National Security

The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 8, clauses 12 through 16 reads:  The Congress shall have Power … To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;  To provide and maintain a Navy;  To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;  And Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of that document reads:  The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States”.




The Constitution enjoins Congress to create and maintain a military to “repel Invasions.”  It does not direct Congress to create an expeditionary force to be thrust upon the global stage to effect ‘regime change’ or ‘protect democracy’ or support corrupt dictators who will do the bidding of the USA or insurgents in any foreign country who MAY be friendly towards the USA or to be wielded like a cudgel to enforce the American federal government’s capricious will. 


George Washington discussed at length his concerns and counseled an isolationist policy for his successors.  In his “Farewell Address,” Washington spends much time admonishing the nation to avoid treaties and other seductions with foreign countries that would require the USA to become involved in wars that are none of our business.  He wrote, “The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion [sic] as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”


It appears no one paid attention to him or he has long been forgotten.




Does it really matter to the USA who rules Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Ukraine or any other country?  Is it really in the USA’s national and strategic interest that Muslim women in their homelands are stoned for being raped, cannot go to school or work outside the home?  Does it really impact your daily life if a child starves in Somalia because the local warlord burned the family’s crops?  Does it really matter if Cuba or Chile has a communist government that has destroyed its economy?  Yes, that is all terrible, but it is none of the USA’s business!


In complying with the philosophical principle of no initiation of aggression, the USA should not be involved in any ‘hotspot’ on the globe unless it is attacked from that country.  Now, if any of these nations should decide to attack the USA, then it has every right to defend itself as it has done before.  The USA by all means should strike back and strike back hard to let them and others know that it is not to be provoked.  And by the way, 15 of the 20 participants of the 11 September 2001 radical Islamist/Al Qaeda attacks were Saudi citizens – as well as Osama bin Laden, none were from Afghanistan or Iraq.  Why did the USA retaliate on those nations and not Saudi Arabia?  The cost of the USA government’s hostile actions in the Afghanistan theater has been more than 600 BILLION dollars.  To what end?  What does the USA have to show for it?  What will the USA get out of the expenditure of resources and lives?




The USA spent more than one TRILLION dollars on ‘regime change’ in Iraq.  It was effectively protecting all of Iraq’s neighbors from Saddam Hussein’s aggression.  How much of the cost of this quagmire did Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Iran or Turkey pay?  Oh, yes, Halliburton and others made huge profits on repairing the destruction wrought by the American military, but these ‘contractors’ were paid by American taxpayers.  Should not an invoice for services rendered be delivered to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for saving them from Saddam Hussein (TWICE!)?  And, in truth, what has all this meddling achieved?  It has produced a vastly more unstable and dangerous geopolitical situation for everyone concerned!  Can you say “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria”?




So if the USA would not have troops stationed all around the world and fighting in places and political scenarios it doesn’t belong and shouldn’t care about (and honestly, not really wanted there by the locals), what should its Army and Navy (and Marines and Coast Guard) be doing?  Does it not make sense that the armed might of the United States of America be used for DEFENSE of its borders rather than sticking its nose in other peoples’ affairs?


The USA currently is experiencing an invasion of illegal aliens crossing the border from Mexico.  [Yes, they ARE aliens (they are not citizens of the USA and they are from a foreign country). And, yes, they ARE illegal since they are uninvited and not following defined established procedures for immigration that millions of others have followed.  Yes, it IS an invasion.]  Not all, but many of these foreigners are criminals seeking to prey on Americans.


Article 4, Section 4 of the American Constitution specifically demands “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion”.


So why has any recent American President, as ‘Commander in Chief’ of the USA’s defensive forces, not deployed the Army of the USA on the border with Mexico to repulse this invasion as directed by the Constitution?  Would it not be cheaper than spending huge sums on feeding and housing millions of poor illegal aliens?  Would it not be cheaper than spending huge sums in dealing with the flood of drugs and criminals coming into the country from Latin America?  Would it not be cheaper than setting up checkpoints on highways all across the USA to harass American citizens?  Would it not be cheaper than having a separate domestic TSA army performing useless empty security theater at airports and sporting events?




One of the clauses cited above gives Congress the power to call up the Militia to defend the borders of the USA.  There is no provision in the Constitution for the Congress to rely solely on the occupant of the office of the president to repel invasions.  Let them defend the nation if the president will not they can override any veto he may use.  He would thus be bound to uphold that directive to defend the territory of the USA.




The governor of a state has the power to call out the National Guard, which is a ‘militia’ authorized by the Constitution under the control of the State government, why have the governors of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California either not called up their local Guard units to patrol the border and repel the ‘invaders’ or not been ‘allowed’ to do so?


Many states, including California, New Mexico and Texas have ‘state defense forces’ (sometimes called the ‘state guard’ or ‘state militia’) which are under the sole control of the respective governors.  Why have these units not been employed to defend those State’s borders if they cannot use the National Guard to defend the ‘national’ borders which obligation the federal government has ignored?




What’s wrong with this picture?  Why must the citizens of the USA be forced to endure harassment at VPER checkpoints deep inside the USA and the ludicrous TSA annoyance at American airports when the current invasion of illegal aliens goes unchallenged?  As I have enumerated above, there are several ways for the USA to be defended.  Why is it not being protected?  Especially if recent discoveries of ISIS terrorist camps in Mexico near El Paso, Texas are true!  Several teams of Muslim radical terrorists have been caught trying to infiltrate the USA documented herehere and here.  While the powerful and expensive American military is off blowing up buildings before warning the combatants in them that they are about to be targeted, the American front door is nearly completely unguarded (no offense meant for the members of the Border Patrol struggling to do their job in opposition to the political nonsense practiced in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere).


Perhaps if the sitting president does not wish to protect and defend the nation as the Constitution requires of the office - for which he swore a solemn oath to do; and if the incumbent Congress will not protect and defend the country as they swore to do; and if the governors of the border states will not protect their charges; then maybe it is time for the people, the true and ultimate power and authority of the USA, to remove these incompetents from office or defend their country themselves.




2022  Common Sense Constitution   globbers joomla templates