Obama’s Libya:

I don’t mind one bit saying “I told you so” to all those — particularly journalists – who ignored my objective, fact-supported arguments against Western military and foreign policy in the Middle East and wound up with egg on their face as a result. (I have been trying to revive the nearly-lost scientific method and apply it to journalism, which has become nothing but a series of propaganda mills. So far, there seem to be no takers).

Obama and NATO must bear the responsibility for the fall of Kaddafi, and I have warned that this fall of a stable secular Middle Eastern leader will come back to bite the West hard in the butt.

Now Fox News and others are finally cautiously discussing the fact that the rebels are an unknown quantity and may not be as benign as they were portrayed back when they seemed to have much less chance of winning. Last night it was pointed out by Sean Hannity and Oliver North that they are a mix of tribal representatives and terrorists and their new proposed constitution already calls for sharia law, in stark contrast to Kadaffi’s secular constitution (miss him yet?).

Most telling was the remark: “Obama owns Libya.”

In case you have forgotten our direct military involvement in Libya, in addition to Obama’s repeated calls for Kadaffi (sp Gadhaffi in the linked article) to step down, here is the report on the joint French-American Operation Odyssey Dawn the day after it happened:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x617854948/France-U-S-bomb-Libyan-positions

 Back in March, I found no mainstream commentators on the left or right criticizing the West’s role in this operation or in Egypt. In fact, there has been a steady stream of “conservative” criticism against Obama for not going after Kadaffi more resolutely. (The clueless candidates — most recently Bachmann — mostly followed their clueless lead, bleating similar statements). Generally, there is a dearth of substantive criticism of any Western military involvement by left or right, no doubt for political or career reasons (many fear appearing unpatriotic, even though honest and objective commentary would ultimately save Western lives and Western embarrassment), but also due to a serious shortage of brain power. Now that a Marxist is in the White House, mainstream conservatives are finally criticizing our involvement in a Middle East conflict, but mainly because they can pin the fallout on the Left. But none of them mentioned that the regimes in post-Carter Iran, post-Clinton Kosovo, post-Bush Iraq, post-rebellion Egypt and the Ivory Coast, once ruled by secularists, are now in the hands of democratically elected Islamist leaders or mobs who openly persecute and murder Christians wholesale  (see, for example, the 4th link below on the Ivory Coast massacre of Christians presided over by the UN) and do not believe in Israel’s right to exist. (A nation that allows Muslims to live within its boundaries, whereas Muslim nations typically forbid Israelis — or often any Jews — even to visit. How fair and democratic is that?).

By contrast, I (who have nothing to lose, am not being paid for this and answer to no one) was warning repeatedly about the error in our involvement in the Middle East, not just by Democrat presidents, notably Obama, but also by Republicans (BTW, Reagan, who pulled us out of Lebanon, was an exception), and pointing out then-unheeded facts to state my case, reminding, for example, that the local Christian populations were always the ones who paid the biggest price when a stable secular leader was replaced by a mob, which eventually, inevitably, turned into an Islamic-led government with significantly less freedom for the people than under the “cruel dictators” we replaced – as well as vastly less diversity, which, oddly, Western powers prize in their countries. Israel, of course, came closer to the brink of war with each successive “win” and Iran was given a permanent pass by the West, as though these merciless enforcers of brutal Sharia law, who execute countless people for sexual misdeeds and inappropriate clothing, were lily-white defenders of human rights (as we speak, there are 2 Americans jailed in Iran for “spying,” on flimsy evidence). I sent links to each of my articles on this subject to thousands of potential readers, including major news outlets, inclucing to all Fox News personalities. News people typically do not respond, but judging by last night’s commentary by Sean, perhaps they had read some of what I said here:

http://laiglesforum.com/my-government-is-killing-me/2159.htm

here

http://laiglesforum.com/spare-me-the-crocodile-tears-when-northern-africa-explodes/2215.htm

here

http://laiglesforum.com/how-western-powers-abet-christian-persecution/2513.htm

here

http://laiglesforum.com/us-media-cover-up-ivory-coast-massacre-details/2398.htm

here

http://laiglesforum.com/why-i-am-not-on-our-side-any-more/2174.htm

here

http://laiglesforum.com/the-far-left-connection-to-the-near-east-rebellion/2224.htm

and here

http://laiglesforum.com/2286/2286.htm

Olavo de Carvalho also warned you here:

http://laiglesforum.com/strengthening-the-enemies/2126.htm

Look, I don’t mind people calling me crazy. But you journalists who lead the Western world by providing information to decision makers, should know by now that, in the long run, ignoring warnings about the West’s disastrous involvement in the Middle East is going to hurt you a whole lot more than it does the warning party.

Don Hank

US media cover up vital Ivory Coast massacre details: killers were Muslims loyal to UN-backed Quattara, electoral fraud likely.

by Don Hank

The Huffington Post recently ran a report on the slaughter of 1000 civilians near Duékoué in the Ivory Coast. I point this out only as a random example of the way Muslim-on-Christian violence is reported in the mainstream press. Quote:

“Nicholson, the Caritas spokesman, said the killings occurred over three days in a neighborhood controlled by fighters loyal to internationally recognized President Alassane Ouattara, though it was not clear who the perpetrators were.”

First, the gruesome photos and videos from that scene appearing on the internet show dead and wounded women without veils and, for the most part, without headscarves. In other words, not Muslims. Since Quattara’s loyalists are Muslim, while Gbagbo’s loyalists are Christian and other non-Muslims, it is obvious whose side did the killings, and reports in the French press (le Figaro) confirm this. It doesn’t seem to occur to American reporters to consult the French language press, which in fact states that the UN mission in Ivory Coast, Onuci, itself reports:

 “Most of the dead in Duekoue were killed by pro-Quattara fighters.” [my translation]

Note that:

The reporter does not mention that the fighters loyal to the “internationally recognized” president, who received help from the UN, are all Muslims, who, as pointed out at

Frontpagemag, represent almost 100% an immigrant population that only started to enter the country, mostly illegally, since around 1960.

No one mentions that the former president refused to step down because he claimed there was voter fraud, and that instead of investigating, Western leaders immediately recognized the newly “elected” Muslim president Quattara. Another French language report shows photographic evidence of massive electoral fraud, including apparently counterfeit signatures on the election results documents and numbers of votes far exceeding the number of registered voters.

No one mentions that this atrocity occurred under the watch of the UN and is therefore the responsibility of the UN, which did nothing to keep the peace in this area, while engaging the troops loyal to the Christian president.

Note that Jimmy Carter didn’t rush in to count the votes once fraud was declared.

But this kind of non-reporting has been going on for decades and is the norm, not the exception. You may recall when those “young people” rioted in the outskirts of Paris and the media carried the story for weeks as the ghetto burned, and yet most reports did not mention that all of these rioting young people were Muslims.

When Christians get violent, the same press makes no bones about bruiting this fact to the world.

This kind of reporting has blinded the Western grassroots to the clear-cut link between Islam and violence, and the result is, in part, as follows :

Almost all of the Assyrian Christians, who survived 2 millennia in Iraq living side by side with the Muslim population, and even survived Saddam Hussein, who protected them, succumbed to the Bush administration’s war, waged purportedly to avenge ourselves of the actions of terrorists all hailing from Saudi Arabia, not a one from Iraq.  The mainstream media, normally critical of presidents deemed conservative, gave Bush a break by ignoring the banishment of these Christians. Most of the survivors now live in Sweden.

The Coptic Christians, who survived for two millennia in Egypt, living side by side with the Muslim population, and also survived decades of Mubarek’s reign, are now either fleeing or living in terror. The first thing the “democratic” military leaders did after taking over the reins from Mubarek was to enter a peaceful monastery and shoot 5 civilians, including a Coptic priest.

The mainstream media ignored this fact. It came to my attention via an email from a Coptic activist contact. I later confirmed it through several Middle East Christian sources, including newsletters, which were ignored in the media.

Huffington Post report on Ivory Coast massacre:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/02/ivory-coast-massacre-1000-killed-duekoue_n_844000.html

Figaro report on the massacre (French)

http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2011/04/03/01003-20110403ARTFIG00092-le-camp-ouattara-vise-par-des-accusations-de-massacres.php

Ivory Coast massacre video, no veils, almost no headscarves

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/ivory-coast-graphic-video-of-the-recent-muslim-slaughter-of-1000-christians/

Ivory Coast Muslims imported, now dominate

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/04/11/lessons-from-the-ivory-coast/

Egypt violence far from over:

http://www.examiner.com/public-safety-in-national/egyptian-violence-far-from-over

The most important question you can ask yourself is:  Will I be emotionally manipulated by the Global Elite’s appeal to false patriotism or will I say “no” this time?

by Don Hank

It’s funny how all of the people who posted comments to my recent articles (here and here) agreed with me that getting further embroiled in another conflict in the Middle East to support a group we know nothing about (except that some belong to Al Qaeda and many are implants of radical Islamic groups from other countries) is not a good idea, no matter how you feel about the demonstrably unsavory Colonel Qadaffi. Some of you disagreed on minor points, but all posters so far have agreed with my main premise.

Yet, I have received a few private emails from people who seem to think it is unpatriotic to oppose the Globalist Elite when they try to drag us into a war – as if war itself were a sacred goal or a permanent pillar of our Republic and not being at war with someone is simply unacceptable and/or a sign of weakness. Oddly, the ones opposed refuse to share their views with the group. Are they ashamed of them? Should they be?

For example, I just received the following email today from a member of an email group that has adopted me as a member (I hadn’t asked to be part of it and the e-mailer was not on my list that I know of):

DONALD   YOUR SLAMING [sic] OF AMERICA , OUR VETERANS AND DEAD HERO’S [sic] HERE IS INTOLERABLE

                 PLEASE TAKE ME OFF YOUR E-MAIL LIST AND DO NOT FORWARD TO ME,

                                                                                             A VIETNAM VETERAN

[name withheld]

This kind of blind obedience to the Ruling Class using war for political gain is exactly what the Global Elitists and Obama were counting on.  In past instances of this kind, their manipulative tactic of confronting the public with a supposedly inevitable and noble military adventure (“never let a crisis go to waste”) has always served them well and there has always been an endless supply of propaganda fodder in the form of “patriots” who think that helping unsavory US politicians and their unsavory foreign allies win an unsavory war is noble and patriotic.

Need I point out that these brave souls who claim to have risked their lives and limbs in past wars (not saying they didn’t, mind you) often seem to lack the courage to stand up for what they believe? They have no fear of bullets but words scare them silly so they plead for mercy after attacking: “please don’t respond.”

Sort of like :

“I challenge you to a duel, but please please don’t accept…. Or else! Thank you and have a nice day”

And of course, most of them fail to post similar comments at Laigle’s Forum where others could read them and be influenced by their views. Wonder why they pass up the opportunity. No, actually I don’t.

There are excellent reasons for this refusal on the part of otherwise brave men to debate like a man.

As you can see, there is no rational argument in the above email that in any way counters anything I said in my columns. Nor does the orthographically challenged author show how I “slammed America” by refusing to obediently acquiesce to Obama’s call for participation in a civil war that does not concern us, on the heels of two other wars in other Middle East countries that we have not won. The email is clearly:

–an attempt to shame me for daring to oppose a war effort launched by a US “president” (who over 50% say they aren’t convinced was qualified for the office)

–a hit-and-run attack (I am not supposed to write back to this brave but intellectually unarmed military man)

–an attempt to silence me.

Further, he doesn’t simply say my “slamming” of America is intolerable to him. He suggests that what is intolerable to him is universally intolerable. End of discussion. A vet has spoken and you will listen and shut up (oops! Unfortunately, I do not seem to take orders very well).

Interestingly, all of these characteristics of the email are precisely those used for over a century by the far left and the Global Elite. This is not a coincidence, although the e-mailer is almost certainly oblivious to the Globalist scheme behind his reflexive actions. If indeed this individual is acting out of patriotic motives, he is doing so not for the benefit of America but – no doubt unwittingly – as part of a plot by the far left to get Obama re-elected. He has been set up by the Left, who are laughing their evil heads off over his childish naiveté.

The move on the part of Obama to embroil the US in another fiasco sure to bring us embarrassment (and who received the Nobel Prize in anticipation that he would not get his country involved in any more such fiascos!) is a brilliant strategic move designed to pave the way for Obama’s re-election.

The Left therefore has much more to lose than the Right by my resistance to the Coalition’s attack on a country with which we are not at war and on a man who so far had been friendly and cooperative with Western behests.

The far-left schemers behind this scheme in their comfortable recliners know that there are numerous Americans who react reflexively and unhesitatingly to any “call to arms,” no matter how vile or stealthy and how transparent the motivation.

These are that noble group of helpful lackeys Lenin called useful idiots. They are not unlike Dalmatians that instinctively chase fire trucks, not because they have any interest in saving lives or putting out fires, but because such behavior is bred into them. They simply cannot help themselves.  And therein lies a tragedy.

But unlike Dalmatians, they pour fuel on a conflagration that for decades has been completely out of control. It is all part of an elaborate scheme that has led us into war after war that we do not win and that results in improved strategic positions for our enemies, while weakening and endangering our allies (particularly Israel in this case) and the US – and that has led to China becoming a super power both militarily and economically, even as our sun sets on the western horizon.

Obama spends money we will never be able to repay, takes us infinitely far to the Left, salivates over every opportunity to deprive Americans of freedoms such as gun rights, religious expression, and even sovereignty for their own nation, and knows he can always count on the dutiful assistance of these stalwart self-proclaimed  patriots who seem oblivious to the hatred Obama and the Global Elitists show toward patriotism itself.

Americans as a people are normally too smart to fall for this demagoguery.

In fact, if it weren’t for the “patriotic” Dalmatians chasing his fire truck, Obama probably wouldn’t stand a chance in 2012. But  he thinks he can always count on these noble misguided souls in a pinch.

And that pinch is the upcoming presidential election. Can Obama count on your support? Or have you seen the light and had enough?

There is hardly anything more important than your answer to this question (either publicly expressed or formulated in your heart and mind): will you be manipulated or will you say no this time?

I respectfully invite your comments – both pro and con – here at Laigle’s Forum, where my articles are now averaging about 400 hits each. Remember: a comment against my premise that is sent to me personally and not shared with the group will count as a hit-and-run, which is, of course, cowardly and unfair no matter how many wars the respondent has been in. If you have never posted here, please note that while this WordPress blog is designed to allow publication only by my consent, I will allow all reasonably respectful responses once I receive notification by email. (However, I am not always here at my computer. You see, this is not my full time job, just my passion. Thanks!).

I am not a hit-and-run type guy and actually enjoy low-key online conflict which is shared with the public because it can help resolve simmering issues in people’s minds. All the rest is just gaseous emissions.

Personally, I would be ashamed of myself if I said nasty things to you behind everyone’s back and I expect you wouldn’t like that either.

So let’s talk and let’s keep it public so everyone can participate.

Thanks!

Biden says Obama can be impeached:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA

Now that the street mobs are in control of the Middle East, I predict first the unleashing of a fireball throughout the region.  And then after that a flood of crocodile tears from the Western leaders who triggered it. 

by Don Hank

Jim Kouri reports at the Examiner.com that Western coalition forces have launched “Operation Odyssey Dawn” to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973 to “protect the Libyan people from that troubled nation’s dictator, according to the Pentagon.”

Kouri’s article mentions criticism of the operation, but this is limited only to the fact that the coalition “places US troops under the command of foreign generals.”

This is very far from the crux of the main issue as recently highlighted by Olavo de Carvalho (here) and myself (here).

As we have stated, the salient outcome of US involvement in each case in

Iran

Kosovo

Iraq and

Egypt

was to take the world step by step closer to a worldwide Caliphate or at least to a world increasingly hostile to Christianity, Jews and Western traditions. And as we pointed out, while this occurred under color of “spreading democracy,” the so-called democratic regimes that sprang up in the power voids we created were much more aggressive toward opposition and much more hostile toward Christians and Jews than the governments Western allies helped overthrow. Libyan rebels are reported to have terror ties. Whereas we once fought, at least ostensibly, to defeat terror, we now fight to defend it, as if it needed our help!

Though many remain in denial about the motives behind this tragic power transfer, it is increasingly clear, particularly in Europe, that the virtually unaccountable  Ruling Class (in the EU, the national and local governments) has adopted policies and laws that are aimed to dismantle Christianity and traditional Judeo-Christian life and culture, at variance with the will of their constituents. The Germans may well have suffered more than the rest of Europe.  Indeed, there are public schools in places like Berlin where up to around 90% of all students are Muslims, many of whom mercilessly attack and insult the German students.

In retrospect, it is perhaps not surprising that after tolerating such abuse for many years, a German TV station picked up the story. Laigle’s Forum was one of the first US media outlets to report this to US audiences.

Within days, Chancellor Angela Merkel became the first top-level European leader to state unequivocally “Multikulti” (multiculturalism) is not working.

Not long thereafter, David Cameron, normally a lackey of the Ruling Class, said the same thing. So did France’s Sarkozy.

Now European leaders at this level never flout the top brass (in the EU, for example) in this way unless their jobs are at stake. For the first time in decades, the pressure was coming from the people, building to a crescendo and inviting revolt.

The point is that the Ruling Class in the West has been using Muslims as a means of undermining Christian culture, and the support of Islamic rioters in Northern Africa is but an extension of this policy. A hotelier couple in the UK, for example, was recently sued in court for sharing their faith with a Muslim guest. Homosexual “sensitivity” is also used on both sides of the Atlantic to suppress Christian thought and speech. The connection to the anti-Christian tone of US leaders (on all levels), with the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center making constant juridical sorties against Christians, is abundantly clear to anyone with internet access and palpable brain wave activity.

So given the above list of Islamic nations that has received military support, it is not unusual that the West would leap to the support of a group of radicals who want to overthrow the Libyan regime, even though Libya has had one of the highest standards of living in the region and a more highly developed network of social services, and even though Qadaffi had in the past shown remarkable cooperativeness with the West, even voluntarily dismantling his weapons systems.

So now there are 5 regions in the hands of another wild street mob, thanks to the intervention of the West. Watch the prices soar at the pump. Watch for streams of Middle Eastern Christian refugees in Western countries.

Watch Israel as Islam moves in for the kill.

Watch for crocodile tears as the Western leaders who triggered the debacle react with false shock and indignation at the blood bath they deliberately initiated.

Further reading:

Western support for radical Islam

http://laiglesforum.com/why-i-am-not-on-our-side-any-more/2174.htm

Olavo de Carvalho on Western support for radical Islam

http://laiglesforum.com/danger-ahead-part-i/2106.htm

Article at the Examiner on Operation Odyssey Dawn

http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/operation-odyssey-dawn-launched-against-khadhafi-s-regime

Libyan rebels tied to terror

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/03/17/libyan-rebellion-has-radical-islamist-fervor-benghazi-link-islamic-militancyus-milit

This issue contains columns by two popular authors who are widely published on the Internet. Thomas Brewton helps us look behind the scenes of public education in the US.

Tom Kovach blows the whistle on how the military short-changes the good guys in uniform.

The EU and the German government have been playing good-cop-bad-cop in the home schooling area. Home schoolers are finding a trifle more lenience among the leaders of the EU, who actually support them morally, but with no enforcement.

I have pointed out to my German home-schooling friends that the real enemy is the Left and centralized government, but that is hard for them to understand at this point. Many are still looking to the EU to supply a solution.

Donald Hank

Liberal-Progressive Mind Control

By Thomas E. Brewton

Socialism, of which liberal-progressivism is the American sect, is more than control of the economy.  Most importantly it is mind-control through the public education system.

The Washington Times reports the latest liberal-progressive-socialist curtailment of personal freedom. 

“California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to educate their children in their own home,” said the Feb. 28 ruling by the California Appellate Court for the second district.

When they wish to overrule long-standing political liberties, liberals look to precedents of so-called international law and other nations’ customs.  The socialist European Union European Union and Germany specifically, provide ammunition for abrogating educational liberties.

Why the animus of liberal courts and teachers’ unions against home schooling?

The obvious answer is that home schooling does a better job, revealing the poor quality of public education.  Less obvious is the desire of home-schooling parents to teach Judeo-Christian moral principles, which directly conflicts with the public school aim of teaching the secular religion of liberal-progressive-socialism.  Propagating that mind-set necessitates identifying as ignorance all ideas of fixed and timeless moral principles.

Such was the work primarily of John Dewey, the leading liberal-progressive theoretician of the early 1900s.  He taught Columbia University students that Darwinian evolution had proved that everything, including morality, was continually evolving.  In such a world there can be no timeless principles of morality.  Rules for social behavior are simply whatever intellectuals think they ought to be in matters of sexual orientation, sexual promiscuity, and every sort of sensual gratification. 

Under the impact of such schooling, the traditional family unit is no longer the bedrock of society.  The norm tends toward single-parent units.  Home-schooling by parents in traditional families is, to that style of moral relativism, a direct affront.

There is now abundant evidence, in all parts of the nation, that public-education students are inculcated with anti-Americanism and a moral relativism that will not even condemn the Nazi Holocaust.  Liberal-progressivism teaches students that there are no real differences among nations, races, and cultures, even sexes.  We are all homogeneous and ready for a single world government that will end wars and guarantee harmony and economic plenty, equally for all.  In such a world, callow students must be conditioned to see every atrocity from the other guy’s view point and to avoid all judgments of right or wrong.

Liberal-progressives, it will be remembered, sympathized with Al Queda and blamed 9/11 on the capitalist greed of the United States.

The recent death of William F. Buckley, Jr. reminds us that, by the late 1940s, this disintegration of historical education was well established.  Ivy League universities such as Yale had long since abandoned their founding mission of educating Puritan ministers.  They had, as Buckley documented in “God and Man at Yale,” become overwhelmingly slanted toward liberal-progressivism.

Liberal-progressive-socialism is a world paradigm in which greedy capitalists become rich by grinding workers down to bare-subsistence levels of income, while forcing the workers to buy whatever products they produce, at whatever prices they elect to charge.  Hence the endless harping in the New York Times about income inequality.

In that paradigm, social justice demands that the undeservedly rich capitalists be expropriated, either by seizing their property and placing it under collective ownership, or by imposing a multitude of regulations that convey the rights of ownership to the political state.  This is known as socialization.

The most important element of liberal-progressive-socialism, however, is control of the educational system.  Henri de Saint-Simon, who systematically conceptualized socialism in the first decades of the 19th century, wrote that the educational system must be controlled by the highest level of the political state’s intellectual councils, so that nothing other than the doctrine of socialism may be taught.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776

http://www.thomasbrewton.com/

Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com

When this next article came in, I couldn’t help but think of a family that live near my place here in York County, PA. They lost their bread winner when the husband and father died fighting in Iraq. Almost immediately, they lost their home because she could not make the payments. As I said, our government punishes people for not running with the Leftist agenda. This mother got punished for not being a working mother. Our government is saturated with the lore of radical feminism  that demands women go out and work. She defied this paradigm.  Due to the loss, she couldn’t pay the mortgage, so on top of the grief of losing their father/husband, they got to be evicted from home. I can’t think of anything much more painful than that for a middle aged mother and a 10 year old girl. Here was a guy trying to be patriotic and he gets shot and his family loses everything. As long as this is happening – and I am certain it is happening all over the country – it will be hard to think of the benefits of the Iraq war. This sort of thing just clouds it all over. If a nation can’t afford a war, then they shouldn’t be waging one – especially not if they can’t protect their own border.

Donald Hank

For the good of the service …?! Let’s look at the bigger picture

by:  Tom Kovach

This is a column that military recruiters will not want you to read.

Those of us that have worn an American military uniform have, at various points throughout our careers, encountered the phrase “for the good of the service”.  The first place that many of us encounter it is in the assignment of job specialties after basic training.  People that are assigned an unpleasant job are told that it is “for the good of the service”, and are (sometimes) given a time limit after which they may request a different job assignment.  (When I was in the Air Force, it was three years.)  Another common use of the phrase is when assigning people to remote overseas locations.  Given the nature of military duties, both of those applications make sense.

But, sometimes, the phrase is used in ways that make little, if any, sense.  We’ve all seen things that don’t make sense — at least, at first glance.  If we stay in past the first enlistment, some of those things begin to make sense as we advance in responsibilities and see the bigger picture.  Some of those things never make any sense at all.  I’d like to hear from some of you about two classes of things in the military that don’t make sense.

One is why good people are discharged, and some sorry people are kept on active duty.  The destruction of my own career, after more than 16 years in uniform, is a classic example.  My discharge was illegal, it was done for nefarious purposes, and I was never given a discharge physical.  I had residual injuries (from a high-speed parachute malfunction) that led to a 40 percent VA disability rating.  But, I was never given a board hearing for a medical retirement.  Why?  And, what happened to the unscrupulous officer that forced my discharge through the system?  He got promoted — twice — after that.  How?  We’ll get to those points later.  For now, let’s look at a larger, more pressing, and far more important example of things that don’t make sense.

Combat-wounded veterans are, in some cases, being forced to repay the “unused” portion of their Selective Reenlistment Bonus.  The remainder of the bonus became “unused” through no fault of the servicemember.  The SRB is rated depending upon the hazards and the necessity of the person’s assigned job.  People with very hazardous jobs, and/or very needed skills, are given bigger bonuses.  But, the very nature of those jobs also often makes them more likely to be wounded in combat.  Hey, that’s why the military came up with the bonus structure in the first place, right?

But, now, the military Services are taking back the money that they paid to people for reenlisting.  There has been a long-standing policy that a servicemember that becomes unfit for duty by neglect (drug use, alcoholism, criminal activity, malingering, etc.) must repay the bonus.  But, in the modern cases, servicemembers have been compelled to repay the bonus because they have become unfit for duty by severe combat injuries.  This raises legal and ethical questions.  Is the bonus paid in advance for becoming available to perform the duties (by signing the reenlistment contract), or for actually performing the duties?  If the former, then why would the Services even try to recoup the money?  If the latter, then why do the Services pay the money in advance?

Last year, Congress introduced HR 3793 in an attempt to fix the problem.  But, the solution carries its own problems.  And, that is the main thrust of this column.  The organization that I started, Project “Warrior Bonus”, has discovered a flaw in HR 3793.  That flaw is fixed by a different bill, HR 4750.  As a result, Project “Warrior Bonus” has withdrawn its support from HR 3793, and now instead supports HR 4750.  (Another organization, founded by another disabled veteran, still supports HR 3793.  Last year, before the introduction of HR 4750, I attempted to work with that other organization.  No one ever replied.  I did some research, and discovered a possible reason.  That other organization is headquartered in an expensive Manhattan office building.  I run my organization from a room in my house.  Hmmmmmm.)  The root of the change to HR 4750 has to do with the use of the phrase “for the good of the service”.

The flawed bill, HR 3793, contains language that allows the Services to bypass the main intent of the law when recouping the bonus money is determined to be “for the good of the service”.  Hello?!  The bean counters at the Pentagon will say that saving money is, by its nature, for the good of the service.  That legislative loophole could put every SRB payment into jeopardy.  So much for fixing the problem.  If you don’t believe me, then read the entire language of both bills for yourself.  If you don’t want to take the time, then simply send a contribution to Project “Warrior Bonus”, and I’ll fight on your behalf.

Now, to answer those questions that were left dangling above.  How was my discharge illegal?  My DD Form 214 contains a “justification” phrase that contradicts itself, and is not found in any personnel manual.  How did it get through the system?  Because the base commander, a full colonel at that time, pushed it through the system during the big “downsizing” craze after Operation Desert Storm.  Why would he do such a thing?  Because I was on patrol one night (four days after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait), and saw him supervising members of the base fire department as they pumped chemically contaminated wastewater over the fence onto civilian airfield property.  (The water flowed downhill into a small creek, and then downstream to a reservoir.  That reservoir was part of the drinking supply for the city of Newburgh, New York.)  I reported what I saw to the NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, which had previously fined the base $200,000 for a “leak” that had been discovered in the sewage system of the Town of New Windsor (which borders Newburgh).

As “repayment” for being a good citizen and trying to protect the environment, the base commander had me discharged.  I fought it for months, but he won.  And, he was later promoted twice.  He retired as a two-star general.  He then went on to become a DC lobbyist.  In fact, he got his first lobbying contract about three months after he retired.  Given that a Federal law requires a one-year “cooling off” period before becoming a lobbyist (some interpretations of the statute say two years), his lobbying business was illegal from the start.  But, the first year, he made a quarter-million dollars in lobbying fees, in addition to his military retirement pay.  I’ve reported his activities to authorities (and to some of his clients), but nothing was ever done to stop him.

The above is how I know, first-hand, that there are some unscrupulous people within an otherwise honorable military bureaucracy.  Those unscrupulous people can, and do, take advantage of the system.  Therefore, any laws or regulations governing that system must be written in such a way as to deny unscrupulous people the opportunity to use loopholes in order to hurt good people.  As distasteful as my own example is (when the money ran out, so did my first wife), it pales in comparison to the examples of people that have lost eyes, arms, and legs in combat, only to have their government take back money that was already paid to them for faithfully enlisting and putting themselves into harm’s way in the first place.  Those wounded warriors deserve our respect, our help, and our support.

What do you think?  If you agree, then there are two things that you can do.  First, contribute to Project “Warrior Bonus”.  Help me to fight on behalf of those combat-wounded veterans.  The other thing that you can do is call my talk-radio program and tell your story.  Help me to keep a watchful eye on unscrupulous people in the military and in government.  When I was discharged, there was no one in talk-radio with a career military background.  (And, when Oliver North later got a talk show, it was not on the air in my market.  There was no such thing as Internet streaming then.  So, call screeners did not allow calls from areas where the show was not broadcast commercially.)  I can use my talk show, and my columns, to help our military members and families have a voice “outside the system”.

The name of my program is “The US Phone Force”, from my service in the US Air Force.  The concept is that, by banding together, we can become an influential force via the telephone.  From time to time, as issues come up, the show will carry “Ops Orders” to the listening audience.  We will then “attack” the phone lines of government and business officials to demand changes.  It’s a very American concept, and you can be a part of it simply by listening and calling.  We can start by posing this question to our elected representatives:  Which is more important, “the good of the service”, or “the good of the servicemember”?  In an all-volunteer military, that question needs to be considered when legislating things such as recoupment of Selective Reenlistment Bonuses.  Otherwise, there won’t be any more volunteers.

And, now you know why this column won’t be on the table in the waiting room at the local recruiter’s office.

Tom Kovach lives near Nashville.  He is a columnist, network talk-radio host, inventor, certified paralegal, and a former USAF Blue Beret.  You may contact Tom via:  www.TomKovach.US.