28 July 2014 - 

Don’t Fence Me In!  Bah!

Recently, I drove around Houston without a passport.  I didn’t pass through controlled entry points as I went from downtown Houston City offices to Cleveland, to Crosby, through Kingwood, Atascocita, Humble, Summerwood, Deer Park, and Fall Creek.  After all, I was in Texas, in the United States, north of the Rio Grande.  My travel on public roads was restricted only by the limits of time and gasoline. 

It’s good to be an American. 

I did see a lot of fences, however.  They defined and protected businesses, homes, and government-maintained, collective commons.  When the fences defined property, they often hid their precision with attractive stone, wood, flowers, and shrubbery.  When the fences protected property, they were stark wrought iron or concrete structures, often with spikes or barbed wire; and, security cameras were everywhere. 

Fences punctuate virtually every statement of property in Houston and probably in every town in America. 

It was particularly instructive to see the fences in residential neighborhoods.  In affluent areas, high fences often surrounded entire neighborhoods, with guarded or electronic entry points.  Fences between the large houses were limited in variety to what local home owners’ associations permitted.  Internal fences defined individual property lines, and external fences defined and protected the community as a whole.  These neighborhoods looked like ordered, mini-states protecting themselves from unruly outsiders.       

Less affluent neighborhoods had no defining, outside fences.  Houses were smaller, yards were less scenic.  Nonetheless, many property owners had built fences around their own houses and yards.  High, spiked, metal fences were clearly meant to define and protect sovereign, individual property owners from a larger, unruly neighborhood.  They reminded me of the fence at the end of our cul-de-sac, which we finally convinced our home owners association to help pay for in order to keep feral hogs from continuing to destroying our property and from the real possibility of their attacking our grandchildren. 

It is obvious that no Houstonian or government entity is tearing down fences.  Definition and protection are paramount requirements in a world where people may be good, but not very good. 

Individual property definition and protection, neighborhood and town definition and protection, and state definition and protection are merely graduated assurances of the fundamental American rights of self and property protection.  Ordinary people understand this.  Their actions—their fences—are more eloquent than any politician’s speech on the subject.   

A poll of Houstonians would probably confirm what I have seen: Fence owners span the entire political spectrum.  Democrats, republicans, libertarians, socialists, fascists, criminals, and even illegal immigrants preach a lot of things, but they all directly enjoy the benefits of fences. 

Is it hypocritical to benefit personally from being an American citizen and at the same time to build fences around the nation to restrict illegal immigrants from enjoying those benefits?  No. Defining and protecting our country are fundamental elements of national sovereignty.  Such protective fences are no more hypocritical than the practice of maintaining fences to protect one’s personal in any Houston neighborhood. 

It is hypocritical and illegal, however, for politicians to pander for votes by circumventing existing immigration laws and to thereby enable the current immigration crisis.  America is America because it is ruled by laws, not by fiat.  A legitimate rebellion would ensue if local politicians and supporters mandated the destruction of all personal fences in a neighborhood to deal with a rise in local home break-ins.  So, why is it noble for the President, living in the most securely-fenced house in America, to tell the rest of America that the national fences to their sovereignty must come down?

For political gain, the President is exploiting transnational ties in ethnic communities, the acquiescence of caring people, and the money from businesses who benefit from illegal labor.  His shameless actions reject constitutional law and dilute national sovereignty—far more than does his hapless approach to any current shooting war or international crisis.  Politics are destroying our sovereignty. 

The U.S. government no longer controls our borders.  Illegal foreigners, foreign criminal cartels, and foreign governments now control our southern border.  The President acquiesces, and foreigners define who is and will be American. 

Mr. President!  Enforce existing laws.  Close the border.  Protect, do not tear down, our sovereignty. 

Otherwise, you should find a retirement home in El Salvador along a golf course—with plenty of high fences, of course.  

23 July 2014 - 

Courage:  Moral and Physical

Every Friday morning I meet with friends at McDonalds in a local Walmart.  These old guys are experienced in business and government, and their views span the political spectrum.  They are passionate and compassionate about life.  They are Americans in the finest sense. I feel good about being accepted as one of them.

Thirty years in an Air Force uniform taught me the strength of the concept being “one of us.”  You take an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies.  You exhibit moral courage as you honor rules that may not apply to others, risking punishment including possible banishment from among us if you fail.  With moral and physical courage, you do your duty no matter how dangerous or difficult.  Sacrifice and trust are your currency. They make you one with your compatriots.

Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl is not “one of us” to the soldiers of his unit in Afghanistan. He abandoned his post, broke his comrades’ trust, and chose to morally bankrupt his life.  His fellow soldiers honorably and courageously fulfilled their battlefield duties.  Later, their measured, calm words about Bergdahl’s perfidy were telling counterpoints to the President’s White House homecoming celebration with Bergdahl’s parents.  The President did not see Bergdahl’s battlefield failures as important, and thereby, he displayed his ignorance of military culture.  He may be Commander-In-Chief, but he certainly has not shown that he is “one of us.”   

I trust that the Army, up the chain to the Chief of Staff, will follow their soldiers’ example of moral courage as they adjudicate Sergeant Bergdahl’s case.  The Army must strictly follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice and ignore political pressure from an administration that seems to view Duty, Honor, and Country as obsolete chatter.  I trust that those in charge will do their duty.  They know that if they don’t, they will never again be worthy to be “one of us,” no matter how many medals or stars they may receive.  

Who besides members of our military services take the oath of office to support and defend the Constitution and be servants to their sovereign, i.e., the people?  Who besides those in uniform create a cohesive “one of us” culture, a culture built on trust, personal sacrifice, and strict adherence to constitutional rules?   The President and Congress have taken the government oath of office and have declared their duty to defend the Constitution as it is written, no matter the sacrifice of individual agenda.  Doing their duty requires at least as much moral courage as the oath of military office requires of our men and women in uniform.   

But where in our government’s culture are men and women who display the moral courage to defend the essence of the Constitution: the separation of delineated powers, the defense of our borders, and the maintenance of limited government intrusion into our lives and property?  They are few and far between. 

I struggle to find elected officials and appointed bureaucrats whom I can trust to sacrifice personal and party agenda—to resist picking up the phone and the pen—as they fulfill their versions of constitutional duties.

Who among the majority of today’s politicians is “one of us,” worthy of  the praise of the American people?  Their “club” culture is not one of personal sacrifice and trust.  The President, in between fund-raisers, golf, and vacations, does not inspire the American people with courageous decisions in the face of internal or international crises.

Today’s elected officials seem hardly to care if they display to the American people that correct constitutional principles resonate with them, or that the concepts of Duty, Honor, and Country compel courageous compliance.

So, now what?  If you were in Chicago during this election period, you could vote early and often.  In Houston, thank goodness, you show your ID card and vote your conscience.  You solidify your place as one with American patriots, who, alongside my Friday-morning friends, embrace and implement the Founders’ vision of service and sacrifice—to your country, to your community. 

Meanwhile, the “constitutional scholar” in the White House reminds us daily that fund raising, photo ops, and tee times are more important to him than being one of us.