Monday, January 25, 2010

Dear Talk Radio - Presidential Eligibility - The BOPAC Report

The BOPAC Report -





Talk Radio Related -



Dear Talk Radio:



This week I wrote an article, ‘Trumping Political and Judicial Courage’, that allowed me to speculate about the various reasons allegations related to Obama’s eligibility to serve as President have thus far been ignored, ridiculed, quashed, mischaracterized, and/or generally swept under the rug. My musings always came back to power, elitism and politics – and their pursuit. However, the reason I’m writing Talk Radio today touches on one specific question that I found intriguing enough to make the subtitle of my article.


Did Hope for Rising GOP Stars like Bobby Jindal Play a Role in the Obama’s Presidential Eligibility Scandal?


I know that Talk Radio’s Rush Limbaugh has made a joke or two about the subject. (What do God and Obama have in common? Neither has a birth certificate.) However, I haven’t heard Sean Hannity address the issue. Maybe he’s made a passing remark, but nothing in depth. Michael Savage is the only one that actually had Philip Berg on his radio program during the election (that I know of). Glenn Beck on the other hand has felt the need to ridicule everyone who raises the issue. Even though, it’s very clear that he and his staff have not done sufficient research or analysis regarding who can be considered a ‘natural born citizen’ under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.



This brings me to my question for Talk Radio. I’ve heard that many would like to see Gov. Jindal represent the Republican Party as its nominee for President in 2012. Rush brought his name up during the last election as a VP possibility. Personally I like Governor Jindal of Louisiana a lot and wish for him nothing but the best.



However, in researching my last article, I discovered that ‘Gov. Jindal was born in Louisiana in 1971 and his parents are Indian immigrants who came here to attend graduate school.’ Gov. Jindal’s father left his family village in 1970 so it’s very unlikely that he was an American citizen at the time of Bobby’s birth. As far as I can tell, having a parent who is not an American citizen at the time of one’s birth creates an impenetrable barrier to being a ‘natural born citizen’, much less having two parents who are not citizens.



Here’s my question:


Given that Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states that ‘no person except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of President’… would Gov. Jindal, who was born in Louisiana, having immigrant (non-citizen) parents, be eligible to serve as President should he decide to run in 2012?


I have a legal background, but I’m retired and live very rural. So, I was wondering if Talk Radio might help me (all of us) out? It would be great if Talk Radio would invite a few people on your shows to discuss the topic. (There are additional issues such as the effect of parents having dual citizenships, 14th Amendment, etc. that would be helpful to explore.)



I know, I know – most Talk Radio may have glanced at this issue and dismissed it, have instructions from higher ups not to discuss Obama’s eligibility or maybe, they’ve been threatened, but that’s not what I’m asking. I only want you to talk about Gov. Jindal’s potential eligibility to serve as President and Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces.



If Gov. Jindal does run, this will be a critical question to answer before the 2012 Republican National Convention. And, much I would hate it; I know that many others and I will be asking these same questions and many more eligibility lawsuits will be filed.



Such a circus in 2012 would be a big mess and Talk Radio could do the country a BIG favor today! The whole Bobby Jindal eligibility issue can be defused in 2010 and therefore, allow Republicans, regular Democrats, Independents, and Tea Party folks to focus on who they like or don’t like, without fear of distraction.



If Talk Radio were really looking for answers/truth and brought in Constitutional Law experts to thoroughly explore the phrase ‘natural born citizen’, I’m sure many would tune in discover what the Jindal eligibility issue is truly about and set the record straight regarding the rhetoric that has been so pervasive online this past year or so.



Thank you for you time considering this matter.



Sincerely,



Zach Jones



PS – It probably wouldn’t be such a big mess because I have faith that Gov. Jindal would provide all the documentation necessary to make the determination of his eligibility. Easy – no lawsuits, no worry among the troops about if they are following ‘unlawful order’, everyone could rest easy.



Note to Readers:



I am sending this letter by email or other means to the following people hoping to get some response:



Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, The Republican National Committee, Philip Berg, Leo Donofrio, Stephen Pidgeon, and Mario Apuzzo, Dr. Orly Taitz, and a few others in the coming days. (Dr. Orly Taitz’s site is frequently under cyber attack these days because of the efforts she’s making, so I’m not going provide her link.)



I hope readers will take it upon yourself to forward this letter, my question, or your own letter/questions to your local/national talk radio personalities, your lawyer/judge friends and family, state election officials, military friends and family, State and Congressional Representatives, maybe your local FBI, Attorney General, etc. Anyone you can think of! Post it wherever you like. Or, hold on to it and send it to your state election officials in 2011 before the 2012 candidates try to get their names on the ballot!



Wouldn’t it be nice to have this discussion and answers about Gov. Jindal’s eligibility before the next Presidential Election?



Take care!

Friday, January 15, 2010

Did Hope for Rising GOP Stars like Bobby Jindal Play a Role in the Obama’s Presidential Eligibility Scandal?

The BOPAC Report:



Trumping Political and Judicial Courage




Did Hope for Rising GOP Stars like Bobby Jindal Play a Role in the Obama’s Presidential Eligibility Scandal?



When questions about Obama’s eligibility to serve as President arose, I immediately recognized that this could be the biggest political scandal in U.S. history, bigger even than Watergate. The allegations, if true, would have created widespread political turmoil and would have had to involve people, high up people, ignoring and/or covering up facts. How could a young Senator from Illinois have gotten so far, so quickly, in national politics without some in both the Democratic & Republican Parties taking notice, researching, discovering details of his past and recognizing that there was a BIG potential problem? Especially, given that every other person in Washington is a lawyer, people knew, the media had to have known, known both of the problem and its ramifications. After all, it’s the political big league in Washington.



Having a legal background, I decided to do my own research to satisfy my curiosity and it became abundantly clear that legitimate questions existed and continue to exist. Questions regarding interpretation of Article II, Section I of the Constitution, questions of original intent, British/Kenyan law, acquisition of citizenship, questions about Obama’s birthplace, his adoption, his educational scholarships, his parent’s foreign allegiance/citizenship, his prior inadvertent admissions, questions about his passport(s), etc., exist with sufficient basis in law and/or fact to warrant serious investigation and judicial review. So, like many others at the time, I sat back and waited for the media firestorm to begin. And I waited, and waited, and waited. Not a peep from the media, Hillary, McCain or Republicans. Why?



With an issue this big involving the first competitive African-American running for the Presidency of the United States, his intentional withholding of records and the possibility that he fails to meet the Constitutional requirements for the Office, I just knew that every stone would be quickly overturned to get to the bottom of it. Even though it’s common knowledge that the American media is pretty much left of center when it comes to politics and everything else - ‘the story’, this story was SO big that I was sure they would not be able to ignore it. It wasn’t like other political stories the media ignored such as John Edwards’ love child or Larry Sinclair’s allegations of drug use and sex with Obama. This story went to bedrock, the requirements of who can be President and who can serve as Commander In Chief of our military. To my surprise, next to nothing came from the mainstream media.



Many expected Republicans to wait as long as they possibly could before raising the issue because of the political/media ramifications. It seemed certain that they were praying for the media to take the lead so they could stay on the high road. After enduring eight years of constant Bush bashing and constant negative media spin about Republicans, it’s easy to appreciate their concerns. It’s a shame that Republican fear may have trumped their doing the right thing early on. Had they manned up, we probably would not be in the current situation of having our rights and freedoms in jeopardy.



Republicans had seen the media for a decade artfully portray them as corrupt, uncaring politicians on a reckless spending spree. This portrayal led directly to the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress. Even though, a Republican spending spree pales when compared to an Obama/Reid/Pelosi spending spree. Even though, Republican ‘caring’ has historically meant a limited federal government helping those in need with a hand up in ways that would not bankrupt the nation (sustainability) and Democrat ‘caring’ has historically meant a growing government trying to bait those with needs, real or otherwise, into becoming permanently dependent. What Republicans could count on in 2008 was that the mainstream media would likely report everything Republicans dared say about this critical Constitutional issue as racism, expressed and/or implied.



They were scared of the media in 2008. They were in the political wilderness. However, I believe fear was not the only factor keeping Republicans from speaking from conviction. Republicans might have been reluctant to rock Obama’s boat because their own leadership (those who would have fully understood Obama’s agenda, his past associations and ideology) may have been considering the possibility that losing to Obama might not be so bad.



Maybe they realized that if Obama were elected, Americans would likely be so disappointed and shocked by his policies that Republicans might quickly sweep back in power. Instead of being beaten up for eternity by the media for spoiling the first African American’s opportunity to reach the Presidency, they could be seen as adults setting things right after a rebellious kid’s screw ups. Yes, I think political calculations could well have been trumping principles. After all, the Party did have a few bright stars in waiting such as Gov. Bobby Jindal. They could just bide their time, hope America wakes up as Obama revealed himself and be ready to step up.



Jindal, he’s the young Republican Governor who had a 77% approval rating in 2008. Jindal had taken over the reigns of Louisiana shortly after the embarrassing former Democratic Governor’s performance dealing with Katrina. Louisiana is also the home of some fairly egregious examples of Democratic corruption such as Rep. Jefferson’s conviction and Senator Landrieu appearing to sell her vote for $300,000,000 dollars to Harry Reid. Gov. Bobby Jindal is definitely a rising star in the Republican Party, a fiscal conservative, principled and someone not closely associated with President Bush. He is seen as a leader with a great future. I can certainly see him in the U.S. Senate.



As time passed, more and more lawsuits were filed (over 50) challenging Obama’s eligibility and nothing - nothing from the media, nothing from Hillary Clinton, nothing Republicans in Washington, nothing from John McCain. The issue was a hot potato that carried a truckload of political risk. Democrats, who were acutely aware that they risked losing the carefully groomed dependence of many minority voters, wouldn’t touch it. Politicians of both parties were afraid of the charge of racism - and for good reason. All they had to do was watch the vicious attacks against eligibility attorneys Philip Berg, Dr. Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio, Stephen Pidgeon, and Mario Apuzzo.



Given that many politicians lack backbone, those of us concerned about the issue had little choice but to put faith with the American judicial system and hope that they would answer conclusively the questions of Obama’s eligibility. Well, so much for faith. Notwithstanding their oaths to protect the Constitution, judges apparently wanted nothing to do with this political hot potato either. Courts have been falling all over themselves from the beginning to do every legal contortion necessary to avoid granting discovery, examining facts and/or applying the law regarding this eligibility issue.



However, we are not defeated. Legal challenges and opportunities for challenges remain and it will only take one principled judge to resolve the eligibility issue. Is Obama a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ eligible to serve as President of the United States and Commander In Chief of its military? But, we all must remember that most judges begin their careers on the bench as politicians; and so far, politics trump a magistrate’s sworn duty.



Had the winner of the 2008 Presidential election been Governor Jindal, you can be sure there would have been endless lines of Constitutional experts brought in by FOX, CNN, MS-NBC, CBS, ABC to explain the history of the eligibility provision, the underlying issues and facts relevant to a reasoned determination. You see, Bobby Jindal was born in Louisiana in 1971 and his parents are Indian immigrants who came here to attend graduate school, nearly the exact factual situation as Obama’s (accepting a Hawaii birth). And had 50+ lawsuits been filed against a Presidential candidate Jindal, the media would have been in a frenzy trying to outdo each other, it would have been like the O.J. trial. I also believe that both the federal & state courts would have been decidedly more eager to get to the merits so that they could be seen as protecting the Constitution, the Presidency and apple pie.



But it wasn’t candidate Jindal - it was candidate Obama. So, instead of having extensive coverage and thoroughly investigating the issue, the media has given next to no coverage. And when the mainstream media decides to cover the issue, they do it so they can spin the story to wrongly equate the meaning of ‘citizen’ and a ‘natural born ‘citizen’ - and to paint those raising the issue as idiots. Where are the real journalists? With the exception of FOX, this is clearly the media’s ‘thrill up the leg’ political bias trumping journalistic principle.



With FOX, I think of them the same way as I think of Republicans. Because FOX is constantly vilified by Democrats and the left lending media, this potato was so hot that even they could not risk being wrong or having a court come to a different conclusion. FOX’s fear trumped their journalistic principle.



I wonder if the Republican leadership figured that if they didn’t complain about Obama in 2008, they would be able to count on Democrats and the Obama media not complaining about Jindal’s eligibility issues should he decide to run in 2012? My first thought was that having such an expectation would be a fool’s dream. However, I’m not so sure now. They all now have a lot of political capital invested in attempting to effectively rewrite the eligibility provision of the Constitution by some sort of contorted waiver/estoppel/abandonment theory. It’s all underhanded and improper; but as long as courts continue to abdicate their own responsibilities, who can know what determined politicians might accomplish?



The whole mess smells more and more like ‘the players’ in Washington have gotten together and decided, or implicitly understand, that the issue and the Constitution are to be ignored. Every player appears to be serving their own self-interest, burying their principles, avoiding risk, and using the mainstream media’s avoidance of the issue as political cover. If the mainstream media ever takes the lead and does their job, the other players will be forced to do theirs as well.



Even when, reports were coming out in Canada that a radio talk show host had revealed that he, his career, family had been threatened; the mainstream American media simply ignored the story. No real investigation, nothing, nada was started. This smells really bad.



Regarding the Democratic leadership, anyone watching the recent antics of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid concerning the healthcare takeover (with their buying of votes, conducting the people’s business in secret, not allowing debate or time to actually read the bills, misrepresentations, manipulation of the numbers, and their constant ridicule those in opposition) must realize that it’s not the means that count to these people – only the ends. Therefore, I have no doubt that they would turn a blind eye to the possibility that the Constitution might have been violated by Obama and those who have attested to his eligibility. Oh, that was Nancy Pelosi who did that.



Regarding Hillary Clinton, she’s an old school hardball politician who is probably worrying more about her status and legacy now; rather than actually doing the right thing and demanding that Obama provide documentation proving that he is a natural born citizen. I guess it’s not a fight she’s willing to take on given that she is also the wife of the ‘first black President’.



Regarding the mainstream media, all you need to do is check who has been a consistent donor to Obama & Democratic politicians through the years. Then check for yourself what they are reporting, what they are leaving out, how stories are slanted, how far are they slanted and the frequency of displays of bias. There was a study out of, I believe, UCLA around 2004 that found that 18 of 20 major media outlets were left of center and that Brit Hume and the Drudge Report did indeed provide fair and balanced news coverage. Today, the media appears to have dropped all pretense of being objective.



Regarding John McCain, he is also a seasoned politician who probably values his own legacy more than tackling such a big political nightmare. Especially, given that some have questioned his own ‘natural born citizen’ status, he might prefer someone else take the lead.



A few Republican politicians have displayed courage by trying to introduce legislation that would require that candidates must provide proof that they are in fact eligible for the offices they seeking. Of course, Nancy Pelosi is keeping this buried and it will not see the light of day while she is the Speaker of the House. This type of legislation is extremely important should Republicans gain power in 2010. It cannot be allowed to stand that politicians can willy-nilly change the effect of the Constitution without going through the proper process. Talk about elitism!



Representative Nathan Deal has made the boldest direct display of courage to date by sending Obama a letter asking that he provide proof that he is a natural born citizen. Congressman Deal was of course immediately, repeatedly and viciously attacked for doing this one small act to protect the integrity of the Constitution. However, Rep. Deal’s act is very important because it provides a proof that a Member of Congress had specific concerns over Obama’s eligibility to serve. It is the first time that a sitting President has been confronted in this way. Well done! History must not be scrubbed to hide Obama’s probable criminal deception to obtain the Office of the Presidency.



Republicans took the easiest path in 2008 because they were fearful and had been relegated to the wilderness in 2006. With the emergence of the grassroots Tea Party revolt, Republicans are now poised to make substantial gains in 2010. I believe people are looking for genuine, principled, limited government, fiscal conservative leadership. Unfortunately, current Republicans will have to do this year because they are the best choice for the nation until better candidates emerge. However, all candidates should take heed that millions of Americans recognize that they must pay attention to what Congress is doing.



And just a friendly reminder, those of us who are concerned about the eligibility issue will also be paying attention. Please don’t consider running Gov. Jindal for the Presidency in 2012. As much as we (I) may like him, he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ and we (I) will not put our politics above principles founded in the Constitution!



Putting the country, the Constitution, & the rule of law ahead of politicians’ self-interest were called for in 2008 - and the call was ignored. Democrats and Republicans alike failed to answer.



After rereading this piece, I am more discouraged and fearful that the courts may well let down America, her Constitution and her people by failing to take the bull by the horns and look at the issue of Obama’s eligibility. (The court system was the only institution that I had a great deal of faith in but it looks like faith has been misplaced.)



It may ultimately fall to the military (who deserve to have a Commander In Chief who is in fact eligible to serve in that honored position and is legally capable of issuing ‘lawful orders’) to utilize the Uniform Code of Military Justice and demand that Obama establish the facts.



May I suggest Section 935. Art. 135. COURTS OF INQUIRY and possibly



Section 883. Art. 83. FRAUDULENT ENLISTMENT, APPOINTMENT, OR SEPARATION



Any person who--



(1) procures his own enlistment or appointment in the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his qualifications for the enlistment or appointment and receives pay or allowances thereunder…



[caption id="attachment_2014" align="aligncenter" width="450" caption="Obama's New Commander-In-Chief Uniform to Battle Low Morale in Military! Will Obama wear it to Navy Seals Prosecution?"][/caption]

Monday, January 4, 2010

American Soldiers - Tortured Duty & Tortured Mission

American Soldiers - Tortured Duty & Tortured Mission





The Whys and Whats Becoming Harder to Answer?


Families that honor military service are spread all across this nation. I grew up in one. Even as a teenager in the sixties, I remember knowing that freedom wasn’t free. My father had served in Patton’s 3rd Army, fought in the Battle of the Bulge, and served as a guard at the Nuremberg War Trials. How could I not know the price of freedom? WWII, now that was a just war. Everyone knew it. Everyone knew the war had to be won at all costs because failure clearly meant tyranny and death for an entire people, the Jewish people. Everyone knew, even the media knew the Whys and Whats. Why they were fighting? What they were fighting for? They knew the cost of winning and losing! And, victory wasn’t a dirty word.



However, my brother and I served in the United States Navy during a time in America’s history dominated by numbing callousness, selfishness, and indifference. The loss of the Vietnam War brought about by the media and endless protests of duplicitous, naïve dreamers and schemers; the festering pain of Watergate continuously exploited by politicians in D.C., the good but lackluster caretaker President Ford portrayed as a bumbling stumbling fool on Saturday Night Live, the My Lai massacre and Lt. Calley’s conviction not quite distant enough to avoid its stench, and a war/corruption weary people’s vote for change promised by Jimmy Carter all marked this period. Amazingly, like today, Carter’s change didn’t live up to expectations. Instead it brought gas lines, high inflation, 20+ percent interest rates and high unemployment – despair.



And the military was not spared in the mid 70’s. My awareness was that Carter was always attacking their budgets, minimizing the Soviet/communist threat, and interfering with matters that should have been left with the military, like his pardon of draft dodgers. Like closing GITMO, that action was certainly more of an appeasement to the far left than anything else. Democrats have been courting them for a long time.



Not unlike today’s media, the 70’s media reported much of their “news” in ways that portrayed the military, its leadership and contracting in the worst possible light. At the time, having credibility, it did appear as though reporters were merely following “the story” where it led. You know, paying homage to the type of Journalism that revealed the dirt in Watergate. But, considering the corruption of today’s media, I’m probably being too kind. The price of every screw, hammer and ladder was held up as symbols of systemic corruption. And just like today, the broad-brush criticism and vilification drifted through the ranks to land on the individual soldier.



The cloud of post Vietnam warmonger shame continued staining the uniform in the minds of many Americans. The 70’s media and Jane Fonda had done a good job of mixing up the good and bad guys, buying time for the Vietcong. I suppose they weren’t comfortable with the concept of winning either. Thankfully though, Carter’s dreadful economy and gas lines were overwhelming and required most of the media’s attention. The vast majority of those who did love the military were tired and let down by Nixon; and those who had been in the streets had their guy in Oval Office. So almost everyone seemed to be trying to turn the page. And with that turn of the page, the American soldier seemed to be all but forgotten. The soldier’s duty to protect and defend remained but the camera’s glare was gone. That’s my memory anyway.



Carter’s negative effect on military morale and cohesion was palpable. The lack of any real resolve or credibility was clearly visible. His handling of the Iranian Revolution and the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini were abysmal. It was weird, we were training Iranian pilots at Naval Air Memphis in 75 - a couple of wrong moves by a weak President and poof, 52 Americans were being held hostage for over a year.



The loss in Vietnam, Watergate, protests in the streets, President Ford, President Carter, hard ball politics and a deepening economic crisis were conspiring against the military. We were not immune to the tumult. It was like a powerful magnet kept our compass spinning. Drugs seemed to be everywhere in the military and military discipline a nearly foreign concept. To be fair, after Vietnam, many military officers were not that gun ho. (I suppose some had begun to believe that Vietnam was an un-winnable shameful mistake - maybe some felt that everyone should be forgiven their part- including draft dodgers – some were just tired of it and decompression, down time was what the American soldier needed. Who knows?)



To illustrate how bad it was - in my squadron (I was an In-Flight Electronics Tech), when one of our P-3’s was scheduled to be washed, it was not unheard of for the wash crew leader to provide a few lines of cocaine to speed up both the process and the morale. Officers seemed willing to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. We were lucky no one ever got hurt. (Remind anyone of the PC military leadership today?)



Come to think of it, the “cold war” with the USSR (which was fairly hot then) was probably one of the main forces that held together our sense of “duty” and “responsibility” during the Carter years. The soldier’s duty to protect and defend always remains. But at any given time, the military is more - or less capable and the junior soldier accepts it as he or she finds it. What choice do they have? (I joined when I came of age and was expecting to find the military my older brothers served in. But - it was very different.)



It was a perfect storm that had brought us Carter Presidency. And with it’s battered and bruised image, the United States military seemed to have a hell of time riding out that storm until President Reagan could put his hands to the reigns. Reagan’s zero-tolerance drug testing came along after I got out and things started turning around rather quickly according to my brother. I believe the foundation that President Reagan built (or rebuilt) continues to serve soldiers today and will not be easily surrendered by the military leadership.



Well, hopefully it won’t.



It’s one of my regrets concerning my military service that Ronald Reagan was not yet President. If evil were there, Reagan would have seen, heard, spoke about & done something about it. He didn’t close his eyes and hope evil would go away. I checked a dozen or so years ago with another In-Flight tech I served with about some of the guys (friends) in our electronic shop and learned that 3 had done some jail/prison time and 1 had gone through rehab. Problems usually don’t just go away.



As a young enlisted man at that time, I went with the flow because…because I was a kid, had never been out of the country, military was not my career and I didn’t know shit from shinola. The military and the flow of the military felt much bigger than I was. But, I loved the mission and flying was where I wanted to be. Who knows, if Reagan had been there, I might have retired from the Navy.



See no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil is not a command structure that serves the military or the individual soldier well. Neither is going with the flow.



But it’s the military leadership, the career guys and gals, who have a shot at controlling or changing the flow. Yes, sometimes they fail, but it’s their job to address the issues. It’s especially egregious when they, like politicians, just won’t see or acknowledge that something is becoming a problem – when they don’t want to get ‘their’ hands dirty or risk jeopardizing ‘their’ career paths. Two words – Ft. Hood.



And so I come to write this conflicted accolade to today’s American Soldier.



Tracking submarines, keeping tabs on ships, flying cover missions, no matter the whether, joint exercises, injuries and casualties, doing the mission, doing my duty were what kept me most grounded in the military. It answered the Whys and Whats for me. It was when politics, drugs, alcohol and all the BS disappeared and one knew Why they were serving, What they were protecting and how much it could cost. I knew, understood and believed down deep that I was protecting freedom, the Constitution and my family. As corny as that may sound, it made it worth doing - no matter how flawed.



Soldiers serving in the first few years after 9/11 must have had an incredible sense of the Whys and Whats that carried them through each and every day.



In the 70’s, war weariness, drugs, alcohol, lack of strong leadership, lack of discipline, being made to feel like polar opposites of the culture promoted by the media, and a general lack of encouragement from a tired American public were as great a threat to our concepts of duty, cohesion, sacrifice, morale and the mission as was the U.S.S.R and communism. I’m sure these same factors give al qaeda, the taliban, and other Islamic terrorists cause for hope.



Of course, we had politicians undermining the military for their own advantage and a biased media. But from my perspective, the corruption of politicians and the media in the 70’s - pale to what the military encounters today. It has seemed that for the past half dozen years, the far left and the media have been actively trying to bring about the defeat of the American military by taking political correctness to the extreme, urging untenable rules of engagement and intentionally mixing up the good & bad guys for political/ideological gain. And yet, our military continued doing an amazing job defending freedom around the world.



And of course, we had politicians who would have undermined the American economics system to replace it with a bigger nanny state. Democrats did control Congress during President Ford’s term and during President Carter’s disastrous four years. They did screw things up but they didn’t do it in a manner that couldn’t be undone. But they were nowhere near as bad as today’s leftist/Marxist Democrats.



Today, we have Obama in the Oval Office and a Democratic controlled Congress (dominated by the radical left since 2006) and they are galloping as fast as they can towards creating a socialist system that would make Vladimir Ilyich Lenin proud. If you look past the rhetoric you easily see that they are attempting to create larger and larger voting blocks that are wholly dependent on the federal government, hands out, afraid to question anything, afraid to vote for anyone calling for personal responsibility. Having a nation of sheeple, like birds at a bird feeder, is not good for the country or our future. Look at the recent action Obama took diminishing our American sovereignty on Dec. 17. Constitution be damned. Does anyone really think the Second Amendment is safe?



And yet, today’s military continues to do an amazing job defending freedom overseas.



I use the phrase “defending freedom overseas” instead of “around the world” because, as much as I love them, I’m not sure they are defending our freedoms at home. I can’t really blame the enlisted soldier because when I was in the military, I didn’t have time to keep up with what politicians at home were attempting to do to us. I basically thought politicians were all self-serving pieces of crap and the voting process would weed them out. Unfortunately, that’s not the case today. (The statement that politicians “were all self-serving pieces of crap” is still accurate, but the vote might not be able to undo the damage they are doing to our freedoms and the Constitution.)



And the military leadership continues to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil and ignore “the flow” that’s becoming more and more turbulent.



(And the American soldier is expected to accept “the flow” as he or she finds it?)



It seems to me that today’s American Soldier now finds him or herself in the untenable position of having their oath, duty and mission tortured by Obama and the Congress. (It must be especially untenable for the soldier who joined because they thought they were protecting freedom and the Constitution.)



The mission – I think of this as each bomb dropped, bullet fired, enemy captured or killed, each military plan executed, each foot of ground captured and held, each training and standing up of local police and military to make it possible for our exit, taking reasonable measures to safeguard the innocent in the battle theatre and continually maintaining readiness in order to protect those of us at home.



The mission becomes tortured when political correctness runs amuck allowing terror attacks like in Ft. Hood, when rules of engagement make it more dangerous for our guys, when war plans and decisions are made by politicians for their own political reasons (closing GITMO, the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in NY), failing to realize that sometimes terrorists deserve and receive fat lips from a Navy Seals during capture (PC amuck), persecuting the CIA for being a little rough on terrorists when the information they are seeking could save lives, when winning and neutralizing the enemy is not the objective, etc., etc., etc.



This is when it becomes hard to answer Whats and Whys. What the hell are we doing fighting like this? What is this doing to keep my family and their freedoms safe? What will happen when some politician pulls us out? What will keep us from having to come back? What can I do to make it right? Why won’t they let us win?



It must be hard to go with the flow under such circumstances, hard to keep morale high and harder to think about signing up for more.



The duty – I think of this as the soldier doing his or her best to live up to the oath they took when they enlisted. Basically the duty is to support, protect and defend the Constitution and the freedoms/protections flowing from it to each and every citizen.



The Oath of Enlistment:


…I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God….


Even though Obama, Pelosi and Reid would prefer that our American soldiers protect and defend some socialist version of the Constitution drafted in conference without consulting the People or States (like healthcare), thankfully that is not the case. Not yet anyway.



Hopefully every soldier read and understood the Constitution before they put on the uniform because it is an awesome responsibility.



A soldier’s duty and the Oath become tortured when the rights of terrorists are elevated (created out of thin air) and are put above the safety of the American soldier, when Obama diminishes our American sovereignty, when Obama’s Attorney General’s personal vendetta against President Bush and the CIA appears to influence his decisions to try the 9/11 mastermind in NYC and to bring other enemy combatants to the US for show trials, and when Obama and Eric Holder appear more interested in prosecuting a war against the CIA to appease the far left instead of against Islamic terrorists, when military officers put political correctness above their duty to protect soldiers under their command (Ft. Hood), when military officers and politicians choose to ignore critical parts of Constitution because it would bring trouble to them (they may be called names).



All of these illustrate situations where officers up the chain of command, including the “Commander In Chief”, appear ready to shirk their duty to the Constitution and America Soldiers under their command so they can protect their relatively trivial career ambitions and/or pursue their personal political agendas.



This is when it becomes hard to answer the Whats and Whys. What does support and defend the Constitution mean? Who are the enemies of the United States? Why am I defending something that seems optional for my superior officers? What is really important to the chain of command - advancement, career or the Oath? Who are the Oathkeepers? Why should I obey my superior officers when they choose to ignore parts of the Constitution? What’s the point? What am I doing that protects the Constitution and the Freedoms of my family and friends?



For me and millions of other Americans, the one provision of the Constitution that has been most blatantly ignored by Command - and has followed/plagued Obama throughout his time in the Oval Office, cost him “at least $1.7 million” keeping his records hidden, and seriously calls into question whether he can legally act as Commander In Chief and issue any “lawful orders” is Article II, Section 1.


Article II, Section 1 – …“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President”…


See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil is not a command structure that serves the military or the individual soldier well.



The “natural born citizen” issue will not go away and I’m sure it’s on the minds of many in the military; it affects morale, re-enlistment decisions, and how many traditional military supporters view the institution. It’s similar to how the epidemic of drug use in the 70’s military effected civilians & soldiers who knew about the problem and cared about what it said about the institution.



When I served, the military had a disease that needed to be cleaned up before the uniform could shine in all its glory.



Our military has a disease that can only be healed by thoroughly investigating the allegations against Obama and taking the appropriate actions. Shine the light on all his records. If the answer turns out that Obama is in fact a natural born citizen, then that’s great – the disease will be cured.



But having the Joint Chiefs, General Petraeus, General Stanley McChrystal and the Judge Advocate General’s Corp continue seeing no evil, hearing no evil, and speaking no evil is not acceptable. It disrespects everyone who ever wore the uniform. America and its citizens can handle the truth!



To the American Soldier – Thank you for your service and sacrifices for this country.



I am truly sorry to be in the position of having to speak so bluntly about an institution that I love.