource inputs of the Army and Marine Corps can be made using a simple formula that compares the relative ratios of some form of measurable combat power over the TOA or budget of each service. At a basic level, the simplest form of combat power to be measured is the soldier or Marine in the field, assigned to operational forces. The formula captures the total costs the nation incurs in terms of organizing, training and equipping combat forces. The TOA comparison also captures service investment practices and its infrastructure or overhead.

The comparison uses Army force structure data presented in an Army budget brief, and Marine data found in the latest approved Marine Corps manpower database dated April 1994. This data was then compared to the 1994 fiscal year budget levels for each service to produce an efficiency ratio.

I also looked at two types of Marine data: one for the Marine Corps budget as presented in Marine Corps appropriations and another that incorporates additional resources found in Navy appropriations that directly benefit the Marine Corps. This second level does not include amphibious lift resources. In the same manner, to maintain an “apples to apples” comparison, the Army’s resource total does not include any measure of strategic mobility expenditures by the Air Force or Navy.

The figures indicate that the Army puts 234,000 soldiers into operational billets for its relatively larger share ($61.0 billion) of the Defense budget. This equates to the production of 3.8 trained and equipped soldiers for every $1.0 million of TOA. The Marine Corps puts 108,507 Marines into operational billets for $8.7 billion—or 12.5 trained and equipped Marines for every $1.0 million of TOA. In even simpler terms, for every trained soldier the Army fields, the Marine Corps places 3.23 Marines.

Using these rough measures of efficiency, the Marine Corps would seem to be more than three times more efficient. When taking into account those dollars the Navy invests directly for the Marine Corps into aviation assets ($12.0 billion), the Marines remain two and a half times more efficient than the Army in providing trained warriors in the operating forces to serve the Nation’s interests. And the Marine forces include tactical aviation, fixed wing as well as helicopters, amphibious assault vehicles, and 30 days’ logistical sustainability—all in the sticker price!

The entire Marine Corps budget comprises only 6 percent of the entire Defense Department budget. For that price, the nation gets 11 percent of its active forces, 20 percent of the active divisions and 18 percent of all tactical aviation. Further, Marines operate tactical aviation more efficiently on a yearly basis. In part, this efficiency is a result of the leanest officer-to-enlisted ratio of any of the services. The Air Force ratio is roughly 1:4, the Army 1:5, the Navy 1:6 and the Marine Corps is 1:9.

The comparison between Army and Marine TOA is only one perspective on effectiveness. Many others are possible. More important, effectiveness in the different functions of the Army and the Marine Corps counts for more than pure efficiency. The Commission on Roles and Mission will take more factors into consideration than just saving money. However, when it comes to matching effectiveness with efficiency, the Marine Corps will still take the prize.

© Noel Gibeson 1995

Why will George W. Bush be reelected? Why, because the Democratic Party will help him get reelected!

As the Hanging Chad Party prepares to meet for its convention in Boston, no group has done more for the reelection of the President Bush than this party. They have mastered the ability to declare that “the sky is falling.” Time and time again, we hear this in many different venues. Let me give you some examples.

First, there are the social issues. The Administration has gone out its way to ensure that all minority groups and genders have been included in its leadership. This has been accomplished and works quite well. Moreover, more money has been provided to fight the war on HIV/AIDS in Africa than at any other time in the past. The First Lady has represented the US on women’s issues around the world and the President has also repeatedly championed women’s rights. However, should one listen to the articulations of the HCP, this Administration has done little to nothing to help Blacks or Hispanics; not enough has been done to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa; and no one has done anything about women’s rights since Hillary. The rhetoric does not reflect the facts.

Then there are the, “tax cuts for the wealthy.” The reality is, least we forget, that the tax cuts are for everyone. They are to stimulate the economy and they have worked; witness the now steady growth of the economy and the growth of good jobs in this economy. Forget the rhetoric and look at the numbers. If wealthy people benefit more from tax cuts it because they pay more taxes in our socialistic tax system that is already skewed and designed for them to pay more taxes as a result of having to pay a higher percentage of their income towards taxes. It would be fairer were everyone to pay the same tax percentage with no deductions or write-offs for anyone. That would be a very simple system to operate. But that would probably never get written into law because there are too many vested interests who would oppose it, such as tax attorneys and accountants not to mention the wealthy.

When it comes to jobs, more and more are being created in newer, more skilled areas. So workers who have worked in manufacturing for years may need to update their skills to seek work in these higher paying new jobs. Robotics is being used more often in production, replacing humans, and some jobs have gone overseas where labor rates are much lower. Conversely, more and more high tech jobs are coming to the US because of our skilled workforce and because of the innovation of our companies. One thing in life that is certain is that there will be change. “Going back to the way things used to be” may not be possible. We must continue learn and to grow as times change. Skilled American workers can make more money and have a higher standard of living once they develop the skills that companies now need.

Then there have been the statements that, “the President does not listen to or care about African-Americans,” because “he does not want to address the NAACP Convention or speak to Congressional Black Caucus.” Of course, this is a preposterous statement. The NAACP represents extreme, left-wing activists, not main-stream African-Americans. The underlying assumption is that the NAACP and the CBC somehow represent all African-Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell are perfect examples of that not being the case. Has anyone seen a photo of the Bush cabinet lately? If you take a look, you might think you were in the United Nations. And, President Bush will address the Urban League. There are many good African-Americans who are members of the Republican Party and there are many others who vote for that party from time-to-time. All African-Americans are welcome, always.

That party is also out of touch with the overwhelming number of Americans when it comes to homosexual marriage. As the poles indicate, most people believe that marriage should be only between one woman and one man. The HCP doesn’t seem to understand this. Marriage is not between a man and a boy, a woman and a girl, a human and a beast, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.  And, polygamy was outlawed years ago. Different social relationships exist, but that does not mean that they should be recognized or approved by society. The party is out of touch with the majority of Americans.

When it comes to gun control the party is out of touch as well. This is a social problem, not a legislative problem. Guns don’t kill people; people kill people. If all guns were outlawed then a black-market would spring up to manufacture and sell illegal guns. Some of us remember the crude, homemade ‘zip guns’ of the 1950s and 1960s that anyone could make. Imagine what could be done using a real machine shop. A ban on handguns would meet the same fate as did the liquor Prohibition that occurred between1920 and 1933; it will fail. Well-intentioned liberals would better serve their cause of eliminating gun violence by addressing the social roots of illegal gun use. Fix those problems and gun violence will disappear. 

And then there is the war in Iraq. Wars never turn out as planned, darn it! Libya surrendered its nuclear weapons program. The chemical and biological weapons stockpiles that Saddam Hussein hid from UN inspectors have not been found. Even when the dictator was threatened with invasion he did not permit the timely, unfettered access by inspectors to all sites that they wanted to visit in order to prevent an invasion. Perhaps he needed time to move to weapons. So, the majority of weapons remain unaccounted for. Perhaps we will see them soon in American cities. That would, indeed, be a tragic.

When it comes to public education, students deserve to have the highest quality education that they can get. Taxpayers deserve high performing schools and teachers so that students can achieve their best results. They deserve viable alternatives to attain these goals. Performance results by schools and teachers are the key. For decades since the 1960s, taxpayers have been pouring billions and billions of dollars into public schools and getting, for the most part, mediocre or poor results. We can do better. Requiring effectiveness and accountability is the key. Public school teachers unions should stop fighting change and, instead, embrace performance-based results. That way schools, teachers, and students will all be benefit. And taxpayers will know that their money is being used for a worthwhile purpose; the perfection of the student.

The 2000 national elections are still an issue in 2004. With all the whining and crying about the 2000 elections; the hanging chads and so forth, we still hear dire predictions in July of 2004 that the same thing will happen again in 2004 elections in Florida and other places. All disputed voting in the Florida election occurred in Democratic districts with Democrats in charge of both counting and recounting votes. So, are they criticizing themselves? Or, will this just become a self-fulfilling prophesy for 2004? How is it that we in the United States have been conducting elections for more than 200 years and it has worked just fine? People were elected. Sure, there have been election problems in the past and there will be, no doubt, problems in the future. If people, including some members of the US House of Representatives, don’t understand how the Electoral College works, then they need to educate themselves.

What can the Democratic Party due to win elections? They need to understand Americans better than they do right now.   More is needed than another Gleam Team hugfest. Substance, not more talk, is what is necessary followed by appropriate action. Positive action is needed so that mainstream Americans can count on those who they elect for responsible, effective leadership. All is not doom and gloom! We should drop all the negativity and embrace other points of view. We need work together for positive change.

© Mount Vernon Institute 2004

 Noel Gibeson is a Senior Fellow at the Mount Vernon Institute.

As a former U.S. Marine Corps infantry officer who has served both during the draft and after the changeover to an All-Volunteer Force, there are a number of reasons why we should not go backwards and reinstate the draft. First and foremost is the orientation of our national perspective. What is meant by that? Essentially, are we to be a nation of peace or of war? Why do we need a large standing military? What is the purpose? If we, as a nation, have imperialistic aspirations then, yes, we probably do need a large standing army. However, if we aspire to be something better; perhaps a nation of peace, then we probably do not need a large standing army. There are many other reasons why we do not need a draft.

One of the main reasons that draft proponents put forth on why we need a draft is that there is a dwindling pool from which to draw new enlistees. While this may be true on one hand, their conclusion is erroneous; we do not need to draft people simply to fill existing military force structure requirements. That is because our active duty and reserve force mix needs to be re-evaluated and brought up-to-date. The United States does not need to start wars or to engage in almost every international peacekeeping operation that comes along. We need to choose our wars carefully and if in doubt, then stay out. The size of the active duty component must be large enough for immediate defense and to handle an immediate challenge to our nation. It should not be big enough to start a war. On the other hand, the reserve component, to include the National Guard, must be sizeable enough to handle every military event short of a world war. Should a world war become imminent then full mobilization, to include the draft, would be necessary to defend our nation from such an extreme threat.

Another reason touted for bringing back the draft is the social benefit to society; that the draft is the great equalizer among races, genders, and social class. The current belief is that an AVF is drawn mainly from people from poor backgrounds and that elites never have to serve. So goes the notion, that when the casualties start coming in it is the poor, the minorities that take the brunt of the casualties. The reality, however, is different. First, the AVF is comprised of people from every socio-economic class, even the elite class. Some elites, who may later aspire to political office, serve to include military service on their resume. The AVF is already diverse and includes a range of races, genders, and nationalities. In fact, it could be argued that this force is probably more diverse that any other segment of our society. During the Vietnam War draft deferments were given to college students for a while, members of the reserve component or National Guard, and others who were in alternative service such as the Peace Corps. And, of course there is always the exemption for conscientious objectors. The argument for bringing back the draft so that it includes more elites in its ranks is spurious because elites have always found a way to get out of service if they do not want to serve.

Social experimentation or engineering is something that should not be tried in the military. In 1966 the Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, however, tried just such an experiment, as part of the Great Society’s efforts to improve societal’s ills under President Johnson’s “War on Poverty.” This experiment failed as a victim of unintended consequences. “McNamara’s 100,000,” officially dubbed “Project 100,000,” sought to help reengineer society by providing training in the military to recruits with low mental aptitude scores (in the 10-30 percentile) and some who had impaired physical ability. Only a small number (9%) had a ‘physical disability’ that was quickly remedied. These were the so called, “fat boys” or physical weaklings. For the low aptitude group (91%), the idea was to provide training and opportunity to individuals so when they left the service for civilian employment they might have some basic skill and a job history. Though noble in concept, it became a nightmare in practice. The 364,000 personnel that passed through this program ended up becoming, for the most part, cannon fodder in the Vietnam War. Many of them received a one-way ticket to Vietnam and suffered high casualties because of their limited abilities. So, in practice the poor and minorities ended up suffering disproportionately under this social experimentation program.

Today, we should appreciate the overall high quality of AVF when compared to the conscripted force of the past. The AVF is of higher quality because it does not accept drug addicts, criminals, and accepts people with higher mental aptitude (AFQT category III and above). Because of the higher mental abilities, training can be successfully accomplished in less time. And in today’s increasingly technical military environment that is important. Also, in-service attrition is lower than in the past. A quality force is vital to success on today’s battlefield.

After patriotism, one of the main reasons young people give for joining the military today are the college benefits, the training, and the pay. The draft would do nothing to improve the social benefits to society and would probably hurt it because pay and benefits would be cut to those who did serve. With a drafted force these benefits could and would be reduced to accommodate larger numbers of conscripts. If you are forcing people to serve, then you do not need the incentives that you do for an AVF. Today, service members who may never have had the opportunity to go to college in the past are able to go to college now because we do have an AVF. The United States needs to maintain its focus on keeping and improving a high-quality, well-trained, All-Volunteer Force.

Finally, young Americans should have the freedom to choose, or to not choose, to go into the military. Why should the government force them to join? Barring a very extreme situation such as a world war, it should be their freedom, their choice. That way it will be volunteers who decide to enlist and be this nation’s frontline of defense, which is what our nation’s founders intended.

© Mount Vernon Institute 2004

Noel Gibeson was a Marine Corps strategic and manpower planner during the Reagan and first Bush Administrations and is presently a Senior Fellow at the Mount Vernon Institute.

________________________________________

Noel Gibeson is a Senior Fellow at the Mount Vernon Institute