It does not occur to them that their freedom did not arise from tyranny. Yet that’s where they will take us, if we are so distracted by the economic discomfort of the hour that we give them the power to demand subservience we never expected or will long tolerate. They will turn America into an Augean stable, and in the process condemn us to upending not only the free enterprise system, but our very Constitutional protections.

You know their agenda. End the US Senate. Reduce the Supreme Court to meaningless advisory opinions and pack it with their like-minded ideologues. Fling open the borders to a swarm of illegal aliens who could not care less about the rule of law and American assimilation. Besides, assimilation, the left would argue, amounts to white supremacy and oppression. They will have none of that, as they impose their tyrannical will on all of us. Not to mention the government spending spree that will push our hemorrhaging national debt to levels that make our current debt seem tiny and insignificant. “Medicare for All” is nothing more than medical care for no one. Why? We will be bankrupt. The generous socialist welfare programs of France have proven tragically unsustainable, as current events in that beautiful country now dramatically prove.

And of course, we will be subject to their nihilist views that despise all that is good, like faith, family, and freedom. Yes, we face a serious, indeed, an existential threat from people whose gauzy motive is to destroy the nation, not uplift it.

Exhibiting an astonishing hypocrisy, they say they despise “billionaires.” But in fact, their political substratum is funded by the likes of George Soros as well as Neville Roy Singham, who resides comfortably in Communist China. They are the left’s “good billionaires,” who will also fund the effort to eliminate their lickspittles establishment Democrats enablers once the far-left has eaten them alive. Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries on the menu. Even they are not radical enough for the Sorosnista radicals.

Yes, this is a harsh assessment. But as we used to say in the Army, you can’t make bovine scatology smell sweet. The mess before us, America, is rotten. Sordid. Putrid.  And if that is what you want to choose to sate your anger over the price of gas and the cost of groceries, you will be no better than a man who sells his birthright for a cup of stew.

I love my country. Indeed, I love the many fine Americans who populate it. But we can be a fickle lot. Sometimes we take pride in obstinacy. “I’ll show them, I will vote them out!’  And after that, their lot worsens. “Show them,” indeed. Consider what the far left says they want. It is precisely what they said when they foisted Joe Biden on us, a mindless and manipulable man who readily allowed himself to be the hand puppet of the far left. 

Are we ready to go back to that era? Or are we willing to give grace to the current policies that have created enormous economic growth, greater wealth, less poverty, secured borders, and the lowest crime rate in decades? If we hand the reins of power to the likes of the Democrat Socialist of America and their power-hungry facilitators in the Democrat Party, our fickleness will be an idiocy that will define America for decades. We too will become a failing state.

What does that look like? It will resemble what we’re witnessing in Europe. That continent has allowed its culture and society—Anglos, French, German, Italian, and others—to be upended by an anti-Western, anti-Christian, and anti-Enlightenment ethos that despises the very people who have willingly and even benignly allowed these sentiments to take root and overtake their culture and sovereignty. Not so in Eastern Europe, which overthrew communism. Yet, in France, Italy, Germany, and Britain, radicalism is proliferating. How did this occur? 

It happened because people slumbered when they needed to stay alert to the radicals and systems that would destroy them. They naively failed to consider the long-range consequences of policy changes. Now they’re paying the price for their sloth. They have committed self-inflicted Lèse-Majesté.

Pick up a mirror, America, and see yourself plainly. When you cast your vote, consider the extremism that is before us and reject it.

In 2005, Rob Wittman walked into my General Assembly office to inform me he would be running for the House of Delegates.  I was delighted.  Why?  Because I knew him and his accomplishments as a local leader in the Northern Neck of Virginia, especially his conservation work, which mattered to me personally.  I didn’t need his résumé; his accomplishments made it clear he would be a superb member of the House of Delegates.  And he was.

So when he decided to run for Congress in 2007 to fill the open seat left by the unexpected death of the very popular Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis, I knew he could fill her shoes.  Once again, Rob did not disappoint.  Since his election, he has been a very influential and effective Congressman for Virginia’s 1^st District.  He earned his colleagues’ trust and quickly became known as a serious, well-informed legislative leader focused on his district, Virginia, and the broader interests of the American people.  It’s precisely what members of Congress should do.

Unlike the legions of politicians in Washington who stumble over one another to get in front of a camera for a cable news interview, Rob Wittman focuses on the important work of making America a great place to raise a family, start a business, and live in freedom.  You don’t do that by yacking into a camera.  You do it by digging into the problems before you, learning the details, understanding what must be done, and pursuing effective solutions.  That is the Rob Wittman I know, the one who has faithfully served the people—all of them—in Virginia’s 1^st District.

Currently, he serves on vital committees, and that alone should make it clear to voters that his influence matters to Virginia and the nation.  As Vice Chair of the Committee on Armed Services, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Force, and a member of the Subcommittee on Sea Power and Projection Forces, he plays a central role in strengthening the US armed forces.  As a combat veteran, I am glad Rob is overseeing our military’s capabilities and readiness.  Like many thousands of Virginians who have worn the cloth of our country, I believe nothing is more important today as we face major challenges to our national security.  If Rob is not reelected, Virginia will lose significant influence in Congress.  That would be a tragedy.

Moreover, he serves on the Committee on Natural Resources and its Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs.  That is vital to Virginia watermen and the millions of Virginians who care deeply about serious-minded conservation.  In particular, Rob is looking after the many small businesses in Virginia that depend on both the bounty of the sea and the hunting and fishing industry, not to mention the recreation that provides for countless citizens.

At this point, it would be typical to tell you why his opponent in this race is unworthy of higher office.  But that is not nearly as important to me as explaining why I support Rob’s reelection, not just because he deserves your support, but because he has earned it by his devotion to duty to the people of his district, the citizens of the Commonwealth, and others across the nation who depend on a commonsense Congress.  They will not be well served by extremist, indeed, crazy politicians who support a radical agenda that will destroy the Republic.

To be sure, Rob is my personal friend.  But if I had never met him, if I didn’t personally know him, his character, his Christian values, his love of family, his devotion to the rule of law, and his support for our constitutional rights, I would still be able to strongly advocate for this very good man because of his actual legislative record.

In a nation beset by rhetoric and far too little action, Rob stands out as an accomplished member of Congress who speaks clearly, to the point, and works tirelessly for concrete solutions.  Don’t sacrifice that for the political winds swirling around.  Do not be tempted by the siren calls of the left, who will beckon you toward the rocks of socialism that will sink our ship of state.  Look beyond their nonsense, and be confident that as long as Rob is in Congress, America has a friend, a faithful one, who stands for what matters: Faith, Family, and Freedom.

Fearing that Congress would later frivolously amend it by a simple majority to enshrine a particular political agenda, they required that the House and Senate (of a convention of states) approve proposed amendments by a two-thirds vote.  Then it would take a larger number of states, three-fourths, to ratify the amendment before it was added to the Constitution.  The founders understood that the supreme law of the land should not be trifled with to satisfy the passions of a simple majority.  And that is precisely what we are seeing today in America as radical socialists seek to do away with whole structures and aspects of our Constitution.

Consider what Democrats are doing with the Constitution of Virginia.  Unfortunately, Virginia’s law permits a simple majority to amend it, and then a simple majority of voters to ratify the changes.  And predictably, the leftists in Virginia are seeking this November 3^rd to amend our constitution with a radical agenda threatening human life and upending traditional values. 

Amendment 1: Human Life

Amendment 1 would radically remove vital protections for human life and parental oversight from the state constitution.  Consider the impact if this amendment passes.

•          Democrats would deny the right of parents to know about or consent to permitting their child to have an abortion, an egregious undermining of parental rights.
•          Infants born alive after an abortion attempt would not be guaranteed reasonable, life-saving care. Indeed, abortion would be permitted even AFTER a child’s birth by allowing the baby to die through the denial of vital medical attention.
•          Transgender Surgeries on minors would be permitted by law.  In proposing a so-called right to “fertility care” for all “individuals,”—which is the precise language they chose—they have made sterilization procedures applicable for adults and children alike. As such, minors would have the right to gender transitions without a parent’s approval.  In other words, they have made child abuse the law of our land.
•           Finally, by limiting industry accountability and oversight and eliminating the state’s ability to penalize or regulate individuals aiding “reproductive freedom,” they have undermined oversight, accountability, and liability for harm done to the woman.  And they dare to suggest they are the “party of women.”  In fact, they are weakening health and safety standards designed to protect women’s health, which could subsequently be challenged and struck down. That would mean that more late-term abortions could be permitted up to the moment of birth, even for mental health reasons.

This amendment will make Virginia one of the most open-ended abortion mills in the nation; transgender surgeries will have no parental oversight; and health protections for women will be tossed to the wind. What’s worse, the ballot language is totally deceitful in asserting that this amendment will protect freedom for people, doctors, and nurses, while allowing restrictions on later-term abortion.  That is an utter lie.

Amendment 2: Repeal and Replace Traditional Marriage

This amendment would remove Virginia’s recognition that marriage is between one man and one woman.  Virginia voters passed this in 2006, when 1,328,537 (57 percent) ratified it.  Democrats now seek to overturn the will of the people.

•          This amendment’s “sex” and “gender” distinction embeds gender ideology in the Constitution.  In turn, it will pressure schools, businesses, and government to adopt policies that conflict with biological reality.
•           It also reduces marriage to a hedonistic matter of personal preference while removing language that emphasizes the benefits and obligations of marriage for children, family-building, and stable communities.
•           It will also allow males in female sports by inserting gender ideology into the Constitution, thereby threatening women’s rights in sports and locker room privacy, permitting men to invade women’s spaces.
•           Moreover, this amendment excludes conscience or religious exemptions for clergy or members of religious organizations, businesses, and others with moral or ethical objections to same-sex marriage.

Once again, radical leftists are attacking the institution of marriage and long-held traditional values vital to civilization.

More concerning is the anodyne and deceitful language Democrats have used to frame the ballot questions on both amendments to confuse voters.  The abortion amendment has utterly nothing to do with freedom.  It is about instituting infanticide, child abuse, and mutilation, all in the name of “freedom.”  The anti-marriage amendment is no better.  It seeks to destroy the institution of marriage to be what it was never designed by God to be.  Indeed, Democrat deceit in all of this tells you all you need to know about their real intent, which is to destroy traditional values to impose a radical agenda.

The Founders warned us of such.  Now we must respond emphatically by voting “NO” on both amendments. 

The survival of our republic is at stake.  And the threat from socialist-minded radicals who have explicitly called for nationalization of healthcare, doing away with the US Senate, abolishing prisons, defunding the police and the military, seizing private property, limiting the ability of the Supreme Court, and tossing out the Constitution.  In other words, upend the republic and turn America into something it was never designed to be, much less anything the majority of commonsense Americans want now.  The socialist vision for America would make the nation unrecognizable.

The radicals see the forceful takeover of your life, your choices, your property as a necessity to deliver what they believe is a utopia.  Indeed, for them, the dystopian alternative is Donald Trump, whom they hate with a seething disdain. Their condemnation of the man rivals their infatuation with the socialist, indeed Communist, dream that has failed everywhere it has been tried.  It will reliably fail again if they succeed in 2026.

So, what is in the balance?  To answer that, one needs to understand what the election is and isn’t about.

What it isn’t about

Those who support the socialist myth tell us this election is about “affordability.”  They blame Trump for inflation, gas prices, and high housing costs, especially food and fuel costs.  They have conveniently forgotten how Joe Biden ruined the economy that Trump inherited.  Unfortunately, things won’t improve enough before the election, even if the war with Iran ends.

Absent from their current claim that Trump has ruined the economy is the slightest recognition that wages are at an all-time high and poverty at an all-time low.  The stock market is as healthy as it’s been in recent memory (up 18 percent).  Despite gas prices, energy production has rebounded in America to new highs.  Indeed, under Biden, average gas prices were $3.56.  Under Trump, they are slightly lower at $3.52.  So, while gas prices today—influenced by the war in Iran—are a real burden, the real issue is how socialists will handle the economy going forward.

We need look no further than Biden’s failed Inflation Reduction Act, the ill-named bill that did more to increase inflation than any binge spending in the past 50 years. The result?   Inflation peaked at 9 percent.  That’s what happens when too much money chases too few goods.  Democrats and their Socialist understudies cannot wait to repeat that mistake.  Moreover, the flood of money into Democrat-controlled blue enclaves has resulted in a level of waste and fraud we have never witnessed.  So, do not be fooled.  The crucial issue in this election is not affordability.  It’s more fundamental.

What it is about

In a word, this election centers on survivability. The lurch to the left by the Democratic Party has taken it from one that putatively supported blue-collar Americans to one that now demands oppressive policies that would centrally manage every aspect of their lives.  It is no longer the party of John Kennedy or even Bill Clinton.  It is now the party of superannuated hippies and chic leftist millionaires who are thrilled to finance the political takeover of the nation by up-talking baristas, woke-worshipping activists, and pro-terrorist antisemites.  Their collective trait is their ability to release a paroxysm of outrage over Trump that sounds like an operatic chorus of wounded animals.  Their hatred for Trump is only exceeded by their hatred of the American Republic and our Constitution.  And that is what is truly at stake this November.

Midterm or Midturn

American voters face a dilemma.  The economy, for all its positive trends in employment, salaries, and reduced poverty, is overshadowed by high food and fuel prices.  But if those are primary issues that determine the midterm result, we are in deep trouble.  On the contrary, if we ignore the good trends that Republicans have delivered—lower taxes, a secure border, record low crime rates, regulatory reform, the expansion of energy production, record job growth, and an improved balance of trade—then we will set ourselves on a path where radicals will destroy all of that while undermining the republic and imperil our survival as a free constitutional republic.

The midterm must not become a midturn, where we turn back to the policies of the Biden years, which were an unparalleled disaster.

Indeed, this definition was derived from—you guessed it—an AI program developed by Microsoft called “Copilot.”  Even though these programs are no substitute for human judgment, they’re useful for aggregating internet data.

These assistants do not represent the full power of AI systems or what they can potentially do to assist mankind.  Indeed, they represent hardly a bite-sized hors d’oeuvre compared to the plat de resistance that will be served up as AI systems are perfected in the future.

AI can advance medical research and cure diseases that have haunted mankind for millennia.  Future generations can also benefit from AI in education, transforming learning from cramming students together in the classroom to individually tailored and accelerated learning opportunities for those aspiring to a profession that suits their goals.

AI’s role in streamlining industry will also spark a productivity revolution that will wildly outpace the Industrial Revolution of the late 18th and 19th centuries when machinery, steam power, the growth of factories, and the mass production of manufactured goods swept the Western world.

A  less noble aspect of the AI revolution concerns an area of research that has occupied me for the past three years: a revolution in AI-enabled warfare.  AI in military operations will give commanders in the field a distinct advantage over their opponents. It will enable commanders to act on exquisite information with remarkable speed before opponents realize they are being targeted.  Constellations of sensors will make the battlefield more transparent than ever before.  And AI will be essentially in the business of sorting volumes of targeting information that, when attacked in the right sequence with the best munitions, will deliver a certain victory.

Unfortunately, there has been precious little useful discussion now that AI has become the latest political football in America.  The AI discussion today centers on how this superintelligence will usher in the end of humanity.  In a word, it’s hogwash.  Yet there are genuine concerns about how to ensure AI doesn’t develop to the point where humanity cannot control it.  For that reason, we need more people like Dr. Elise Annett and Dr. James Giordano to inform the discussion.

These two ethicists have given a lot of thought to the AI debate.  Americans are being ill-served by hysterical politicians and, sadly, self-serving AI CEOs and techno-poohbahs.  The former seek political victories at the polls. The latter feign AI disaster to entice government involvement in AI production so they can skirt product liability by blaming the government for letting them develop programs that wind up hurting people.  In other words, the debate we are hearing is both opportunistic and deceitful. It needs to be elevated by logic and critical thinking.

In their article titled “Between Extinction and Hubris: A Dialectical Approach to AI Risk, Control, and Governance,” which appears in the Institute for National Strategic Studies, Annett and Giordano make this observation.

“AI remains extraordinarily capable but importantly bounded. It does not possess independent political authority, military command, economic sovereignty, or generalized physical agency.” They recognize that AI has vulnerabilities, including others’ ability to manipulate it and the possibility of unpredictable behavior.  But their larger concern is the risk that humans will progressively cede to AI because it will be “efficient, economically advantageous, operationally expedient,” and, in a military context, viewed as essential to outthinking the enemy.  In other words, AI will be so good that humans will let it run wild.  How do they suggest we govern AI?

They wisely assert that “[A]ny posture toward effective governance should address AI capability, human cognition, organizational behavior, institutional incentives, and geopolitical competition as components of a single evolving system; because the essential question is whether humans and their institutions will retain the knowledge, discipline, humility, and capacity required to exercise such control when it matters most.”  Bingo.

Among their many recommendations are (1) regulations that address what a system can actually accomplish rather than the title it’s given; (2) mandate ongoing testing and evaluation to ensure AI doesn’t create harm; (3) require that humans possess adequate information, competence, time, and actual authority to challenge or abort AI-generated actions; (4) ensure that as machines become more capable, requirements are adjusted to control them; (5) create chains of human responsibility; (6) require mandatory AI incident-reporting systems; (7) create independent high-risk AI oversight mechanisms; and (8) establish international norms for the employment of military AI.

Indeed, what we need in America is less hysteria about AI development and more sound, authentic logic from critical thinkers like Doctors Annett and Giordano to frame it.

Let’s face it. Data centers are ugly.  Big suburban boxes in what is otherwise a verdant landscape of tract housing and shopping malls with “big box” stores that supply the beleaguered people of these regions with all manner of consumables and conveniences, including entertainment electronics—dependent on, you guessed it, data centers.  But I digress.

A segment of the population could be called CAVE people: “Citizens Against Virtually Everything.”  Many of them oppose data centers reflexively.  But I suspect most people opposed to these suburban monstrosities are realistic.  They understand that data centers are necessary if we want the computing power we will need in the years ahead to remain an economically dominant world power.  They get it.  They just don’t want a data center nearby.  I can’t say I disagree.  If one threatened my river environment, I would be very actively involved in opposing it.  But like a hospital, I think we need them.  Yet I don’t want to be next door to the Emergency Room entrance and the cacophony of sirens at all hours of the night.

The physical irritations over data centers notwithstanding, the anxiety over them belies a more fundamental concern: the role and impact of AI in our society, something data centers facilitate.  People should have legitimate concerns about AI, particularly its potential impact on freedom.  Privacy is often cited as a concern.  But since the advent of the internet, people have long surrendered their privacy, personal data, internet usage, and even buying preferences to IT companies.  If you doubt that, look at how many garden tips you get after buying a rake online. The most profound threat is that powerful entities, including governments, will use AI abusively to control lives, choices, and activities.  That is a real concern, not one to dismiss casually.

Yet AI will greatly benefit society.  Medical research, product productivity, public safety. air traffic control, structural design, mathematical calculations, infrastructure operations, and educational opportunities for countless people; AI will be decisive.  That list is long.  But there are threats.  AI development can enable it to do things that could harm people.  For that reason, we need controls.  Fortunately, a few—a very few—people in Washington, DC, understand the need for guardrails.

That’s why the Frontier Act (H.R. 9925), a bipartisan congressional bill introduced on 23 July 2026 by Representative Jay Obernolte (R-CA) and Representative Lori Trahan (D-MA), should pass.  It would establish (1) an AI risk-management framework, (2) independent audits, (3) AI incident reporting, (4) ongoing threat assessments, and (5) a uniform national standard for product transparency, auditing, and reporting of catastrophic risk to prevent a patchwork of state regulations.  In other words, an approach to bring some rational order to the oversight of AI, a technology that will have a tremendous impact on everything from medical research to industrial efficiency to an explosion in American productivity that will, in turn, advance American wealth to levels never before witnessed.  Indeed, by 2028, America could possess 80 percent of the world’s computing power.

Who does that threaten? China, that’s who. Which is why the communists have released disinformation bots to scare the pants off of Americans as they go to the polls in November. The Chinese have highlighted the connections between data centers and AI to frighten our citizens and stir up anxiety.  Data centers are not the problem.

The “problem” is that China can’t keep up with the US.  So, it’s doing its best to discourage US data center development that fuels the AI revolution. Predictably, the far left in America is parroting the Chinese lies to garner anti-GOP sentiment. No surprise there. They shilled for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) during COVID.

If you think AI is the threat du jour, consider this.  The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and their enabling establishment Democrats have adopted the communist propaganda line on AI.  Democrats are no longer talking about “affordability” or the war in Iran.  Yet consider their program to abolish the Senate, pack the Supreme Court, toss out the Constitution, seize private property, fling open the borders, and destroy the healthcare system. 

You might see AI as a threat when the real one is the radical DSA-CCP agenda to destroy America.

So, I developed my Copy Book Warrior website to share my weekly thoughts with you, hopefully wise ones, now up to 325 of them. And for the most part, that has been well received. A dedicated circle of people takes time to thank me each week. It’s encouraging.  Occasionally, I hear from some of you who have been content to consume my updates, but feel compelled to respond with a compliment because it struck a chord with you. And yes, sometimes—rarely—the comments are terse. But in any case, my objective has been to pass on some wisdom as I see it.

So, why am I sharing these thoughts? Because I want yours.  Recently, a VMI classmate of mine who is also a dear friend said, “Scottie, we need to get you your own Substack?”   I thought, “Well, that’s nice. What the heck is a Substack?”  So, I looked it up and learned that “Substack is an online platform that allows writers and creators to publish newsletters, podcasts, and videos directly to subscribers, offering tools to monetize content through paid subscriptions.”

It sounded similar to what I thought I was already doing on my website until I asked my IT expert. She promptly told me, “Do it. It will help you grow your audience through subscriptions to people well beyond your in-house email list.”

Frankly, I have spent a fair amount of personal money doing this weekly update for six years, and the idea that good folks—readers who care—might be willing to come alongside in the effort to help finance the work is refreshing.  Yet I don’t want to disincentivize folks from staying with me and participating in vital dialogue that is so badly needed in a country consumed with social media nonsense.

With that in mind, I need to hear from you; please email me back with your views. Consider these questions when you do.

1. Should I use Substack to continue this effort? My website URL would stay the same but look a little different, and you would be able to get my emails and read my past writings.
2. Would you be willing to pay a modest subscription fee to read my thoughts and dialogue with me?
3. Would you prefer that, instead of a fee, I solicit voluntary donations?
4. Should my updates continue to be at 11 AM each Thursday, or more randomly in the course of a week, maybe more than one?
5. Should I also consider starting a podcast on the issues I can discuss with interviewees, focusing largely on social issues, international affairs, national security, and common-sense things we all care about?
6. Should I simply fade away and enjoy retirement…until I can’t stand it anymore and return to writing.

Please take a moment to tell me what you think.  I promise I will read each email and decide once I’ve given all the input some thought.

To be sure, sometimes when I wake up early on a Thursday, I have no idea what I will publish that day. I try to mitigate that “writer’s block” by drafting my thoughts on Wednesday, as I am with this one. Maybe it will be an easier chore with a Substack. Frankly, I have more research to do on that.

And as for podcasts, I think I know more about how to drive the astrophysics and orchestrate a podcast. I’m sure I can learn, but I suspect that will require help, and help is not a free proposition these days, which brings me back to the subscription question.  Much to consider.

All in all, that leads me to this conclusion.  I love writing.  It is one of the most cathartic things for me.  Moreover, it allows me to be completely honest with others about what I think.  And I don’t think I have the exclusive answer to the things I address, but I do try to address issues in a respectful, logical framework that reflects my worldview.

Therefore, Copybook Warriors, let me hear from you.  Please tell me what you think.  Should I stay with the current format, or take a new direction that could build a larger following? And no, I have no intention of reengaging in elected politics.  My goal is to share the truth as I see it. Help me determine how in the coming days.

When I was born in 1951, the Korean War was raging, although I was unaware of that. But as I became more aware of this thing called “the Army,” my interest grew.  Like many boys, I soon gravitated toward outdoor shenanigans.  Growing up in Virginia, however, we preferred playing Yankees and Confederates to Cowboys and Indians.  After all, statues of Confederate warriors lined Richmond’s streets.  How could we resist, especially since my parents picked “Lee” as my first name?

In time, my awareness would grow.  My great-uncle Emmit “Bub” Baker had served in WWI with the 80th Division. Known as the “Blue Ridge Division,” it was composed of men mostly from Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.  Uncle Bub would regale us with stories, mostly humorous ones, of his service in the “Great War,” when he served as a Sergeant.  Omitting the more gory aspects of combat, he shared stories about his time serving on the division’s general staff.  War then seemed a “fun” idea to an admiring boy. I would later learn it was not so.

In time, indeed, in the 6^th grade, I had it in my mind to attend Fork Union Military Academy.  After seeing an ad for it in a magazine, I fancied the idea of wearing a uniform and learned to march and adapt to military regimen.  Once there, I had second thoughts, but as I learned and lived in that corps of cadets, I grew more fond of the “Army” life.  I recall one of my classmates had a father who was a helicopter pilot who, with some others, flew their UH-1 Hueys to Fork Union and landed on the football field.  It was fascinating to many of us, and I remember how complex and big they seemed to a little guy as I stood on one of the aircraft’s skids and peered inside.  Yep. I was falling in love.

When high school arrived, and I grew weary of being away from my family, I chose to attend a day military school in Richmond, Benedictine High School.  My love for the military grew stronger, and any doubt about my future was dispelled.  I would be a soldier one way or the other.

Vietnam was raging in those days, and I was more than aware of the combat occurring then—and, unlike many of my 1960s cohort, I was drawn to it.  In 1968, as I was nearing my graduation, I said to my father that I wanted to enlist in the Army and “go to Vietnam.”  He gently told me that I was going to a place that began with “V,” but it wasn’t “Vietnam.”

In 1969, he, along with one of Richmond’s most prominent graduates of the Virginia Military Institute, deposited me there on a very humid day in August.  It was the best decision I “never” made.  There, I learned what duty, honor, and hard work really meant.  I also learned the value of friendship and camaraderie with my “Brother Rats,” which lasts to this day.  In my final two years at the Institute, my future was assured as my performance as a student and cadet improved dramatically.  After being designated as a Distinguished Military Graduate (DMG), I was commissioned as a regular officer in the US Army, a dream come true for a boy who began with a fascination for Army gear.

In time, I would learn the complexities of soldiering.  It’s not about marching about, or spiffy uniforms, or ribbons arrayed on your chest.  It’s more than that.  It’s about relationships to one end, combat readiness.  I was absorbed in that life and look back longingly to the days when I served with soldiers and leaders who were ready to give, as President Lincoln eloquently said at Gettysburg in 1863, “the last full measure of devotion.”  The Army was and remains my identity.

Today, the Army I grew to love is in much turmoil.  The nature of war is rapidly changing, and the Army must transform how we fight to meet the challenges ahead.  That will require steady hands and a clear vision. That transformation is now the business of others, who I pray will be the kind of warrior-thinkers who will set it on the right path, one that will not only be victorious in battle, but also an inspiration to a young boy somewhere marveling at the possibilities. 

If you dig a bit, you strike this: “Of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism.”  Closer yet.

A bit deeper yields this: “Tending or inclined to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions” or “marked by moderation or caution.”  But even this misses the true meaning of conservatism.  In my mind, it is to conserve what is good, honorable, and useful to mankind.

Conservatives love the founding vision and its products, including the Constitution, the separation of powers, states’ rights, and the Bill of Rights, all pivotal propositions to a Constitutional Republic. In other words, conservatives want to preserve what makes us free.  We also want to preserve other things like traditional family values, freedom of religion, and the right to pursue your American dream without some bureaucratic busybody giving you unhelpful man-on-man coverage. Get lost. We can figure it out without some busybody wearing green eyeshades watching over us. Conservatives believe in individual effort, risk-taking, and the right to succeed or fail.  Imagine that—people who understand both sides of that coin.

There’s more to conservatism than the political or ideological interpretations.  There’s conservation, as in efforts resulting in “a careful preservation and protection of something, especiallyplanned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect.”  That’s distinct from environmental extremism and climate alarmism by those who overstate and exaggerate the danger from the development and the wise use of natural resources, like fossil fuels.  Should we weigh carefully the threats we face from irresponsible exploitation of natural resources? Yes.  Should we be concerned about clean water and air? Yes. Should we strive to mitigate the harmful effects of pollution?  Of course.

In that regard, for many years I have been concerned with what I would call practical conservation.  God made our world for our use.  And as such, we should take care of it so that it is available to our progeny and us.  In other words, our environment is not something we put in a museum behind a glass wall to view, but rather available to us for responsible use.  In that context, the radical among us would see the environment as “off limits” to anyone who would use it to improve our lives, especially if it results in personal profit, such as energy manufacturing.

As a way of expressing my personal commitment to conservation, I raise oysters off of our pier on the Potomac River.  It’s hard work.  I’m not motivated to do that solely because I like to eat them.  I do it because I know oysters can filter large amounts of water through their systems, removing nutrients from the river and the Chesapeake Bay.  Nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment from runoff in the Bay’s tributaries harm sea life and other species dependent on the Potomac’s bounty. This very morning, I am reminded of that as I watched pods of dolphins swimming off of our shore, feeding on the abundant fish in the river.  These dolphins are consuming healthy fish that are better for the millions of oysters that live in the Bay and its tributaries, including those occupying cages hung off a pier.

So, conservation is best expressed by doing, not by people dispensing empty, politically motivated rhetoric like the Green New Deal, whose true aim is to raise taxes on us to fuel burgeoning government spending.  We must move beyond climate alarmism and take a practical approach to conservation.

I have observed that some people fit neatly into what journalist Tom Wolfe coined “radical chic.”  These are often upper-class people who engage in the fashionable practice of associating with politically radical people and causes.  Some today fall into what I would call the environmentally chic, those who spout concern for the environment, preferring to virtue signal without lifting a finger to do anything practical.  You have seen them jetting about the highway with their “Save the Bay” bumper stickers.  If you were to encounter these people at a cocktail party and ask them what they know about efforts to stem nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment from polluting the Bay, you should not be surprised at the wondering stare you get as they balance their wine glass while reaching for another piece of cheese.

Environmental chicness also includes young socialists in college who demand “climate action.”  They haven’t a clue how to translate their zealous energy into productive undertakings to improve the environment as they skip a class to head to the next sign-waving protest on their schedule.

They should try oystering.  It’s hard work. But that’s the problem for them—hard work.

How has this happened?  How is it that an entire generation has become so ignorant that they subscribe to a governing system that would have as its central organizing principle the ascendancy of a dominant state that would destroy the Constitution and free-market economy?  Sadly, the answer is clear. They know nothing about the Constitution, its underlying principles, or free-market capitalism, which has made us the freest and most prosperous nation in world history.

You can thank the deplorable American teacher unions for conjuring up a national curse that threatens to upend our system of government, our economy, and our freedom.  No entity is more corrosive in American education than teacher unions. Putatively organized to protect teachers’ rights and advocate for policies that improve education, they do the opposite.  Their focus has been not to educate, but rather to indoctrinate young minds in the ways of the liberal left.

Consider how they have supported efforts to recast American history.  Students are no longer taught the genius of George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe in crafting the most remarkable governing order ever devised in human history.  No, those men are to be regarded as racist, oppressive, and filled with evil intent.  Is it any surprise that such thinking has given rise to a generation of empty-headed young idealogues who have followed the siren song of Marx, Lenin, Castro, and Mamdani?

This is not the only spell cast by the teacher unions.  They have been prominent in supporting the worst of the feminist movement in America, particularly by advancing “toxic masculinity” as a deterrent to helping boys grow up to be confident men.  No, boys must not be encouraged to play contact sports and certainly not to hunt or fish.  Likewise, they have supported exposing young children to alternative sexual lifestyles under the guise of normalcy.  They are undiminished in their anti-Christian sentiments while elevating “diversity, equity, and inclusion” as an article of modern faith.  If the teacher unions are known for one thing, it is this.  They hate traditional American values with the same fervor as the rising stars in the DSA.

Others have done significant damage to the minds of the DSA cohort.  American universities, with some notable exceptions, have been overrun by left-leaning professors who have one thing in common.  They have never served in the military, signed the bottom of a paycheck, or engaged in the kind of hard work that has made America great in the past and can again.  Moreover, these so-called educators have never read the Federalist Papers, James Madison’s Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, or The Republic, Plato’s Socratic dialogue concerning justice, the order and character of the just city-state, and the just man.  Why read any of that if you intend to pollute the minds of young people to advocate for the destruction of our republic?  Perish the thought. Indeed, perish thinking.

Complicit with teacher unions and the corrupt academic establishment in America are left-leaning journalists unconcerned with fact and objectivity.  They fuel the handiwork of those who want to see America changed into something it was never designed to be and something rational people have no desire to embrace.

What must be done?  Educating must be done.  And that will take a genuine revolution by those of us who are distraught with what is occurring in the classrooms and lecture halls of our nation.  It won’t happen by magic either.  It will require people of goodwill to insist on taking a place in education and academia to right the education system in America, which is foundering in ideological quicksand.  It means former military, people with business experience, scientists, engineers, builders, and others with real-world experience who love this country step forward as educators to address the heresies of thought introduced to the youngest among us.

If not us, who? If not now, when?