September 5, 2023

Historians have observed the relentless creep of American moral values away from those of the Founding Fathers.  Progressives see “the creep” as improvement.  More problematic, however, is that some conservatives who notice ”the creep” may seek to restore only the less distorted values of their youth.  As played over time, it is a game in which conservatives always lose.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”); } }); }); }

For many decades, progressives have cold-brewed a civil war, and only the willfully ignorant do not see that they have now turned on the heat.  We must continue to fight in the trenches (election procedures, Second Amendment, schools, courts, media censorship), which within the “war” analogy are tactical.  However, even if we won all those battles, the engines at work behind the scenes would pull us right back to where we are today.  We must also aim some monkey wrenches at those invisible engines to further strategic goals as well, even if the effort appears to be of little use to those in the trenches.

There is a natural tendency to talk of strategic issues in less precise terms: “globalism,” “forever wars,” “big pharma,” etc.  Although useful, these terms distract from identifying the underlying mechanisms.  They do not indicate specific targets.  I suggest here two strategic targets that, to be within our founding principles, must be amendments to the U.S. Constitution: (1) expiration dates for all treaties and international agreements, and (2) no military draft without a declaration of war.  I will first outline how adding them to our discourse could help us now and suggest specific wording afterwards.

Time limits on treaties. As President Reagan said, “The closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program,” and treaties are government programs with a dash of pomp.  In 2020 Senator Josh Hawley introduced a resolution to withdraw from the World Trade Organization (WTO), which determines trade policy for most of the world.  The resolution went nowhere.  Although the ongoing revelations of the Biden family business may illustrate one reason why the resolution failed, their international shenanigans are Beltway vaudeville.  By way of contrast, Mitch McConnell’s financial disclosures show that most of his personal wealth came from the activities of his wife, who cannot be compelled to testify against him.  Mitch is a pro.  In 1993, he married Elaine Chao, whose father owned an international shipping company.  In 1994, Congress consented to the international agreement establishing the WTO.  Since then, many of the D.C. rich have become so because of international trade deals that work outside the view of the American public but have devastating consequences within it.  The Swamp will never voluntarily end these arrangements.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”); } }); }); }

The United Nations pushes climate change, pandemic control, and other socialist agendas, e.g., sustainable development goals.  Unlike the WTO agreement, the UN Charter makes no provisions for withdrawal.  Some claim that it is impossible to withdraw, period.  A perfect government program!

How can we have a representative government if an agreement by those in power three generations ago binds us forever?

This question will resonate with younger voters; international schemes are the anti-democratic forces that led to “Occupy Wall Street,” and the 99% remain.  Requiring treaties with continuing obligations to expire has nothing to do with the merits of the treaty.  It merely shifts the burden onto those who want it to continue and removes autopilot from the engine pulling us into globalism.

No declared war, no draft. During the Vietnam War, a man could be drafted at 18 but, in most states, could not vote until he was 21, a fact poignantly sung by Barry McGuire: “You’re old enough to kill, but not for votin’.“  To our credit, the 26th Amendment corrected this in 1971.  Two generations of young men have viewed draft registration as a nuisance because enough Americans saw military service as a way to show their love of country and maintained our volunteer military.  Not anymore.  Many patriotic Americans have come to agree with what Gen. Smedley Butler (a Marine with two Medals of Honor) wrote in the 1930s: “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers…. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints.  The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts.  I operated on three continents.”  From the D.C. perspective, U.S. military guarantees the proper flow of international money.

The Swamp is not monolithic.  Most visible are the idiotic Bolsheviks who gleefully push suicidal policies that they actually believe in.  Less visible are those who profit from the status quo and who will quietly work to keep it.  This latter group is already sending up trial balloons about bringing back a peacetime draft to fill recruitment deficits.  And should the draft return, it will be for our daughters as well.

As the 2024 election approaches, video clips of a 2012 exchange among Jeff Sessions (then senator), Leon Panetta (Secretary of Defense), and Martin Dempsey (Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman) about the legal basis for committing American troops to combat should be disseminated as widely as possible (Sessions’ time begins at 1:55; the legal basis comes up at 2:00).  All of them agree that they can send Americans to fight in Syria because several governments decided that Syria is now our enemy even though it was our ally in the first Gulf War.  However, Sessions finds it “breathtaking” that Panetta and Dempsey feel the international coalition suffices to commit Americans to combat and that they do not need his permission.  As an aside, Sessions voted in 2002 to wage war against Iraq without declaring it; this video shows “the creep” eliminating that charade.