The EU wants unlimited fines for Christian speech

EU targets Christianity and free speech

I have sometimes heard American conservatives say that what happens in other parts of the world is of no consequence to us. They get impatient with those of us who look at what is happening in Europe and say “well, they made their bed. Now they must lie in it.”

While it is true that our founders spoke against “entangling alliances” and we should have avoided such a long time ago, the fact remains that the US and Europe are virtually joined at the hip thanks to the alliances our past leaders have established. And thanks in no small part to the blindness of voters in the last presidential election.

Thus we see the European Union poised to destroy Christian speech in what appears to be an imitation of the ACLU this side of the Atlantic. But it is not. Though no monolith, the Left eyes the same ends everywhere. The Fabian Socialists in the UK (Tony Blair was a prominent one) and the Frankfurt School from Germany (now firmly implanted in the US) have the same end: eradicate our culture and replace it with a leftist one in which a self-elected Big Brother decides what we may and may not say and do.

Why should I care what happens in Europe, you say?

The EU is using the same tactics to achieve its ends and has the same goals as our Left. That goal is a one-world leftist government.

Therefore, what happens in Europe will happen here if it has not already, so at the very least, it is a barometer. But worse, the EU is already extending its tentacles to other places. There have been proposals within the EU to widen its reach to Africa and the Middle East. Turkish membership is already being discussed.

And German Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries has already called for German control of the internet and the adoption of the German legal system throughout the world. In case you didn’t know, German courts and legislators have all but banned home schooling and have banned “hate” speech on the internet and in public. A pastor was jailed there for preaching an anti-abortion sermon. Frau Zypries has said she wants us to follow suit. Sweden seems to be perfectly  willing.

Anyone daring to say current politicians in Germany are like nazis is violating the law prohibiting the “trivializing of the holocaust.” So if you think the nazilike politicians are nazilike, better keep it to yourself. (I won’t travel to Germany and I believe a travel boycott is warranted. Maybe that is a subject for another post).

At some point, American leftists will make a bid for one-world government, something that US presidents of both parties, now including Obama, and the EU, the UN and the IMF have been quietly working toward for years, including a worldwide currency to replace the dollar.

The Obama government has said it does not want a good crisis to go to waste. Clearly, both parties, which have long been in the hands of one-world advocates (most presidents have been Council on Foreign Relations members, who are indoctrinated to believe that a one-world government is inevitable and desirable for world peace), and the goal will be the same as in the EU.

The EU started out as an economic entity too, supposedly concerned only with creating a giant market place where goods could travel freely, unfettered by trade barriers.

But from the very outset, this economic focus was only part of a bait and switch scheme. The bait is now gone and the switch is in place. The EU now is telling courts and legislatures all over Europe what they can and must do, and as you will read below, the results are a bit on the totalitarian side. This brings us to another implication for the US: beware multinational efforts like NAFTA.

Ireland was a holdout for years, having voted No in a referendum. But the EU insiders pretended to make a few changes to mollify the Irish and called for a new referendum so that the Irish could vote Yes on the supposedly“new”Lisbon Treaty concerning a EU constitution. But the Irish were duped. The “changes” were minimal to non-existent, but the actual document – though hyped by the elite — was more inaccessible to voters than the Health Care bill was to the US public.

And did you notice something?: If Ireland got to vote twice, shouldn’t the other member nations get that opportunity?

Of course. The fact that they don’t is clear evidence that this is pure snake oil.

There is nothing even remotely democratic about having nay voters vote again and again until the elites get the result they want but not allowing yea voters to do the same. Further, groups in the UK and Germany are saying it was illegal. The EU apparently illegally invested public monies from the member states in promoting the Yes vote in Ireland. And Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the EU Commission, also went to Ireland on the tax payers’ dime, in violation of the EU’s own rules. This was supposed to be an internal affair but the unsuspecting Irish were dragged into it by a foreign power.

The only holdout today is Czech President Vaclav Klaus, one of the most brilliant men in Europe, who sees through the hype but is being pressured by the EU and member countries to sign the Lisbon treaty.

All of the above-described shenanigans reflect the way Obamacare is being rammed down our throats.

What does the EU teach us?

I think the main lesson is that the Fabian socialists are winning the world through stealth. They are, de facto, achieving their ends of world domination by “democratic” means. How did they do it? The churches went along, the Vatican went along, the “conservative” politicians went along, and now they are dragging the people along behind them. And many of the people are still under the delusion that this is all to their benefit. But a growing number smell a rat.

And note something curious:
While the EU, like American Democrats and RINOs, are using the “gay” issues like gay marriage, and immigrants of the Muslim faith to gin up sympathy for “victim” groups and thereby develop an artificial pretext for their anti-Christian schemes,
ironically, Russia, once the bastion of the Left, is not having any of this and hardly goes along with any of the EU’s schemes.

A few years back, the mayor of Moscow banned a proposed “gay” parade and made a few arrests when a few hardy souls decided to stage it anyway.

And about a year ago, the Russian Orthodox Prelate made a speech before the EU and told them that Europe lacks morality. He also complained to EU Commission President Barroso of Christian persecution in Europe.

If the mad rush to self destruction can’t be stopped from within, our traditional enemy may become an ally at some point and may become the last holdout for traditional Christianity.

And the first shall be last and the last shall be first.

Don Hank

The EU wants unlimited fines for Christian speech

By Graham Wood

I am writing today in regard to the latest example of proposed legislation, which can only be described as horrific, which will be coming forward.   Needless to say it is an EU “directive”.

What is a directive?

A directive emanating from the EU must pass into legislation in an EU member state, although there is some freedom to adapt to national culture and circumstances. Note, however, that such is the sheer scale of EU legislation, not to mention its complexity of language (bureaucratic legalese) that the vast amount is not even known about by our MPs [Members of Parliament], let alone finding time or opportunity to debate in our House of Commons. 
When you read this you will know just how far we have travelled down the road to totalitarianism, and a return to the crudities of religious (Christian) persecution associated with former times (the absolutism of the Stuart Kings and the notorious Star Chamber).  It is proposed (I quote from a small Christian newspaper):

“The provisions are simply appalling, so appalling that most people will not believe what we say until it is too late.  The aim seems to be the destruction of our Christian culture and the removal of any right for free speech on Christian matters.
Of course, it affects other religions, but somehow we doubt whether Moslems and atheists will get the same rough treatment [GW: You bet they won’t – it’s aimed at Christians – and in reality through them, an expression of hatred towards the Saviour].
Basically, if in the province of any service, that is, any public gathering or building or employment terms, you say or do something that another person claims to be offended by, then it is up to you, not the offended party (complainant), to prove that they are not offended.  Should you fail to prove this negative to the court’s satisfaction you are liable to pay compensation to which no upper limit is fixed!
All sorts of people can be affected, not just hoteliers, landlords, (almost anyone involved in a public ‘service’), and it could include publishing houses, schools,universities, preachers, doctors, lawyers, and almost any aspect of media transmission.
According to the Christian Institute: “The proposals explanatory notes make it clear that churches will be forced to consider practising homosexuals for youth worker posts, and similar roles if these become law.”

But the implications are far wider than this one example — for the proposals are so loose and vague in definition that it could be a ‘catch all’ for almost anything whereby somebody could claim to be “offended”  
This is dangerous in and of itself as you will know, but it has other severe possible repercussions, for it reverses the historic principle of the presumption of innocence until proved guilty, would be a draconian inhibition of free speech and expression, and freedom of association.
(All in theory protected under our own Constitution and Bill of Rights and later Human Rights Act with which they come into conflict)
Let me give you an example of this heinous “law” in action.

Under existing “Equality” law:
A Christian couple, owners of a small hotel in the UK, had an open discussion in their own premises, a private conversation, with a Muslim guest. The discussion ranged over Mohammed, the person of Christ etc.  The guest left the hotel and later “reported” the conversation to the police, and they in turn charged the couple with a crime (not yet known) because they defended their faith and criticised Islam).
It is extremely unlikely that the charge will be continued or the couple taken to court, but of course the damage has been done. It is the intimidating nature of these laws that will “chill” free speech in almost any context.
Why “unlimited fines,” reserved usually for serious crimes such as robbery, violence, etc? Clearly there is a harsh vindictive determination on the part of the EU and our government to crush any Christian witness in the public square.  (Acts 4 comes to mind “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God – judge ye….”).
Two fine Christian organisations in the UK work tirelessly to defend such cases as above – The Christian Institute, and Christian Concern for the Nation. Both need our prayers and support.
It is no exaggeration to say, as CCFON states, that “This is a recipe for cultural genocide”



President Klaus has since caved in to enormous pressure and signed. But my readers are mostly people of faith, and there is still hope that the UK will vote out the current rascals and vote in a new more euroskeptic (anti-EU) government in the spring. Please, therefore, sign the petition to show that ordinary people aren’t buying into dictatorship without a fight.

Iran, hatred of Jews and the schizophrenic Lula administration. Part 1

Iran, hatred of Jews and the schizophrenic Lula administration. Part 1

Brazilian representatives at the UN condemn evangelicals, but not Hitler’s successor

By Julio Severo

On 20 April 2009, dozens of Western representatives walked out during Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s address at the UN-sponsored Durban II conference against racism in Geneva. Even to Westerners, used to tolerating all kinds of prejudice against Israel, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s address of the, at the conference was too much. As usual, he accused Israel of racism and other attributes.

In addition to denying the Holocaust – with about six-million Jews murdered by Nazism -, Ahmadinejad has already said publicly that he desires the destruction of Israel.

Hitler also had similar intentions. Therefore, nations were correct when they isolated the Nazi dictator, who would have never had the opportunity to address a UN conference. Why Ahmadinejad was given such an opportunity is a mystery.

Brazil did not reject Hitler’s successor at the UN

Nor would Hitler ever have had the opportunity to visit the UN or Brazil. The reason Hitler’s ideological successor has received such an opportunity is hard to understand.

Ahmadinejad should be publicly rejected, isolated and condemned for his hate ideas and speeches against the Jews. Otherwise, the UN and the nations – not to mention Brazil – should ask Hitler posthumously to forgive them.

Yet, the withdrawal of the Western representatives from the UN conference was a small, though significant, gesture. Brazilian representatives were also present, but they could not walk out – because they were very busy.

What is behind the state war against “racism” in Brazil

The Brazilian delegation was headed by Racial Equality Minister Edson Santos, successor of Minister Matilde Ribeiro. Even though the Racial Equality Department was supposedly established to fight racial inequality, Ribeiro, the first black to occupy this exotic federal department, revealed its essence, “I think that it is normal for a black not to want to live with Whites.” Later, she was dismissed from her post for abusing taxpayer money.

For Matilde, blacks have the right not to live with Whites, if they so desire, and such a choice brings to blacks no criminal condemnation for discrimination. For her, the racial offense or separation is a crime only when committed by whites, but strangely it turns into rights when committed by blacks. If, for example, apartheid in South Africa were a system in which blacks lived separately from whites by the will of blacks themselves, Matilde would see no problem. In fact, she would see such segregation as a right for blacks, because as she said, “I think that it is normal for a black not to want to live with whites”.

Matilde has never been condemned for her racist statements or her corruption. Doesn’t the Left know how to reward and favor its supporters?

Be that as it may, the Matilde’s successor was there at the UN conference to continue Matilde’s work.

At the UN, Brazilian pai-de-santo condemns Brazil’s evangelicals

Brazilian representatives, who know how to defend reverse discrimination and homosexuality, complained at the UN “anti-racism” conference about racial and cultural “crimes” supposedly happening in Brazil.

This issue was directly addressed by Ivanir dos Santos, a pai-de-santo from Rio de Janeiro. According to the Michaelis Dictionary, a “pai-de-santo” is “a priest of an Afro-Brazilian voodoo cult,” including macumba and candomble. According to the Brazilian press, this pai-de-santo denounced at UN “a new kind of religious persecution in Brazil, which has aimed at temples of candomble and the followers of African religions, in acts provoked by modern Pentecostals.” Brazil, he said, “is the only country preserving religions brought by slaves and these religions should be defended.”

Actually, not only modern Pentecostal churches, but also all sound Christian churches seek to help deliver people from witchcraft practices. Yet, increasingly, these practices have been placed under state protection, and are now considered “culture.” Even the Catholic Church, which is predominant in Brazil, is not spared the attacks sponsored by the Brazilian State. Recently, a book by the Catholic priest Fr. Jonas Abib warning against witchcraft was banned by the Brazilian state of Bahia and now this priest is being prosecuted. The charge? Racism and prejudice.

The truth behind the Afro-Brazilian “culture”

As a son of a former umbanda leader who has accepted the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I see no problem in speaking the truth about witchcraft derived from Africa. In fact, Brazilians remember, when there was still no veil of racial censorship, the periodical scandals reported by media of pai-de-santos involved in a number of child sacrifices.

In his book Porque Deus Condena o Espiritismo (Why God Condemns Spiritualism, CPAD: Rio de Janeiro, 1987, pages 66-68), journalist Jefferson Magno Costa tells of a case:

It was noon when he found little Fernando, a 9-year-old boy, walking along the railroad track near the city of São Roque, in the county of São Paulo. He took the boy home, asked his lover (with whom he had been living for some weeks), Dalva Braga Medeiros, to give the boy food and change his clothes.

Dalva was slow to comply and he took the clothes of one of the woman’s children and put it on Fernando. After drinking blue rum, he took the boy by the hand and went out, saying he was going to buy more rum. Upon his return, Dalva saw blood stains on little Fernando’s clothes. Immediately she understood that the boy had been raped.

Some minutes later, he invited Fernando to go out again, but because the boy refused and showed fear, he decided to call 12 year old Rogério, Dalva’s son, to keep company with the scared and defenseless child, and to “see how a little pig is killed”.

Leading the two boys up to a hilltop, he drew a trident on the floor. Next, as Rogério reportd, he grabbed little Fernando by his neck and jabbed a knife deep into his chest. But, unsatisfied because the boy was slow to die, pai-de-santo Josué Rodrigues de Souza made a four-inch cut on the neck of the small victim, and began to lick his blood.

After committing this abominable, horrendous and devilish act, the pai-de-santo murderer called Dalva, “because she had never seen a sacrifice.” He showed her the dead child covered in blood. He confessed to her that he’d committed the murder under possession of the demon Zé Capoeira, and that he had raped the child before killing him, “because Satan does not accept the soul of pure people” (O Globo newspaper, 13/03/1986). “I had to kill a person and give his blood to Satan. He was demanding it”, were his words when he was seized after the crime. (Veja magazine 19/03/1986, p. 111).

Journalist Jefferson Magno notes,

The atrocious crime committed by pai-de-santo Josué is only one of hundreds of cases involving people that, thinking that they are serving God, are serving Satan… Given the numerous cases of that kind reported by press, it is sad that the outrage of the general populace has no memory. Society forgets things easily. Some years ago, pai-de-santo Waldir Souza Lima was taken into custody in Rio, because he killed, in black magic rituals, six children abducted in different locations in the State of Rio. (Page 73)

You can find out more about Julio Severo at his blog Last Days Watchman:

(To be continued)

American education and how it fell / Short changing the men in uniform

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

Email comments to

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.