Home of Today's Common Sense

Published in the “Lone Star Liberty” the monthly magazinge of the Texas Libertarian Party”.3/1/2006
Grant Rostig’s announcement that he would provide a choice to what seem to be socialists offered by the Democrat Republican Party or the Republican Democrat Party, gave me an inkling that there might be hope for a real representative of the “folks” to reach Congress. I only wish I lived in that District so I could vote for him! Fortunately there are lots of Libertarians here in the “Valley” but unfortunately they just don’t know it yet.
The news story published in The Brownsville Herald, supplied even more to be optimistic about. Firstly, the story about a Libertarian Candidate occupied twenty column inches on a premium day, which seems like a good start even in a Libertarian friendly paper.
Secondly, Mr. Rostig will attract those disenfranchised by both the Democrats and Republicans, in particular many Texas Democrats who are quite conservative and not happy with Congressman Dogget’s “hard left” stance on gun control, his votes to increase taxes by supporting the retention of the marriage tax, being against a permanent child tax credit, as well as being against the tax cuts of 2001.

Many Republicans will identify with his position on “real” limited government, “real” income tax reform in going to a consumption Tax or a flat tax; though it was first suggested by Democrat George Wallace in the 1960’s. (Yes – I was there at that speech!)
The only weakness, noted in the article describing Mr. Rostig’s announcement, was that “the military would not be sent to fight in overseas wars or missions”. This would indicate that no circumstance could justify such an eventuality. Would a case such as the terrorists that caused both attacks on the World Trade Center or perhaps something like, the attack of our merchant ships and imprisoning our seamen such as occurred in North Africa just after we became a nation, justify military action? Perhaps some eventuality may appear that we have not yet experienced may occur. A restatement would be especially meaningful as many in South Texas are military families and truly believe in what they are doing.
My preference would be to develop an easily understood and unambiguous position that would restrict the possibility of military action to only the most extreme of circumstances.
An example would be to call for the repeal of the Nixon Era War Powers Act and replace it with one that requires that military action constitutes a war and must be declared by Congress on the request of the President. All Congressional Representatives and Senators must vote and no abstentions can be accepted. Those incapacitated will have their vote taken by the Master at Arms of the Congress. Approval would require a super majority or 2/3 of all members. Included in the Declaration will be the specifics as to whom we are to fight, why it is necessary for the survival of the Nation and how we will know it is over. A statement that we will commit 100% of our resources to winning the war and a declaration of martial law so long as troops are on the field of battle, should also be included.
Such a requirement and the action that Congress will give up power, will reduce the possibility of war to only the most eminent of dangers.
His success in the campaign will depend on getting his message out in the Rio Grande Valley and rural areas assuring them that his location with the Austin elite is not as important as representing the “folks” in the places where the Democratic/Rupublican elites have perennially forgotten; and have treated like little children that need to be told what they should need.

I received the following comment shortly after publication.

You wrote:
To which I ask:

Who is this “we”, exactly, and and _where_ are you proposing that martial law be declared?

To which I responded:

You correctly focused on one of the keys to reduce the opportunity for short sighted politicians to use military action easily to solve political and economic problems.
The current War Powers Act, which defines what Congress views as satisfying the Constitutional responsibility to wage war. Note the word “wage” not “declare”. Nixon vetoed it but it was passed by the Democratic Congress. My point is that any declaration of war must make it clear what it being considered and how serious it is. Now military action can take place so long as Congress doesn’t object.
In a replacement for the War Powers Act, I propose a declaration as to what is being contemplated and what it could cost.
Lastly, I served 6 tours in Vietnam and the very worst part of the “Police Action” wasn’t risking my life it was being abandoned on the field of battle by those who sent me there and being vilified by those who would not go. It really hurt to be referred to as a “baby killer” just as much as it did to see my comrades killed by 8 year old children dropping grenades in a bivouac.
To address this, I propose to include a clear statement of potential costs, “all that we have”! The “we” I refer to is the United States! The United States will commit “all that we have” – all our resources and our personal freedoms (national martial law) to the war so long as there are soldiers on the field of battle. If Congress and the people are not willing to do that; there should not be a war.
Further Comment 3/6/2006

You write:

You correctly focused on one of the keys to reduce the opportunity for short sighted politicians to use military action can be easily used to solve political and economic problems.

I apologize, but I did not understand this sentence. Could you rephrase it?

The current War Powers Act, which defines what Congress views as satisfying the Constitutional responsibility to wage war.

I think this sentence is missing something as well.

Note the word “wage” not “declare”. Nixon vetoed it but it was passed by the Democratic Congress. My point is that any declaration of war must make it clear what it being considered and how serious it is.

Ok.

Now military action can take place so long as Congress doesn’t object. In a replacement for the War Powers Act, I propose a declaration as to what is being contemplated and what it could cost.

Ok.

Lastly, I served 6 tours in Vietnam and the very worst part of the “Police Action” wasn’t risking my life; it was being abandoned on the field of battle by those who sent me there and being vilified by those who would not go. It really hurt to be referred to as a “baby killer” just as much as it did to see my comrades killed by 8 year old children dropping grenades in a bivouac.

Ok.

To address this, I propose to include a clear statement of potential costs, “all that we have”! The “we” I refer to is the United States! The United States will commit “all that we have” – all our resources and our personal freedoms (martial law) to the war so long as there are soldiers on the field of battle. If Congress and the people are not willing to do that; there should not be a war.

You seem to be saying: In order to make declarations of war never occur, you are proposing that a declaration of war shall cause the United States to convert to a socialistic, dictatorial tyranny, with the rule of civil law replaced by the martial law, under the theory that Americans would never stand for it and would therefore never support a declaration of war.

Do I understand this correctly?

My Reply 3/6/2006
First – I think it is a stretch to think that we have a true democracy or even a reasonable facsimile of a representative government other than in name only. We have professional rulers who only claim to represent the folks. They frequently treat us as though we cannot think for ourselves and only they know what is good for us, not necessarily them – as they are elite and know better. That is why I am so pleased to see a real possibility of a Libertarian in Congress. Unfortunately many of the “folks” in that district will be frightened by any attack ad that points out the statement made with regard to “no foreign war ever”, asserting a weakness in peace and order. If you think about it that is really the primary responsibility of a federal government, the rest is debatable.
What I am saying that in order to secure a declaration of war a condition must be – Martial law such as existed during WW 2, which will only last as long there is a state of War- the criteria of which are stated in the declaration. The rest is to some extent true; the people wouldn’t stand for it but more the case, the Congresspersons will want to avoid giving up their power.
After that unless there exists a circumstance so extreme such as a direct attack, that is as close to no war as we are likely to see.
As is the case now, whether the military action is valid or not our young people are there and politicians are telling them that there service is criminal, and telling the rest of the world that our nation is criminal. I believe that once we start we finish it and then review what our rulers have done and throw them in jail if appropriate. But not while we have troops in the field.