Morale [muh-ral] - noun:  the emotional or mental condition with respect to cheerfulness, confidence, zeal, etc., especially in the face of opposition, hardship, etc.,: the morale of the troops.

  Recently I've had some very good questions posed to me regarding the stance of the Michigan Patriot Alliance on who may or may not train with our group, where the threshold for acceptance or rejection lies, and how does one enforce that threshold. The questions stem from statements made on the MPA membership page that excludes some people, such as "Anti-Constitutionalists" or "anyone with 'Constitutionally repugnant views'.  

At first blush, that might seem just a bit harsh. But is it really? Not when you examine what the Constitution not only says, but is about historically, meaning how it came to be and what the ratifiers (those who signed the document as representatives of their State) believed they were getting by the act of ratification. (For some very good reading on this subject, get a copy of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution", by Kevin R.C. Gutzman. You'll be surprised by what you read and learn!)  

I'm going to quickly set the stage to get to the meat of this piece by first looking at the terms above starting with, "Anti-Constitutionalist."  Simply, one who is "Anti-Constitution," in the context of the Constitution of the United States, is an announced and avowed enemy of the Constitution by definition.  Why?  Because when they hold that position they are against the limitations placed upon our government and enumerated in the Bill of Rights.  Extrapolating, that means the person who is "Anti-Constitution" has no problem with Fascism, Nazism, Communism, or any other "ism" that would allow the enslavement of the American people and the destruction of our way of life!  It would be paradoxical at the least to invite such a person or group to train when you and your group members have sworn (or should have sworn) to defend the very Constitution the anti-constitutionalists hate against enemies, foreign or domestic.

  Taking this a step further, could we extrapolate and extend this judgment to those people, who, while living in the United States and otherwise move forward in their quest for citizenship, steadfastly refuse to learn our language and demand their “right” to continue to be "non-English speaking people"? Yes, we most certainly can. Again, it's a fairly upfront and based upon historically sound doctrine. Throughout our history, immigrants (of which my people just like many, many millions of others) came to our shores and borders and asked to become "Americans". Part of that metamorphosis was, and rightfully continues to be today, the learning of the language that binds us as a people: English. Therefore, one who refuses to learn or speak English while claiming their "right" to keep their previous national identity as a "hyphenated" American is openly refusing to assimilate into "American society", ergo, they are refusing to adopt, respect, and abide by the Constitution. And as such, cannot be welcomed into any group who believes in the Constitution and the principles upon which it was constructed.

The United States of America is a geographic region with boundaries, customs, laws, and societal norms. It is not an idea or theoretical place in one's intellect. Therefore, a "hyphenated" American (to paraphrase President Theodore Roosevelt) isn't an American at all, especially when the person in question will not learn that which helps to bind us as a single people. While Americans respect the culture of other people, and enjoy those cultures in the home or other specific settings, the practice of modern "multiculturalism" is, or should be, abhorrent to Constitution loving Americans.  

What defines ‘People with Constitutionally repugnant views’?  That's simple enough to do.  How about 'skin heads', KKK types, Earth First, PETA, Globalists, or cults who have abhorrent (defined as ‘detestable’ and/or ‘loathsome’) practices or belief systems?  The bottom line to measure what is or is not Constitutionally repugnant is to compare what a person or group holds as core values to what the Constitution actually says (not what someone thinks it says or interprets it to say with no historical fact from when it was constructed to back up their "interpretation") and, if they are in conflict, their views are, in fact, Constitutionally repugnant and they have no place in a group claiming to revere the Constitution.

So, taking the above into account, how do you enforce compliance and still train Americans to defend their home, their family, and their community, especially in a ‘volunteer’ group, association, or organization?  

Answer: Effective Leadership

  Effective leadership (also known as competent command) sets the example in a group as well as the pace. When not engaged in training or operations, the leader should be (if at all possible) socially interacting with the group to know and understand his folks and also to spot or monitor any Constitutionally unacceptable group behavior in relation to racism, religious tolerance, or socio-political views. A good (effective) leader will not allow anyone to behave in a manner that conflicts with what our national values (Constitutional principles) dictate is acceptable.

  For example, let's say somebody cracks a tasteless ethnic joke and the leader hears it (whether or not a member of that ethnic group is present only bears on what the leader will do later). The leader can do one of three things: Laugh along with the group, ignore it while pretending to not hear, or take action and challenge the joke teller's behavior. If the leader is going to "walk the walk" and continue to rightfully earn the respect of those he is leading, he has only one choice: Take the action necessary to correct the situation!

  This holds true even if the leader wasn't present and he became aware of the incident (the method for dealing with 2nd hand information is different, but still has the requirement of the leader taking action) through a subordinate leader or other group member. Why? Because the leader is always being evaluated by every member of the group every time the group gathers! Any action the leader takes should be matched to the circumstances and the offensive behavior itself (overkill is not a good thing and can have results worse than the offense itself) and can range from a simple "on the spot" correction (which will send a very loud message (no matter how discreet the correction may be) to all within ear shot or who later hear about the incident that "this crap will cease now!") to a private conversation explaining the common color blood we all have and how that type of 'joking' detracts from morale (see the above definition) to, if necessary in an extreme case, expulsion from the group. Expulsion? From a volunteer militia group?? You bet. Absolutely! Volunteers that cause dissension and conflict during training with this kind of behavior are not needed, especially when or if "the day" ever comes. Volunteers like that are liabilities to the leader as well as every other group member, especially when in the field.

Does that mean everyone will like each other or be close friends? Nope. Not even close. Don't even attempt to get to that level of group cohesion. And remember, some distance between group members and different levels of leadership as well as each other is good because group members can be more objective in situations that don't involve close friends. Remember, too much familiarity can work against everyone, let alone the leaders during field operations. The old saying, "familiarity breeds contempt" didn't come about because someone thought it just sounded cool.  

The leader must focus on ensuring that while the group is together, each person present respects what every other person brings to the group in skill, ability, potential, and value. That doesn't mean that organizationally everyone has the same influence, either! Junior members (whether junior in age or experience) of the group must also be taught to respect those with experiences they don't have. The old saying, "keep your eyes and ears open and your mouth shut" is very valuable to a new group member no matter the level of their field experience, but especially to those with little or no field time.  

This goal is accomplished by monitoring and controlling the behavior of the group members through personal example of acceptable behavior. What the group members think is their business - the leader can't change value imprinting or generational prejudices. All the leader can do is ensure, as best he can, that those thoughts and prejudices stay behind the teeth and in the mind. With time and reinforcement, the member in question will do his or her own value modification. The leader helps this along by reinforcement of acceptable behavior and the correction of unacceptable behavior. It takes a while, but it does work!

Effective leadership or competent command not only infuses and involves itself in the social norms of the group, but sets the pace and example for training as well. Group leaders need to be out there sweating with their troops, listening intently to others when a subordinate leader is providing training, and performing the skill sets he's asking others to do. If you've never been a formal leader before in a field unit, you'd be surprised how much respect you'll earn by digging your own spider hole, or when you finish a long, fast conditioning march, going back and getting the ones who are not as fast as you are and helping them. Competent command participates in everything possible. Leadership is executed by example! "Do as I do!" "Follow Me!" We've all heard these phrases before, but the effective leader puts them into practice.

  Competent command is also decisive.  The effective leader takes into counsel his "subject matter experts" along with selected grunts (or, if you prefer, ‘riflemen’), especially those who may disagree with his perspective.  Doing so makes sure the leader has all the information necessary for an effective decision.  Subject matter experts, subordinate leaders, and group members providing input must also know that it is essential for the leader to be told what he needs to know, not just what someone thinks he wants to hear!  And then, when he has the information he requires, the leader makes the decision and goes forward. When it comes to credit, the effective leader always gives credit to those he commands for the success and if something goes wrong, he is the first to step up and take responsibility. No passing the buck.  This goes for all levels of command from buddy teams to fire teams to squads to platoons and so forth. At every level, leaders need to set the example.  

For those who would like to increase their abilities as a leader, remember, it's not that easy but it can be done. Leadership is both an art and a science, and there are no "born" leaders. Leaders are trained. Part of training is failure. A new leader or a leader who is refurbishing his skills will not do everything right every time. As time goes on, the mistakes will become fewer, expertise will grow, and the leader will become more effective. In the meantime, another way to measure effectiveness or competent command is to judge the leader's ability to admit when he's made a mistake, been wrong, jumped to a conclusion, or other negative things. Apparently, it's one of the more difficult things in life to accomplish. Remember this: Apologizing for an error doesn't mean the leader is weak. On the contrary, it means the leader respects those he leads and can admit he's not infallible. So leader, when you've stepped in a pile, correct the situation, admit you made a mistake, and move on. Mistakes are authorized, especially when you don't make the same mistake again.  

A good book for both new and veteran leaders is called, "Muddy Boots Leadership: Real Life Stories And Personal Examples of Good, Bad, And Unexpected Results", by John Chapman. You can get a copy on Amazon for around eleven bucks. It's worth the money. It's mostly written for active duty US Army leaders, but it does apply to any leadership situation.

  To summarize, effective leadership is the key to ensuring you have the right people in your group (and only the right people), that they respect and adhere to Constitutional principles, are effective in the field, attain and maintain high morale, and are ready to protect their families, homes, and communities.  

See you in the field.