Honoring U.S. Our Veterans

By Noel Gibeson, Republican

November 11, 2006

In Great Appreciation and Thanks for Your Service:

We, the American People, honor your volunteer service to our country.

We honor your commitment to the U.S. Constitution and to this country and your oath “to support and to defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

We acknowledge and appreciate the sacrifices that you make on a daily basis, such as being separated from your families for long periods of time as your children grow.

We acknowledge your valor in the face of sometimes great fear and danger.

We recognize and appreciate the sacrifice of life that many have made to defend this great nation.

We further recognize and appreciate the sacrifice that even more of you have made with your limbs, vision and sanity.

This country has placed great faith and special trust in you and you, for the most part, have rallied and acquitted yourselves with honor.

We thank you for your service, your faith, and your sacrifices.

Our Commitment to You:

We, your elders and many of us veterans too, promise to never again send you into harms way without constitutional justification in a just war.

We promise to control both the politicians and the government that work for us, in accordance with our Constitution, the way our Founding Fathers intended.

We promise to restore this country to the limited government that our Founders intended.

We promise that you will live in freedom and liberty without any government intrusion into your lives. This means, in part, that the government will no longer keep track of you or know where you are at all times. They will no longer monitor your telephone calls or emails. In fact, the only thing the government will know about you is your mail address (if you want them to) in order for them to deliver mail in accordance with Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

We promise to return “to coin money” in accordance with Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution in order to maintain a constant value thereof and to eradicate fiat currency (paper money) that is not based 100% on a precious metal such as gold, silver, or platinum. This will prevent the true inflation that we experience now without our knowledge.

We promise to downsize government to the limited government our Founding Fathers specified.

We promise to limit our military to an active/reserve ratio of 1:10. This will allow a greater reserve force and a greater civil commitment should we ever be attacked and called on to defend ourselves. The smaller active duty component will allow enough military to quickly handle any immediate emergency before our reserve component can be activated.

We promise to end deficit spending.

We promise to balance the budget every year.

We promise to eliminate the national debt.

We promise to eliminate income tax.

We will ensure that the federal government severs financial ties with the various states thereby restoring, in part, state independence of action, including cessation from this voluntary union of states if requested by the state.

We intend to hold our elected officials, judges and justices fully and criminally accountable to the People for all of their actions while in office. That means their complete fidelity to the U.S. Constitution at all times in addition to the legal and the ethical standards of their portion of the government.

We will eliminate government regulations, rules and laws that inhibit free enterprise in any way.

We recognize that U.S. sovereignty is paramount and will prohibit extra-constitution organizations, such as the North American Union, from forming by the hands of government officials

We will ensure that this country withdraws from the United Nations.

We will form no “entangling foreign alliances.” Instead, we will trade with other nations as part of the free enterprise system.

We will get the government out of the business of murdering babies and other helpless individuals like Terri Schiavo.

Why Do We Make this Commitment to, You, Our Veterans?:

Because it is you who are this nations’ future and you have the individual right to life of freedom and liberty unconstrained by unconstitutional government laws, rules and regulations.

Because it is afterall our Constitution, as is, that is supposed to protect your rights and freedom.

Because restoring this country to a constitutional democracy will allow you a better environment in which to raise your family with better, less expensive, private healthcare, retirement, and personal investment opportunities.

Finally, we do this because it is We, the People of these United States that still run this country, not the politicians and the special interests that they work for. WE just need to get it – this country – back on track by correcting its deviation from our U.S. Constitution.

Noel Gibeson is president of the Mount Vernon Institute.

"Before the prisons at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay inspired horror and debate over prisoner abuse committed by U.S. troops, there was Camp Sumter. The Civil War camp better known as Andersonville and its commandant, Capt. Henry Wirz of the Confederate Army, stand apart as the epitome of cruelty toward prisoners. About 13,000 Union soldiers wasted away in inhumane conditions at the Southern camp under Wirz's watch."

When we see distortions like this in the Washington Post article there is only one conclusion: Facts have nothing to do with their level and quality of reporting; it is only politics that matter.

Noel Gibeson

This article was written in response to Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick’s article that appeared in Baltimore Sun on March 7, 1995 titled, Sticky Foam and Rubber Bullets, concerning U.S. policy on peacekeeping operations in Somalia.

During the United Nations withdrawal from Somalia, should Marines have been armed with less-lethal weapons such as sticky foam and beanbags? Is this a taming of the military, a numbing of our capability to fight as a credible military force? Would U.S. armed forces be placed in harm's way without the ability to defend themselves? By using less-lethal technology, would the U.S. government send the message that we are just as concerned about the adversary as we are about the Americans under their command?

Questions like these have been asked recently by those concerned with U.S. national security issues. They deserve an answer.

First, Marines view the use of a less-lethal weapons technology as a valuable addition to our existing capabilities, not a diminution. Why? Because they complement our existing deadly firepower with an alternative that can be used at the right time and the right place. For example, earlier in Somalia tribal clansmen had used women and children as "human shields" to hide snipers who were firing on UN Pakistani troops. The Pakistanis had the choice of being killed or defending themselves. They chose to live, killing scores of women and children. This act focused worldwide media attention on the Pakistani "massacre," galvanizing public opinion against the UN mission, and supporting Somalia clan leaders who decried "the massacre." Had a less-lethal alternative been available, the women and children could have been incapacitated while the snipers could have been killed. That's why Marine Lt. Gen. Tony Zinni and his staff requested and received permission to use a less deadly alternative-to prevent just such a bloody and unfortunate recurrence.

Second, learning from the past, we will not put Marines and other U.S. forces in danger without the ability to defend themselves. The Marines conducting the UN withdrawal from Somalia had, in addition to the less-lethal alternatives, their own loaded weapons and the additional massive firepower available to them from other Marine ground and air units. The "rules of engagement," in effect, allowed the Marines to defend themselves, their buddies and innocent civilians.

Finally, our use of less-lethal alternatives does not send the wrong message to adversaries. We're confident none will mistake the U.S. Marine Corps for the Peace Corps.   Less-lethal alternatives do send a message that we are concerned about preventing unnecessary casualties, especially to non-combatants. This is in exact conformance with our American military ethic, which requires consideration of the principles of necessity, proportionally, and humanity. Most important, less-lethal alternatives are also highly practical. Killing "human shields"-despite their cynical use by our adversaries-creates more opposition and more enemies. Rendering that tactic and the opposition impotent is the goal. And it's proof positive that the United States lives by its democratic ideals.

Noel Gibeson is a U.S. Marine Corps infantry officer and adjunct professor of international affairs at Georgetown University.

© Noel Gibeson 1995

Chicago Tribune April 3, 1995