By BOB BIRD
March 2, 2026 -The Alaska’s Story’s poll [newsletter March 2] demonstrated to me a disturbing fact: Conservatives like war. It is the default position for most of us and is one reason that I often no longer refer to myself as a conservative, but rather as a constitutionalist. But be advised that not everyone who clicked “No” to the Iranian action was a liberal.
It’s my personal cross to bear whenever I write columns. As I analyze the term “conservative” in the political sense, it is what I would prefer to call myself. After all, who doesn’t want to conserve the Constitution?
However, the pro-war MAGA faction has blindly followed poor, abused and targeted Donald without question, in all things. I can even understand why he has acted the way he has: the Deep State, which is a far greater threat to humanity than he is, does not play by any rules, so why should he?
But he did make some pretty iron-clad promises: “After I’m re-elected, I’m not going to start any new wars, I’m going to end the old ones.” Sick of the Biden-Obama wars, who dropped the anti-war Left into the dustbin, patriots from all stripes, many of whom were once liberals, voted him back into office. They didn’t like the Republican wars of the Bush Family, either.
Talk about annexing Greenland and Canada were, to my mind, childish fantasies, and turned me off. Yes, I realize that Trump may be motivated by Chinese toe-holds into Venezuela and Greenland, but aside from extending our reach and resources to the breaking point, what about the fact that we ignore how China now owns an awful lot of American farmland?
Executive-order tariffs are another violation, even if tariffs are long overdue to correct the trade imbalance that goes back to the Lame Duck Clinton Congress of 1994, and even if Congress (which had no constitutional authority to do so) has given presidents limited use of tariff-making powers.
Alaskans would do well to remember that the Antiquities Act, passed under the war-monger and overrated president Teddy Roosevelt, was to allow Teddy the power to withdraw certain SMALL tracts of land that were of cultural and historical value, without bothering Congress.
This is what Jimmy Carter used to lock up millions of acres of our natural resources, until he could get Ted Stevens to broker the permanent deal, ANILCA, and made Alaska “America’s national park.” It is the primary reason why the AIP was created.
And I don’t care if millions of Venezuelans or Iranians are cheering these wars. I am neither a Venezuelan nor an Iranian, and I am certainly not a Zionist. I am an American, and if needs must, I am an Alaskan first, who understands that the American republic was constructed to keep a group of sovereign, independent STATES together in a confederation of self-defense and free trade.
And, aside from the fact that all military action will create hard-core anti-American terrorists for years into the future, all wars must be declared. We have avoided this in obvious ways since 1950, and if we are honest, a lot longer before then as well.
I grant that the need to give the nuclear codes into the hands of all presidents is necessary, so why haven’t we passed a constitutional amendment to make it, um, constitutional? For the same reason we haven’t done so in creating the Air Force and the Space Force, for the same reason we haven’t done so for national parks, monuments, wildlife refuges and forests. It would call into question the legitimacy of many more federal powers, with its accompanying renegade bureaucracies.
The cry, “It’s unconstitutional!” is trotted out by both parties in shameless ways whenever it suits their selfish agendas. What passes as “constitutional” these days is as follows:
Whatever the Supreme Court thinks.
Whatever violations both parties agree to.
Whatever is popular.
Aside from undeclared wars, we can go to more obvious violations quite easily.
By passing the 17th Amendment in the so-called “Progressive Era” of the early 20th century, we stole the “equal suffrage” of the states in the Senate. It placed both houses of Congress into the hands of the people. So, what’s wrong with that, you say? This enabled the power of journalism to control public opinion, and removed the “Upper House” of the insulation needed to protect states’ rights, by the state legislatures choosing their Senators. I don’t need to be told it was an imperfect system. What we need to ask ourselves is, was it an improvement?
And, like the 14th and 16th amendments, there are hard-core constitutional scholars who ask the disturbing question: did their passage violate Article V? Check my previous columns, still posted online, or read the book The Law That Never Was.
From there, we can go to the truly obvious violations that are a major impact in our constitutional mess: inflation, caused by the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Bank, and the abandonment of the clearly mandated gold and silver standard. Most of our cabinet departments and their substrata, such as the EPA, IRS, NOAA, and departments of Education, Energy, Agriculture, ad infinitum.
The squeals of complaints that would emanate from a truly constitutional republic are loud and often, and from both sides of the aisle. The truth is, we prefer comfort to liberty. Franklin noted correctly that “There is no known cure for luxury.”
Quincy Adams, a poor president, was much better in his role as a senator and congressman. His greatest speeches not only extolled anti-slavery and states’ rights sentiments, but also in foreign policy. His advice echoed Washington’s warning about “entangling alliances”. “[America] “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy,” and that an America that aspired to world leadership, even in the name of noble ideas, would be led astray: “She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”
This does not fit into the US that we now live under. The question to ask is: Are we better off?
Conservative talk radio host Bob Bird anchors the “Talk of the Kenai” show for KSRM, and was named the 2025 Broadcaster of the Year by the Alaska Broadcasters Association.
Bob Bird: The reported death of the Alaskan Independence Party has been premature
30 thoughts on “Bob Bird: Foreign wars and the Constitution”
Trump is keeping his promise. We have been at war with Iran for 47 years, and Trump is ending it. That does not make him or any fan of Trump “like war.” Would you prefer we continue to let Iran kill and maim our servicepeople and civilians abroad? You are conflating defense with offense, and it is a bit disingenuous.
Very thoughtful and correct statement, Tamra. If our founding fathers knew that there’d be a CCP infiltration in our Congress, and that Islamists like Mamdani would rise to power, and Shariah law would become a domestic existential threat to their and now our Constitutional Republic, they would’ve added a clause or two in articles one and two.
Reading the obviously well constructed points Mr. Bird always makes, I can’t conclude that he supports President Trump. Libertarian philosophy on war leans heavily on “turn the other cheek”. And while that is so often the right thing to do, it cannot always apply.
Greg
Thanks for the critique. You have made the case that most political conservatives would lay out. But you haven’t answered the question: “Was it constitutional?” Is the oath, invoking God, sincerely taken? Should we re-write it? “I do solemnly swear to preserve protect and defend the parts of the Constitution that I like” ? Or “those violations that the SCOTUS, both parties, or popular opinion permit”?
Your premise that attacking Iran is “defense” is quite a stretch, but is good to have it laid out. Remember, it was the CIA that overthrew their pro-western president in the early 50s. What would Americans say if Iran did that to us? And why do we have have people overseas, anyway? The Cold War supposedly ended in the early 90s.
It cannot be denied that both parties treat the Constitution with convenience. Along with Ron Paul, Tucker Carlson, Pat Buchanan, Chuck Baldwin and others, I will accept the role of the thin, reedy voice that will pin-prick some — but not all — consciences. Thank you for reading the column, and bothering to disagree. We need more of that sort of exchange.
We have people overseas to protect our interests in other parts of the world. Of course, we could ignore the rest of the world, right up to the point where they gain enough strength to attack us and end our way of life. I also assume you understand that Congress makes laws, which they are given the power to do by the very Constitution you cite. One of those laws says that the President can direct military action without a declaration of war, so long as he informs Congress within 48 hours, and that he can prosecute said military action for 60 days without a declaration of war. Is it really your position that those laws are somehow unconstitutional? As for the invocation of God, I am quite sure that your and my religion is in favor of defense of the innocent. There is a world of difference between murder and just defense.
Tamra Nygaard,
First, Judge Andrew Napolitano has serious doubts that The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (often called the War Powers Act) is constitutional. But even if it is, it doesn’t grant Trump the power to wage wars which aren’t clearly for self-defense from an immediate threat.
None of Trump‘s bombings in eight countries in this last year qualifies under the War Powers Act. He’s a reverse-Christian warmonger like both where George Bush Senior, George Bush, Junior, and Obama.
Gemini:
“The Three Conditions for Force
According to Section 2(c) of the Act, the President can only exercise commander-in-chief powers to introduce troops into hostilities under three specific circumstances:
• A declaration of war by Congress.
• Specific statutory authorization (such as an Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF).
• A national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories, or its armed forces.
If there is “no danger of being attacked” (no imminent threat or actual attack), the Act technically does not grant the President the authority to start a war or initiate hostilities unilaterally.
This meme commits 4 logical fallacies to silence valid constitutional concerns.
Gemini: “The argument presented in the image relies on several specific logical fallacies. From a purely structural and logical perspective, here is the breakdown:
1. Tu Quoque (The “You Too” Fallacy)
This is a specific type of Ad Hominem fallacy. It occurs when someone avoids a criticism by turning it back on the accuser or a third party.
• The Logic: “Person A did [X wrong thing], so you cannot criticize Person B for also doing [X wrong thing].”
• Why it’s a fallacy: The moral or legal status of an action is independent of who else has done it. If an action is unconstitutional or wrong, it remains so regardless of whether a predecessor established a precedent for it.
2. Two Wrongs Make a Right
This is a fallacy of relevance. it suggests that an allegation of wrongdoing is countered by an allegation of another wrongdoing.
• The Logic: It assumes that the second “wrong” cancels out the first or justifies its existence.
• Why it’s a fallacy: In logic, the merits of a current action (e.g., air strikes or executive overreach) must be judged on their own. Pointing to a previous violation does not logically transform a current violation into a “right” or “legal” act.
3. Red Herring
A Red Herring is a diversionary tactic where an irrelevant topic is introduced to lead the discussion away from the original issue.
• The Logic: The original issue is the legality/morality of current air strikes. The image shifts the focus to the 2016 statistics of a different administration.
• Why it’s a fallacy: While the statistics may be factually true, they do not address the specific legal justification or consequences of the current strikes. It changes the subject from “Is this action legal?” to “Was that person worse?”
4. Appeal to Precedent (Fallacious Version)
While legal precedent is a real concept, this image uses a “false equivalence” of precedent.
• The Logic: It implies that because the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) was used by one leader, any subsequent use is automatically valid and immune to protest.
• Why it’s a fallacy: It ignores the nuance that different military actions may fall outside the specific scope of the original AUMF. Using a past action as a blanket shield for all future actions of a similar nature is a logical leap.
Essentially, the argument attempts to invalidate criticism based on the hypocrisy (perceived or real) of the critic or the past, rather than addressing the validity of the law itself.
Another poignant post, Tamra. While reasonable to debate the timing of this attack on the Ayatollah’s brutal treatment of the Iranian people, and murder of hundreds of Americans, this is the right thing to do. For decades, President Trump has recognized the existential threat to all of us posed by Iranian leadership, many of whom are now having their way with their 72 virgins, most of whose bodies resemble present day Rosie O’Donnell and Hillary Clinton physiques! I’m supporting President Trump’s military action in Iran and about 98% of his agenda overall. There are almost no democrats supporting Trump. And way more republicans and libertarians should be support him than do. This lack of support is pathetic.
This one time opportunity we’ve been given to restore our country, to repel the infiltration of the CCP and Islamic extremism, and our President is bucked by RINO’s, Donkeys and most libertarians! That is shameful and pathetic Mr.Bird, if you’re an American anyway!
“…….. Conservatives like war. It is the default position for most of us and is one reason that I often no longer refer to myself as a conservative………”
There’s a gigantic difference between “like” and realizing that warfare is a fact of life. Chimpanzees engage in warfare. Wolves do it. Ants do it. And people have been doing it since well before Homo sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis warred against each other. Spiritual warfare split Heaven, a third of the angels fell, and spiritual warfare will continue for eternity. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is. Maybe your realization that you’re not a conservative deserves applause. Liberals will never get it, and it appears that reality has slipped your realization as well.
“………Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household………..”
Matthew 10: 34-36
I’ve never seen that bible verse. For Jesus or for Trump, why would you follow a man who brings war? And no, war is not inevitable. It’s a choice.
You’ve never seen the Bible verse because you had lousy Sunday school teachers. They were clearly liberals.
I’m not “following” Trump. I’m also not marching in the streets opposing him because I have a mental virus now known as Trump Derangement Syndrome (which, btw, is a legitimate mental disorder). Trump didn’t “bring” us war. Iran has been at war with us for the past 47 years (apparently, you had lousy history teachers, too). Trump (and Israel) are ending it.
“………And no, war is not inevitable. It’s a choice………
You have exactly 50% of that choice. The guy at war with you has a vote, too. Ignore that reality at your peril, but in this case, you only have a vote watered down by hundreds of millions of other Americans.
I haven’t seen that verse because I’m an atheist and never endured Sunday School (thanks mom and dad). Plus, I have the intelligence to not purposely entangle my cognitive abilities. But I do try to understand some biblical passages (if I can tamp down my disbelief). It’s helpful to understand the foundations of some political positions that differ from my own.
“Iran has been at war with us for the past 47 years”. That’s an extraordinary definition of war that you picked up from pretty boy podcaster and pathetically unqualified secretary of defense Pete Hegseth. No weight behind it.
If we want to have a discussion about constitutionality, we need to actually reference the constitution.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”
Article I, Section 8:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
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;”
By reading the US Constitution we know that the President is the Commander in Chief and Congress is responsible for funding the military and declaring war (something that has happened only 11 times and the last time was WWII). We also know that Congress has constitutional authority to create laws in accordance with the constitution. Congress has made laws that Mr. Bird disagrees with, they’ve made laws that I disagree with, they’ve made laws that the Supreme Court disagrees with and that President’s have disagreed with.
“………Congress is responsible for funding the military and declaring war (something that has happened only 11 times and the last time was WWII)………”
Congress is so fully feckless that they sent an “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution” to President GW Bush in 2002, and before that the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq of 1991” to President GHW Bush in 1991. Ask the lawyers what the difference between those “authorizations” and a declaration of war is. I’m sure they have all the answers.
“Executive-order tariffs are another violation, even if tariffs are long overdue to correct the trade imbalance that goes back to the Lame Duck Clinton Congress of 1994, and even if Congress (which had no constitutional authority to do so) has given presidents limited use of tariff-making powers.” It’s an interesting (if wholly incorrect) take, that the legislative branch of our government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to create and enact laws. But was does the constitution actually say about it…
The final clause on Article I, Section 8:
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
“And, aside from the fact that all military action will create hard-core anti-American terrorists for years into the future,” the obviously incorrect overuse of the very definitive term “all” shows that the opinion expressed herein is not well thoughtout, it’s certainly an eye popping statement, but it is demonstrably incorrect.
“all wars must be declared.” I’d certainly be interested in the section of the constitution that states such.
It is amazing how many people who think they are conservatives have a very, very loose (meaning: liberal) view about the built-in restraints on executive power. It is also worth mentioning that we have had only 6 — not 11 — declared wars in our history. And if the Prez can jolly-well do anything he wants with the army, why would Madison, Polk, McKinley, Wilson and FDR ask for a declaration? (The 1st declaration is in the Dec. of Independence). But like I said, this sort of rancor is long overdue. I want to encourage them to call in to my radio show. They will have their say. Keyboards are slow. 3-5 pm, 907-283-5811. Be respectful.
Bob,
Respectfully there have been 11 declarations of war by Congress. https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/declarations-of-war.htm
It’s also very noteworthy that the Declaration of Independence was not a declaration of war. Through the Declaration of Independence the founders of this country announced to the world that we were “Free and Independent States” and “Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain”
“…….. if the Prez can jolly-well do anything he wants with the army, why would Madison, Polk, McKinley, Wilson and FDR ask for a declaration?……….”
In the recent “authorizations for the use of military force” of 1991 and 2002, they are attempts to keep the president from “jolly-well doing anything he wants” by sending him a resolution outlining limitations to what he can do. Declaring war is an all out, full on blessing to “jolly-well do anything he wants”. This is the Age of Lawyers, and that includes a Congress full of them……….especially the Democrat side. You might not think they’re in control, but you’d better believe that they think they are.
“………conservatives have a very, very loose (meaning: liberal) view about the built-in restraints on executive power……….”
Bob, as a man who campaigned for the U.S. Senate for the State of Alaska (and who I voted for in the primary), it will be interesting to read your answer to this question:
What is the difference between a “declaration of war” by Congress and this “Public Law” passed by Congress?https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf
> I often no longer refer to myself as a conservative
I do not either Bob. I am America First. And Only. A traditionalist and Christian who seeks to return our country to Christian values. Many conservatives in our generation really like war and empire. This is as far from Washington’s admonition to us in his farewell address as can be- to form no entangling foreign alliances.
You hear that giant sucking sound neo-cons in this chat? That is the sound of us losing the midterms because many rightists who are not conservatives, but supported and voted for America First, are never going to support more optional foreign adventures. Especially after being promised so by Trump. You began losing them last June with Iran 1- through Venezuela and now Iran 2.
We had so much work to do in this county: deport all illegals, reduce the deficit/debt, tighten election laws, revive our industry, create jobs, and most of all end the civilizational ending replacement rate of 1.6 by supporting marriage and families. You have pissed that away for what? You are just as much of the problem as marxists are. Young people know this. That is why you have zero support among them. They know you are selling their future for nothing.
Ohhhh Bobby!!! You caused quite the stir! Was that your intension all along? Do you really think this is going to gain listeners to your radio show? I’ll pass. Cheers!
It certainly is getting comments in this blog. I am more interested in truth, not ratings. But snide remarks fall flat, and ignorance can be corrected. I spoke this way in 2008, and neo-conservatives didn’t like it then, either. The “elastic clause” is a LIBERAL tool, but it is amazing to hear how self-identified conservatives use it here, too. The question is: why did they take so much trouble to write the powers of all 3 branches into a constitution? They might just as easily saved the ink and the arguments with, “Congress shall have all power to pass any laws they like.” But this argument went on, with all the virulence and vituperation seen here, in 1787. It is why Virginia, New York and Rhode Island made conditional approvals, and only by wafer-thin margins. Only in Federalist #45 do we find the assurance that STRICT construction was the intent all along. The powers of the federal gov’t were to be FEW and DEFINED. You know why Congress likes undeclared wars? It is because, if the war goes sideways, they can say, “I sure didn’t vote for it! It was the president’s doing!” But if it is popular, then, “Hey! I voted for the continuing war powers resolution!” Sorry to say, war becomes the business of everyone, puts us all into jeopardy. Read “The Guns of August” by Barbara Tuchman. History is studied for a reason. I am no pacifist. I am a strict constructionist. I also wish elected officials understood the jeopardy they put themselves into when they take an Oath to the Almighty. Cong. Davy Crockett corrected himself, and was glad he did.
Bob,
Then correct the ignorance good sir, and do so with truth and not the snide remarks you have repeatedly resorted to. Your ignorance has been corrected here a few times and as yet you refuse to acknowledge these facts.
Respectfully you wrote your opinion piece here in which you threw down the gauntlet to ALL conservatives and now you seem to want to walk away from the challenge. You bemoan what you claim is unconstitutional but there is nary a reference to what the constitution actually says in your writing, when asked for followup about what the constitution actually says you ignore it entirely.
You simply cannot attempt to form your argument upon constitutional grounds and then wholesale abandon those grounds when asked basic questions.
I have invited you to call the show, and all others, so we can have an exchange. Combox cannot possibly go on and on. I don’t live on the site 24 hrs a day. So, expect a welcome forum on live radio. We will agree on some, disagree on others. You might be surprised. 907-283-5811, 3-5 pm.
Bob,
“The “elastic clause” is a LIBERAL tool, but it is amazing to hear how self-identified conservatives use it here, too.” My apologies, I thought you said you were now identifing yourself as a constitutionalist, usually people who identify as constitutionalists do not disregard the constitution for their own opinion. The Necessary and Proper Clause is neither LIBERAL nor is it conservative, it is a part of the constitution.
“The question is: why did they take so much trouble to write the powers of all 3 branches into a constitution?” Speaking of snide remarks…I’d like to think you know why so much trouble was taken to delineate, and in many cases share responsibility of power, amongst the three branches. If not, please feel free to continue the conversation.
“………You know why Congress likes undeclared wars? It is because, if the war goes sideways, they can say, “I sure didn’t vote for it! It was the president’s doing!” But if it is popular, then, “Hey! I voted for the continuing war powers resolution!”………”
Precisely. Congress has ceded its power involving war almost completely since 1945, and they don’t want it back. All they want is to employ political sniping during war. They declared Iran a state sponsor of terror in 1984 and that declaration hasn’t been repealed in 42 years. In fact, the proof of its accuracy has only piled up more. And now, on the precipice of Iran’s final stages of building nuclear weapons, we’re arguing about whether or not we can constitutionally destroy their nuclear weapons industry. This is suicidal insanity.
A concise and thoughtful argument in the exchange with Mr. Bird. I agree 100% with this post, Reggie. There can be no rebuttal coming from Mr. Bird, he knows you’re correct on these points.
As for Mr. Bird, scroll through my forthcoming replies to Tamra Nygaard and others for derails.
Greg
Bob Bird, wonderful article! Thank you for standing up for the rule of law, when few do these days, especially Trump, who mocked the Supreme Court justices who held him to the rule of law of the Constitution regarding his illegal tariffs, which he knew he violated from the get-go.
He is out of control, corrupt, and a serial liar that sadly, many Alaskans find heroic.
The morality of our nation is at an all-time low.
I really appreciate what you say here:
“I also wish elected officials understood the jeopardy they put themselves into when they take an Oath to the Almighty.”
I believe the main problem in America and Alaska these days is false Christian doctrine that teaches “once saved always saved “or “only believe”— all we have to do is say a one time prayer, and then we can do anything, and still go to heaven.
Whenever someone dies, almost everyone says ‘RIP,’ when according to Jesus, the way is narrow and difficult, and few find it.
People don’t care about what the Bible says anymore, and many have already found out with the consequence of living that way results in eternally.
But for us now, when people just do whatever they feel like doing, including the things that Jesus said will send them to hell, like lusting and hating, then they’re controlled by demons, instead of the Holy Spirit— and we have chaos.
The solution is true Christian doctrine, and the fear of the Lord being taught biblically again, so we live right with each other and God, and then have the fruit of the Holy Spirit, so we are actually salt and light, big lights who can draw the people of Alaska together under the authority of God to be seen by all!
Thanks for what you are doing. God bless you. Really appreciate you and Suzanne for posting this!
Jeff Fenske, Anchorage