Super Tuesday Fall-out

Random Thoughts on Super Tuesday and the Potential Fall-out

You will find that I am an equal opportunity critic with respect to political parties and candidates.

General comments regarding the main political parties:

  • Neither party seems to be recognizing one basic fact.  We the People are sick and tired of “business as usual” as practiced by Democrats and Republicans alike (I know, their “goals” are completely different because they seem to see diametrically opposite outcomes as “good for the USA”).
  • Democrats don’t recognize that many of their constituents are saying that an out-and-out Socialist is preferable to the Queen of Liars.
  • Republicans don’t recognize that virtually all (60+%)of their constituents will no longer tolerate politicians who do not keep their word post election.
  • Both parties seem willing to accept that, once the swearing-in ceremony is completed, the oath sworn by all (to support and defend the Constitution of the United States) is no longer relevant.  Their sworn duty, a collective and individual responsibility, is to ensure they, the Executive and the Judicial Branches do not commit acts contrary to the US Constitution, regardless of circumstances.  For example, it is unconstitutional for the SCOTUS to change words in a law under review to make it “OK”.  Their role is to assess the merits of the law AS WRITTEN.  Should a Justice make changes to the wording of a law before rendering a decision he or she should be impeached and dismissed from the court.  Similarly, a pattern of unconstitutional acts by the Executive should incur impeachment by the House, without regard to whether or not “enough votes exist in the Senate to uphold the impeachment”.  The latter is almost a direct quote to me from a sitting congressman, when asked why impeachment was not initiated for a clearly unconstitutional act.  Disgraceful, IMHO.
  • A different sitting congressman told me directly that no elected official at the national level has to pass a background check prior to being afforded access to classified documents.  However, they do receive an individual briefing appropriate to the documents to which they are being given access on the national security need for and mandatory methods used to safeguard the material.  I can personally attest to the thorough nature of such briefings and the fact one must sign a statement to the effect that you have received, understand, and will comply with all applicable security requirements.

Examples of where the party leaders simply don’t comprehend what is happening.

  • Republican voters are telling the “Establishment” they are tired of politicians who think they know best what is good for We the People.  With their primary election votes, Republicans are saying, “Those who do not keep their word to the electorate will be forced to leave. “   Both leading candidates for President are people who do not kowtow to pressure from the “good ole’ boy” network.  Trump is not dependent on party support to garner money or votes and Cruz kept his promise to the voters who sent him to the Senate.  It is really simple, folks.  We the People in the Republican Party are speaking and “The Establishment” better listen-up or they will go the way of the dinosaur – sinking into the mire of their own making.
  • Democrats have a different problem.  Their major candidate expects her total disregard of US laws (and lies about it) when they were personally inconvenient to be excused. This has so affected some voters that they are willing to support a governmental concept that includes a 95% personal income tax.  Perhaps even more dangerous is the fact that no Democrat candidate exhibits any concern for the immense (and growing) national debt, including the existing governmental spending deficit and the huge number of unfunded liabilities.  One candidate, indeed, forwards a program that may well increase both numbers at a faster rate than we have ever experienced.  Further, many Democrats seem unwilling or unable to recognize the danger inherent in people who profess Islam.   They also don’t seem to recognize that many Democrats are expressing their opinion by voting with their feet by supporting the anti-establishment candidates in the other party.

Thoughts on Personal and National Security:

  • We have a major political party’s leading candidate for President of the United States – Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces, privy to ALL the Nation’s secrets that has committed (allegedly – but certainly by all counts) major felonies (e.g., failure to protect the Nation’s most secret information).  What’s wrong with that picture?


  • A major US Corporation refuses to comply with a court order to extract potentially vital information from a terrorist’s cell phone. Their objection is that it might cause an adverse financial impact to their future marketing efforts not because it would make information vulnerable to outside attack (it would not).  Is it possible we have a Rotten “Apple” in the barrel?


  • We have young people who, apparently, have no concept of the political ideology (Socialism) being touted or the fact that this ideology has totally failed wherever and whenever implemented. They are gleefully, enthusiastically supporting a clearly avowed Socialist.  They don’t seem to realize two things – The government has no money other than what it takes by force from people that have earned it (that could be them).  When that source is depleted there will be nothing left to distribute; but, in the interim government will also have removed every semblance of liberty from all the people.


  • Many people seem unwilling to acknowledge there exists an entity who, since the eighth century (700 AD), has been consistently embarked on a quest to ensure their form of government and its associated imposed legal system (Sharia) shall become dominant. To achieve that end any subterfuge is allowed.  And, should simple persuasion not work, any who stand against that world domination shall be physically subjugated or killed.  There are no other options.  There is a whole segment of our population that doesn’t know, understand, or care, even when violence appears in their community.  Further, they do not comprehend a simple fact (and this includes Obama, Hillary, and Kerry’s “deal” with the Iranians as well as Mr. Trump’s concept of doing a deal with the Palestinians) that there is no room to negotiate a deal with a party whose sole aim is your enslavement or your death.


  • We have a segment of the population that insists on blaming an inanimate object for a human activity and using this as a political gambit. Of course, I am talking about guns.  Up front, we can surely agree that no gun has ever, of and by itself, taken on and completed the task of wounding or killing a human being.  For that matter, people who abide by the law and have common decency do not arbitrarily kill people.  Criminals and crazy people kill people – yet, the politicians and others seem to believe that by constraining the law abiding they will constrain those who already intend to break society’s laws and rules of good behavior.  Logical?    Insane?  Of course, but it is politically correct thinking.  They ignore the simple truth that fences and laws constrain only the law abiding.  By definition, criminals are not part of that group.


Political Correctness used as a weapon


  • Being politically correct mandates you condemn the KKK, but applaud the Black Lives Matter crowd. Does anyone else think it is a bit hypocritical to condemn the KKK without applying the same condemnation rules to the flip side BLM (Black Lives Matter)?  I believe both are despicable organizations that advocate applying the litmus test of skin color of the perpetrator to judge every single word and act of others.  Of course the politically correct are the sole arbitrator of the value or acceptability of words and deeds.  Note that violence or inciting violence or other illegal acts is acceptable to both, depending on who chooses the victim.


  • Has it occurred to you that controlling speech (imposing politically correct speech) is the first step to controlling thoughts (If you can’t speak it, you will eventually decide not to think about it either). For those that don’t know, it is a time proven psychological warfare technique taught in every insurgency and counter-insurgency school in the world and espoused as one of the principles for implementing Socialism/Communism/Revolution in a Republic/Democracy (see Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals).


The “Living” Constitution


  • The assertion that the US Constitution is no longer applicable, as written, is another myth constructed by lawyers and politically correct politicians to encourage the concept that only they are astute enough to discern the ultimate meaning of the Constitution and interpret it to accommodate today’s environment. The thesis is not valid, yet it is loudly proclaimed by many in and out of government.  One has to wonder why.  The answer is pretty simple.  These people need to modify the US Constitution (or destroy it) because it prevents them from achieving the socialistic society that puts them in the cat-bird seat.   Of course, to do this, the common meaning of the English language must be changed to agree with what they believe the Constitution should say (to fit into the modern world).  The changes they assert are astonishing.  For example: they claim that simple prohibiting statements like “Congress shall make no law…” or “Shall not be infringed… ” from the 1st and 2nd Amendments don’t really mean what they say.  Instead those words can be construed to mean that Congress (and, by extension, the President through Executive Order) can not only make laws that infringe on God given rights, but can even arbitrarily change existing laws to suit their personal whim and/or agenda.


These are but a few of the impressions I have taken from Tuesday’s primary elections and the follow-on commentary from the various pundits.  My hope is that what we are seeing is a re-awakening of We the People.  Perhaps our decades of apathy are ending and we are truly entering a period where citizens retake control of the government and the era of professional politicians is ending.   If Trump captures a winning total of delegates and the Republican Party ignores the will of the people and imposes their own choice (seems like Mitt’s head is popping up lately – although his time in the sun has passed) several things will happen.  A Democrat (probably not Hillary or Bernie) will be in the White House, the existing Republican Party will be finished, and there is a good possibility the US, as we know it, will expire.   I hope that doesn’t happen.


Robert D. Jones, LTC, USAF (Ret)



It’s About Honor, Courage, Character and Integrity

It’s About Honor, Courage, Character and Integrity

By Larry Reams · Jul. 27, 2015

It’s never the wrong time to do the right thing!

First a few quotes to set the stage:

“Duty, honor, country: Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying point to build courage when courage seems to fail, to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith, to create hope when hope becomes forlorn.” —General Douglas McArthur, to the cadets at West Point, May, 1962

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance of the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” —Last sentence in the Declaration of Independence.

“THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.” —Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

In the event you hadn’t noticed, our Constitutional Republic is imploding before our very eyes because America, as a whole, has forsaken its core values. As Americans we apparently no longer value liberty, a nation of laws, our inalienable rights, the Constitution, the sacrifice of our founders or forefathers, or the lives of over a million men of the Armed Forces who died for our liberty. Fifty-six men put everything on the line in 1776 to put into place all that we have today, yet not one single elected official at the federal level will stand on duty, honor or country to keep it in place for posterity, and the citizenry is not upholding their constitutional duty to hold them accountable.

Barack Hussein Obama is the most impeachable president in the history of our republic. The evidence can be found in the Articles of Impeachment prepared by the North American Law Center:

The previous 43 presidents can’t hold a candle to his abuse of office. 535 Members of Congress, House and Senate, know this yet lack the courage, character, and the duty to impeach him. The excuses for not doing so are many but the bottom line is cowardice. They are afraid of the consequences. They have filed law suits as a way to force the courts to be “the bad guy” but the constitution doesn’t call for law suits. Article II, Section 4 calls for impeachment, pure and simple. The law suits are just another excuse for not acting properly. We have very few elected officials at the federal level who believe in God, country, Constitution and constituency. Today it’s all about “self,” party, agenda, special interests and money. To upset special interests is to lose votes and money. So, keep kicking the can down the road and hope for the best. Wait for the next election. It comes and goes and nothing changes.

Well, as the saying goes, “enough is enough.” Elections are not going to solve America’s problem. The whole class of elected officials and their would-be replacements are the problem along with a complacent citizenry. Impeachment is our only peaceful solution. The justification for that opinion is here.

Even before his election in 2008, evidence was abundantly available to anyone who cared to see the truth that Obama was not constitutionally qualified as he was not a natural born citizen. But those whose responsibility it is to verify his qualifications turned a blind eye so as to elect our first minority president. Minority status trumped the Constitution. We preferred to judge by color of skin rather than content of character. Had Obama been properly vetted and his constitutional ineligibility been exposed, none of the following would have taken place:

  • Kagan and Sotomayor would not be on the Supreme Court and we would not have the gay marriage ruling.

  • Obamacare would not exist.

  • Iraq would not have been abandoned and thus ISIS might actually still be a “JV team.”

  • IRS would not have conservatives on their “enemies list” or penalized them for the sake of re-electing Obama.

  • The War Powers Act would not have been violated.

  • No Benghazi. No Fast and Furious. No Bergdahl trade. No ridiculous Rules of Engagement placing our forces at a disadvantage to our enemy.

  • No Iran “deal” instead of a treaty with the Senate’s involvement.

  • 100,000 plus illegal alien criminals would not have been released on our streets.

  • No amnesty for illegals.

  • Our foreign allies would still be allies and our enemies would not have received such overwhelming support and funding.

  • We would not have given millions to the terrorist groups Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. That’s “aiding and abetting” terrorists on the official State Department list.

  • Our military would still be recognized as the best in the world and not reduced to pre WWII levels.

  • Our economy would have long since recovered and the unemployment rate would be back to normal.

  • Our welfare rolls would be half the size they are now.

  • $7 trillion or so would not have been added to the national debt.

  • Our nation would not be as divided as in Civil War days.

  • Muslims would not be the favored class within this administration and there would be no war on Christianity.

  • Maybe political correctness would not have advanced to the status of “utterly ridiculous” and truth would prevail.

  • No Common Core. No EPA war against society. No unaccountable Czars. No Valerie Jarrett. No Clinton and Kerry Secretaries of State.

  • No communist administration.

  • No chief executive who lies every time he’s in front of an audience or a camera, about everything, who has become a laughing stock around the globe and an embarrassment to America.

  • No tyrannical, anti-American Imperial King who shreds the constitution, bypasses congress, changes the law with his pen and phone, spends our money by the billions (millions for personal vacations alone), and in general does what he damn well wants to do with no regard to the consequences. A narcissist of the highest order.

We could all list scores more abuses of power all because We the People did not hold our elected officials accountable on one of the most important issues of the past 240 years. And in addition to all of the above, it sets a dangerous precedent. When you don’t do the right thing, it becomes easier for the successor to push the envelope even farther. We allowed the Constitution to be severely violated so as to place an ineligible person in the Oval Office. Now we have three more candidates who are also not constitutionally eligible, for the same reason, who feel they have a right to violate the Constitution too. And if Hillary and Billary go back into the White House, well, “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.” Where does it end? When we end it!

So, what’s the solution, America? Impeachment. That’s the constitutional solution. It’s the honorable solution. But first a question: Did you know that all 535 members of Congress, even your member, is guilty of a felony? Research the legal term “misprision.” According to 18 US Code 2382: “Whomever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclosed and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular state, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.”

Short version: Every member of Congress who takes an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is guilty of complicity in Barack Obama’s treason. He is the bank robber and they are the get-away drivers. They are as guilty as he because they know of the acts yet do nothing about it. That is a felony with up to seven years behind bars. Does your representative know this? Probably not. Should they know? Yes. Should you inform them? Yes. Maybe it will encourage action. Maybe they’ll suddenly develop some courage, character, integrity, honor.

Today the oath of office to “protect and defend” is nothing but a perfunctory ceremony so one can take their seat in Congress. It has no obligation to duty, honor, country attached to it if we do not hold them accountable to it, and we don’t.

So the first step in the solution to save our republic is to find enough courageous, honorable citizens who’ll pledge their “lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor” to uphold the Constitution and our republic. Enough citizens who prefer to restore our republic peacefully rather than through civil war. Next is for this group to find one courageous, honorable member of Congress who will hand deliver the legally prepared Articles of Impeachment to the House Judiciary Committee for action. Once presented to the committee, they must act on it. It’s the rule. They can’t table it, can’t ignore it, can’t follow Boehner’s dictum that “impeachment is not on the table.” It is on the table, and the Judiciary Committee must act. It must investigate and evaluate the Articles and vote. It may vote yea or nay, but it must vote. It only takes a simple majority and there are enough Republicans on the committee to vote yea without a single Democrat vote.

If they vote yea, it goes to the full House for a vote. The articles are presented to the full House that also must vote yea or nay. It also cannot table the issue. If it votes yea, it goes to the Senate for trial. There are enough votes in the House to vote yea without a single Democrat vote. There is a trial in the Senate conducted by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. If found guilty, Obama is removed from office and liable for criminal charges once no longer president. The details of this whole process can be found here.

Thus, everyone reading this is a player. You’re either one who waits for someone else to do it. i.e. part of the problem, or, you’re part of the solution and take action to further this initiative. Either a summer soldier and sunshine patriot or part of the restoration of our republic. If you ever took an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution,” such as veterans, you can join your member of Congress in being guilty of misprision of treason,or, you can persuade your member of Congress to issue the Articles of Impeachment to the House Judiciary Committee. It’s as simple as that. Be part of the solution and allow your posterity to enjoy the freedoms you’ve enjoyed and protect them from dictatorship.

If you’re not already part of this effort, your beginning starts here. This is the lead group out of Tennessee with 16 states now having a Facebook page and/or website. Start at this site. Then pass on the information. The grassroots must get involved.

It Ain’t the Confederate Battle Flag, Stupid


To paraphrase the famous quote from the first Clinton campaign, It ain’t the Confederate Battle Flag, stupid – that flag is no more responsible for the shooting in Charleston than the Budweiser Horses for all the alcoholics in the country. And, it ain’t the gun, stupid – anymore than it is the spoon that makes people eat to excess, or the mirror on the wall that makes a person bulimic.

It is the individual that makes the choice to slaughter innocent people, drink too much alcohol, and use the gun as a tool to commit acts of violence or deliberately starve to death. The reasons vary, but all assertions to the contrary made in softened, politically correct words and phrases (changing “foreign invader to the much softer “illegal immigrant” pops to mind), we are the master of our own destiny.

We make the choices (even if they are insane). Unfortunately, we are allowing ourselves to be led by messages to the contrary from various agitators using anti-gun and racially charged phrases, supported by a sympathetic media, down a primrose path to the cliff of freedom’s death like a bunch of lemmings. These unscrupulous individuals (Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton for example) are exploiting our apathy and weaknesses for their own gain.

Let me be specific – if you believe those that are trying to sell you the concept that the Confederate Battle Flag caused some nut to shoot a bunch of Christians, or (to take the flip side) that smoking pot isn’t as dangerous to your lungs as smoking tobacco; you truly are as stupid as they believe you are. Understand these agitators are intelligent, though evil. They would not use these techniques unless they believed you really were stupid enough to swallow their brand of poison laced Kool Aide, as did the believers in Jones Town .

Make no mistake about it, they know exactly what they are saying and doing. They intend to manipulate enough of us to achieve their intended result – which is always to gain more control so all of us can be exploited for their gain. They believe (with some justification) that We the People are either too stupid to recognize BS when we see and hear it, or so apathetic that we don’t give a damn if they use lies to push us further and further under their control.

Look around you – even if many of our citizens are not exposed to US History in school, unless they (and we older folks) have willingly submitted to blinders being placed over our eyes (or rose colored filters, if you prefer), all of us should be able to read the Constitution and recognize that the system of government described and codified in that document is being systematically destroyed by evil people.

Again, let me be specific. In this Republic – and yes, the United States of America is a Republic, not a Democracy – there is only one entity authorized to create, modify, or repeal law at the federal level.   That entity is the Legislative Branch of the US Congress. The Executive Branch is authorized only to faithfully and completely execute those laws. Under no circumstances is the Executive Branch authorized to make, modify, or selectively execute a law. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on whether or not a given law or act (as written and imposed) is authorized under the Constitution. No judge or justice is authorized to “interpret” the written language to determine if the legislature (Congress) or the Constitution’s authors wrote what they intended to write or used words that accurately convey what they intended to say. The Court is supposed to judge based on what they see, not what they wish they saw or what they think they should be able to see.

Yet, in the last several days, let alone the last several years and even decades, we have glaring examples of Congress and the Executive exceeding their authority and the Supreme Court issuing rulings based on what they thought the legislature intended to say, rather than what they actually wrote as identified by the specific words signed into law. Any instance where that happened may well fall into that category of “high crimes and misdemeanors” that mandate impeachment of the elected or appointed person involved.

When the House (of Representatives) refuses to act to impose consequences or remove the miscreant from office (as required by their oath), the Executive is able to act as a dictator unless checked by the Supreme Court.   If the Court abuses the trust given them by refusing to curb either Congress or the Executive and instead “legislates from the bench” they, too, should be impeached.

No, it isn’t the Confederate Battle Flag, stupid.   The reason we have all this BS going on at home and abroad is that We the People are not holding responsible those we have chosen to represent us. They, in turn, have not and are not abiding by their oath of office. Folks, crimes are being committed today and We the People do not impose consequences at home or abroad.

Perhaps, the modern day American does not deserve the liberty that was conveyed to them by the Founding Fathers.   That appears to be the case. I pray it is not so.

As for me: I was born free by accident; I live free by choice; I will die free as an obligation.

Robert D. Jones, LTC, USAF (Ret)

Plain talk about the Constitution


I don’t know, but I imagine you are as tired of the supposed “Constitutional Scholars” telling us lesser mortals (by adding page after page of gobbledegook) about the many nuances of the Constitution as am I.  I’m also tired of those same experts telling me what the Founders really meant to say.  Every time they start to pontificate, my BS detection flag goes up.  This note is my attempt to tell you why.

First, let’s make a couple of assumptions – 1) The framers of the Constitution and the first ten amendments were intelligent human beings who understood the meaning of the words they used.  2) Let us assume that they were well versed in living under the heel of a strong central government and deeply interested in preventing the establishment of such a government in the United States.  Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution clearly support both assumptions.

With that in mind, let’s briefly look at the words, AS WRITTEN without trying to find some hidden meaning or to expand them based on “modern” language.  Because I respect those who pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to this cause, I will make no attempt to extend their words to mean something other than exactly what they say – see assumption one, above.

Here are a couple of the earliest and more obvious instances.

“Congress shall MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

This is the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution.  What is the obvious meaning when it is carefully read by someone who is a normal citizen, not a lawyer, but relatively intelligent, relatively well educated (professional engineer, among other things), well read, and experienced in family, local, state, and some world affairs.

First – please note, the entire First Amendment consists of a single sentence.   And, although relatively long, it is not particularly complicated.  I find it amazing that some people can discern so many variations in meaning in 44 words.  Variations that require specially qualified laymen, assisted by Constitutional attorneys, to provide reams of paper full of complicated words and phrases in order to describe the “real” meaning” of the sentence.   One has to ask, “Is it really that difficult to understand?  How complicated can it be?”

“Congress shall make no law” – pretty simple and absolutely clear.  This is an absolute prohibition levied on Congress and, therefore, all elements of the federal government.  Remember, the Executive Branch can not make law, only implement the laws generated by Congress).  Therefore, under no circumstances can Congress, with regard to the following areas:

  • Constrain the creation or free exercise of religion (but the words do not exempt the practitioner from the consequences of breaking other laws, e.g., murder in their worship services).
  • Abridge (meaning curtail or edit) what a citizen states (explicitly the oral or written words of individual citizens). As with religion, it does not exempt the communicator from experiencing the consequences of his acts or words.
  • Abridge (curtail) the freedom of the press (similarly, a news agency is free to print or broadcast what they want, but they will be held accountable for their words and any resulting activity).
  • Abridge the size or purpose of a gathering of citizens (as long as those assembled remain peaceful and do not infringe on the liberty of other citizens).
  • Constrain any citizen from seeking relief from the result of Government action.

That’s pretty much it; it isn’t complicated unless one tries to “modify” the meaning.

Specifically, any government activity that would keep a citizen from praying, singing, or in some other way expressing their faith is prohibited.  No mention is made regarding specific elements of religion, “God, Yahweh, Allah, Jesus, Mohammed, or any other prophets, chickens, cattle, Voodoo symbols “, at all.  And, nowhere does it say anything about the “separation of church and state”.  It does not provide a guarantee you and I will not be irritated, offended, or even appalled by how some citizens’ worship.  It does not protect the citizen from other religions – it protects all religions from Congress.

Similarly, it doesn’t mention anything about what speech is acceptable or not acceptable (read “politically correct”).  It forbids Congress (and, by extension any element of the federal government) from attempting to control speech or thoughts.  It does not protect you from being offended or even outraged over the statements of others.  But, please note, there is nothing there that talks about protecting one’s actions.  Actions are judged by completely different criteria – if not specifically criminal, do they adversely impact the freedom (of movement, speech, assembly, or worship of other citizens?  If they do any of those, they may be constrained so as to avoid infringement on other guaranteed rights.

The press is legally free to print or broadcast whatever they like – truth, lies, or something in between (partial truth).  It is the responsibility of the audience to judge the merit of the information provided.  However, as in the other rights, the press is not protected from the consequences of their actions.  For example, they are not protected from prosecution should their actions break established laws.  Please note – nowhere in the document is “The People’s Right to Know” mentioned.  That is a construct which has been touted so long as justification for illegal actions that it is assumed to exist in the document (e.g., the Pentagon Papers).

Any number of us can get together for any purpose we like, but we must constrain our actions so that the rights of other citizens to life, assembly, free passage, speech, worship, or others are not impacted.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. “

That is the second amendment, of course.  Note, it is even shorter than the first, consisting of only 27 words.  The words “shall not be infringed” are certainly plain enough.  Explicitly, they mean that the federal government can not now or ever make any law that interferes with the right of a US citizen to own and carry a weapon.  The argument related to “militia” is spurious – the male citizen made up the militia.  There was no, repeat no, standing army, reserve, or National Guard in existence at the time the amendment was written and affirmed (more on this subject at

All the rest of the first ten amendments, called The Bill of Rights can be viewed in the same manner, as can the initial absolute prohibition placed on what Congress can do, as codified in Article I of the Constitution.

Let me be specific again – every single time any Congressperson puts forward or votes aye on a bill that exceeds the specific limits of Article I, as further constrained by the first ten  amendments,  he or she is disavowing (by failing to abide by) their oath of office.  When they do not use the power given them to curb the excesses of the Executive and/or Judicial Branches, they are once again dishonoring, their oath.   Further, every time the Executive Branch changes a law through executive order, or the Judicial Branch creates law by judicial fiat, they disavow their oath of office.  Articles II and III are quite specific as to the limits on the Executive and Judicial Branches.  Both regularly exceed those limits with impunity.

Once again, please remember that we are talking about constraints levied on the federal government.  Further, remember that even should the States agree to have the federal government infringe on any of these basic rights that does not constitute permission.  If the states have the power, using the method called out in the Constitution, to change any part of the Constitution to include the First Amendment, or any other – but that is the only way it can be accomplished.

In summary, the Constitution is not complicated; it is written in plain language that can easily be understood by a layman not interested in parsing the definition of what “is” is.

We the People must retake control and mandate our elected and appointed officials abide by the Constitution as each has sworn to do in their oath of office.  Attempts to extend their power beyond that given should be met with censure.  Actual extension of power and the commission of actions that exceed the specified limits should be met with impeachment.  To do less indicates We the People are not deserving of the freedoms so dearly won for us by prior generations.  And, as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow morning, if we do not take the initiative, we will eventually bend our necks and accept the yoke of tyranny and at the same time kiss our liberty and that of our children and grandchildren goodbye.

The ball is in our court – how we respond will determine the life of this Republic.

In my own case…

I was born free by accident, I live free by choice, I will die free as an obligation.

Robert D. Jones, LTC, USAF (Ret)

The Danger of citizen/military separation, greater than ISIS, IMHO


Let me begin this note of warning about the growing separation between the civilian and military population in the United States with an apocryphal quote attributed to a Centurion (professional officer who commanded 80 to 100 men) in the Roman Legion.

“We had been told, on leaving our native soil,” wrote the centurion Marcus Flavius to a cousin back in Rome, “that we were going to defend the sacred rights conferred on us by so many of our citizens [and to aid] populations in need of our assistance and our civilization.” For such a cause, he and his comrades had willingly offered to “shed our quota of blood, to sacrifice our youth and our hopes.” Yet the news from the homeland was disconcerting: The capital was seemingly rife with factions, treachery and petty politics. “Make haste,” Marcus Flavius continued, “and tell me that our fellow citizens understand us, support us and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the empire.”

“If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware of the anger of the legions!”

I have mentioned the gap that is growing between the voluntary military community in the United States and the civilian community they protect before. There are a number of reasons for the growing separation; many were identified in the LA Times piece I sent around earlier. And, certainly, problems exist due to the perspective of both elements of our society. However, I must stress what I consider to be the most important, often overlooked, but extremely dangerous potential growing from this separation. The commentary usually identifies problems and situations while omitting the simple fact that this trend must, I repeat must, be reversed for the survival of the Republic and, eventually, the safety of individual citizens. Here’s why I say that…

The Founding Fathers did not envision the need for a standing army. Their concept was that the US would field a citizen army called the militia and composed of all able bodied male citizens, each of whom would answer the call should the Republic come under threat (For more, see “We are the Militia” at

Absolutely nothing wrong with the citizen soldier concept; it stood the Nation in good stead for almost two-hundred years. During that time, need caused a small standing military force (the Navy was always considered a necessity) to be created. This standing force would provide a cadre of leaders (think Eisenhower, Patton, Mc Arthur, and Bradley, among others) should the need arise for the US to field a large army against an experienced enemy. The bulk of the army would be formed from citizens, inducted and trained if called to serve. The important element of this concept is that everyone shared the risk, responsibility, and cost of sustaining the Republic against external threats.

The army of “citizen soldiers” continued successfully until President Nixon ended the Draft during the Vietnam War.   In my opinion that was a grave, politically driven mistake.   I will state up front that I believe every citizen, male and female, should voluntarily give at least two years service to the United States immediately after graduating from high-school. Of course, everyone would not become part of the military, but all would invest in their country through service of some sort. They would live in similar circumstances, be obligated to conform to discipline, perform work beneficial to the Nation, and draw pay similar to that of a private soldier. I would impose the following consequence on those who chose not to voluntarily serve.   They would remain citizens, but forever lose their right to vote in any federal election, if not at any election, whatever the level. The reason is quite simple. If people will not give of themselves and be part of implementation of political decisions, they should not be able to participate in those decisions.

During wartime, everyone would be subject to full time military service, if called. (Some of you may remember that during WW II, people were drafted for “the duration, plus two months”, or something like that.) Under the universal service concept, all of us would share the burden as well as the privileges of citizenship. We would all be part of the freedom equation. As is, only the US Military and their families pay the personal “cost of freedom” in terms of financial hardship, separation, injury, and death. The US military is at war today; the rest of the country is at the mall, speaking figuratively. IMHO, that is wrong for a number of reasons, the most important of which is that everyone should feel the impact when this nation enters combat and, by sharing the impact, all will become more closely involved with the governance that makes the policy they will then support with their lives.

As it is today, most of the nation and all of the people in control of the decision process do not experience the full impact of those decisions. One of the major downsides of that fact is most of the nation has absolutely no concept of what the US Military is asked to do (over and over again for how many tours in the war zone?) or the conditions (Rules of Engagement) under which they are asked to do it. If everyone’s sons and daughters were exposed, the rules of engagement would not be drawn in favor the enemy (as they are today). The political pressure would be to achieve victory (meaning remove the threat) as quickly and as economically (measured in gold and blood) as possible.   There would be very, very few protracted wars and virtually no politically expedient “police actions” or “nation building” where the military is used for something other than its Constitutional purpose – protecting the Republic.

But, universal service is not likely to become the law of the land. So, we must consider what happens if nothing is done and the gap between citizen and soldier continues to grow. The first symptom is that citizens and military alike begin to consider each a separate entity unto itself; as a separate population, if you will. In the civilian mind the military becomes associated with, but not really part of the United States at all, in some cases, they maybe not be considered “people like us” but, rather, some kind of lower life form (“If you aren’t smart enough to go to college, you join the military”). That can progress to consider “the military” not as you do the next door neighbor’s son/daughter, but as some mostly inanimate, monolithic entity that you can put in the closet (like your shotgun) and call forth when needed. To use an illustration from what was once my line of work – to many, the soldier is like a parachute – unappreciated, expensive to maintain, heavy to drag around, certainly not decorative, and mostly just a pain in the ass (of no real value) – unless the airplane quits flying. At that time, if you don’t have a parachute handy, you would pay any amount to have one suddenly appear.

The professional, volunteer military (and your local police force) is like that parachute – unappreciated, expensive to maintain, heavy to drag around, mostly not decorative (except for some parades), etc. and priceless if needed and not available. Amazing how the appreciation of the sheepdog’s value increases dramatically when the wolf is clawing at the door. Or as stated by Kipling in the last verse of his poem (you might wish to read it in its entirety) about the regard of British soldiers during peacetime – titled: “Tommy”.   FYI, “Tommy” is British version of “GI Joe”.

He said:

“The Widow’s Uniform is not the soldier-man’s disgrace.
For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;
An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool — you bet that Tommy sees!

Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, this separation symptom is not confined to the voluntary, some call it the professional, military. You see the attitude exhibited on the news every day as it relates to the police.   It is idiocy to ridicule people, demean them, continually second guess what they do, cast aspersions on their character and accuse them, indict them, and try them for all sorts of crimes of excess, based on appeasing a mob – and then expect them to figuratively and literally put themselves between you and a bullet coming your way. How long will they continue to serve and protect? I don’t know, but I do know that some of us will literally bet our lives on how the local policeman answers that question.

What needs to be done? As a first step, we need to reinstate the draft so the cost of combat can be shared by all of us. From personal experience I know combat changes people – blurred lines become clearer and one’s patience with BS gets pretty thin. Proliferation of clearer thought patterns and a more realistic perspective of the world shared by the electorate would benefit the Republic.   Further, I suggest citizens, particularly those in local positions of authority (mayor, city councilmen, DA’s etc.), ride along with police on a regular basis and join them on the line during riot control operations. Perhaps under those circumstances and given enough time we can, once again, learn to appreciate those who stand on the wall and do hard things so the rest of us can enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

However, most of us prefer to live like sheep, (if you don’t know the reference, let me know, I’ll provide it) going through life in locally (come on people, the Middle-east is half a world away) peaceful conditions relying on sheepdogs to keep the wolf from our door.

In this context, the military and police are the sheepdogs. They exist to protect the citizen flock from the depredation of wolves. The volunteer military has sworn to support and defend the Constitution; the document that provides the basis for all the freedom, liberty, and safety we enjoy as citizens of this great Republic. The real danger, should citizens not take direct action to remedy the separation between them and the professionals that protect them, is easy to state. We must begin to consider our military and police as human beings, part of the population and recognized as such by the whole of society. We should voluntarily share in the physical and mental cost in support of their efforts to protect us from harm. If we do not take those steps, then we should not be surprised to wake some day and find the wolf at our door and no sheepdog standing guard.

You want a preview? Take a look at the changed police response in Baltimore, Cleveland, Chicago, New York, and Ferguson, MO. And, my friends, what you see there is just the tip of the iceberg; a local reaction. What happens should the warriors decide to follow suit? To quote a slogan shouted by the anti-war crowd in the sixties – “What would happen if they had a war and nobody came?” Let me provide the direct answer to that question. Then, now, and in the future, understand it does not take two sides to make a war, locally or internationally; it only takes an aggressor who wants what you have or wants to eliminate you from the face of the earth. If the sheepdogs don’t show up, the wolves toy with and then kill the sheep at their leisure. Educate yourself — take the time to actually watch a complete ISIS beheading or burning video – and recognize that if they could, the victim would be you and yours.   Today the volunteer US Military stands between you and them, often in spite of the poor decisions made by civilian leadership.

Folks, it is not enough to wave flags and play wonderful music on holidays. Every so often all of us must enter the arena, get our hands dirty and, yes, sometimes even bloody, if we are to preserve the most exceptional Nation on earth.   You can not expect others to do it for you. If you will not do your part, how can you claim to deserve the blessings of America?   I have often said, “Rarely does one pay the required cost in blood to purchase their own freedom; yours was bought and paid for by the past generation. However, you can damn sure give it away and that is exactly what We the People are in the process of doing right now. We are throwing it away; divesting ourselves of the liberty so expensively provided by our forefathers.

Remember, We the People put those people who do not respect the Constitution in positions of authority.   Then, We the People prove we are too cowardly to remove them, even after they openly refuse to abide by their oath of office. Yet, we expect those who wear the uniform to continue to risk life and limb to protect people that will not act to protect themselves, even when all it takes is an educated, thoughtful vote. If you will not do your part to support and defend the Constitution, if you accept as “just politics” elected officials in Congress and the Executive Branch who seem intent on effectively shredding the Constitution, how long can you expect men and women who have taken an oath to protect that document to continue to obey the orders of those who would destroy it?

Remember the last verse of Tommy?

“An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool — you bet that Tommy sees!”

What does “Tommy” see? Does it ever seem odd to you that those we elected have plenty of money to pay for illegal immigrant (politically incorrect title – foreign invader) needs, medicine, education, and (of course) incarceration?  We can also always finance the deliberately non-productive members of society – but these same elected officials can’t find the money to properly fund the US military or even take care of those wounded in the service of the Republic? Have you heard that the Commander-in-Chief is thinking about reducing military retirement pay? That intention follows a proposal from the same individual that wounded service personnel should pay for their own medical expenses because they are volunteers. Why have you, the civilian population, allowed such atrocious concepts to see the light of day?  Is there any wonder that the military believes you and those you elect no longer care? At the local level, the same sentiments apply – but, in this case, the police are showing you what happens.

Please take the time to consider that your military is made up of human beings, people like us except they have voluntarily accepted an additional burden to become the sheepdogs that protect this society with all that they have, up to and including their life.   They have been and continue to be both unappreciated and badly used. They deserve better! They need and deserve your total support. If it is not forthcoming, be aware an earthquake is rumbling and none of us will like the result.


Robert D. Jones, LTC, USAF (Ret), Citizen of the Republic

Honor Revisited



I feel compelled by past and recent events to revisit the meaning of a word.  That word is “HONOR”.  I am compelled because, when you get right down to it, the basis of sane human interaction is captured in that word.  I think we all need to remember what it means – before it and we pass into oblivion, having been driven there by advocates of politically correct speech and actions.  It is important to understand one simple truth; HONOR and politically correct are diametrically opposed concepts.

And, as prescribed by the likes of socialists from the beginning through at least Bill Ayres of socialist political organizing fame, one of the things you must do to implement the socialist agenda is control what topics are considered acceptable in word and deed.  That practice eventually leads to control over the thoughts and behavior considered acceptable by “society” and marks the end of personal liberty.  That premise, its applicability, and the danger involved to the United States was the subject of an earlier paper which can be found at

In any event, I wanted to expand the concept of personal honor discussed in a different paper to address honorable behavior at the organizational and national level – and the consequences when dishonorable conduct becomes the norm.  In the process I will show you that in this country we have exhibited a practice of dishonorable conduct at the personal, organizational, and national level for decades.  This deplorable situation has been evident since at least the end of WW II and, of late, the rate of occurrence is increasing at an increasing rate.  I will identify a few instances to illustrate my point.  But first – a review of what the word “honor” entails is appropriate.

Honor is hard to explicitly define.  It certainly involves high standards of PERSONAL behavior, but it is much more than that.  Honor involves not deviating from what you believe is the right thing to do, regardless of circumstances or consequences.  In terms of personal honor, you are not abiding by someone else’s standards; you are being faithful to your own code of conduct.  It is equally true that, while those standards may be voluntarily shared by others, they are not imposed on the group by an outside authority.  The standards are part of the culture and, to some degree, are based on what individuals experience as they are growing up and who is touted by society as a “hero” during that period.  “Organizational honor” identifies behavior patterns fully accepted by every member of the group and so inculcated in each person’s nature they become inseparable from that person and, thus, from the group.

The Bard in Hamlet said, “This above all: to thine own self be true.  And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst be false to any man”.  That is the essence of what I am trying to convey.  One is true to one’s personal code and, thereby shows the same true nature to all others.

In the “club” of the professional military, particularly the combat veteran, one element of honor is referred to as “keeping the faith”.  When translated, that means, “If you are in trouble, I will come get you, regardless of risk or consequences.  And, I know if the situation is reversed, you would do the same for me.”

In the military, of which I was privileged to be part for several decades, that was almost universally true.  Honor operated the same on an individual and an organizational basis.  To act in a dishonorable manner was to incur something worse than distain from your peers; if you broke faith, you were not even worthy of contempt.  I know people who, in Vietnam, routinely brought their helicopter to a full stop (hover), a couple of hundred feet directly above enemy gunners and stayed there while one of ours was pulled from enemy soil.  They did that knowing they were putting themselves at considerable personal risk, because to cut and run was simply unacceptable.  They all knew the risk going in; some died keeping the faith.  I can recall no instance when our people were in trouble that anyone even thought of hesitating – you just suck it up and go.  And (thinking about the excuse given by the administration during Benghazi) no one going into those potentially lethal situations had full knowledge of the combat environment waiting for them – they went anyway because one of ours was down and to do otherwise would be unthinkable.  That, my friends, is what keeping the faith means.

I mention this because my first example of dishonorable behavior comes from the Vietnam War period.  No, I’m not going to talk about Hanoi Jane Fonda or even Lieutenant John Kerry (yes our Secretary of State) both of whom, in my opinion, committed treason by providing aid and comfort to the enemy during that wartime.  I’m simply going to talk about the Democrats in Congress who (with some Republicans) deliberately and knowingly violated the given word of the United States of America and, in so doing, broke faith with every American who served in Vietnam as well as the Vietnamese and other allied forces that served with us.  You may not know it, but the United States military did not lose any, repeat any, military engagement during the entire Vietnam War.  The war in Vietnam was won in-country and the North acknowledged that fact.  That war was lost in the streets of America and in the Congress of the United States.  If you doubt that statement, take five minutes and watch the following video – and then return…

The dishonor, dereliction of duty, and lack of personal and collective integrity specifically shown by the Democrats in Congress at that time resulted in a huge loss of life and imposed endless misery upon the South Vietnamese.   By their dishonorable act, the Congress destroyed the collective reputation of all citizens of the United States of America.   The value of our national word was somewhat recovered by US actions during Desert Shield and post 9/11 operations.  However, subsequent to major combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, we regressed.  Promises were made and not kept, graft, lies and ridiculous Rules of Engagement became prevalent during the “nation building” phase and the subsequent pull-out.  It is no wonder ISIS became prevalent.  As the United States drew “red lines” which opponents crossed with no consequences, our president once again emulated the Vietnam Congress and did not keep our word; our national honor was again destroyed.  Empty promises and a lack of effective action has become the “hall mark” of United States foreign policy.  As a result, everyone suffers.

Let’s continue the leap forward to more recent times.  No, I’m not going to talk about Mr. Clinton and his dishonorable conduct in the Oval Office which he then compounded by the lies he told to everyone.  Actions and words that, I will add, would have gotten him fired using the short form in any military or civilian organization of which I was a part.  And I’m not going to talk about Mr. Obama and the numerous examples of dishonorable conduct so prevalent, to date, in his administration – well, maybe just a couple in passing.  The “Fast and Furious” debacle, the IRS scandal, the disrespect shown the Queen of England and the Prime Minister of Israel, and, of course, Benghazi come immediately to mind.

In the latter case, the Administration not only broke faith with Americans in peril, those military officers who attempted to do the right thing were relieved of command (a pattern that continues to this day).  Then, the administration knowingly concocted a false tale and repeatedly broadcast that lie to the world and to We the People.  All of those were actions which, when accompanied by the associated lies and cover-up, would have sufficiently met the “high crimes and misdemeanors” criteria of the Constitution and would have resulted in the impeachment of any previous chief executive and removal for cause of most of his senior administrators.  But, once again Congress compounded the problem by exhibited cowardice and evidencing dishonorable behavior.  Virtually all members repeatedly broke their oath of office and failed to keep faith with the people that elected them by removing a dishonorable chief executive.

No, rather than continue to rehash the old stuff, I’m going to focus on very recent events and, being fair; I will equally critique the lack of honorable behavior exhibited by Democrats and Republicans alike.

The Democrat Party:

In 2008 the Democrat Party forwarded as a candidate someone who was clearly not qualified to run for the office because he, using his own words, did not meet the natural born citizen criteria called out in the Constitution – using any of the various historical references to the definition – as supported by a number of court cases that would, together, constitute viable, incontrovertible case law (cites available).

For the record, in case law on the subject, one case, in particular, comes to mind as particularly applicable the following examples of dishonorable behavior.  In a US Supreme Court of the United States ruling, decided after ratification of the 14th Amendment, the findings specifically prohibit citizenship garnered through the 14th Amendment (being born on US soil) as satisfying the natural born citizen qualification required by Article II of the US Constitution.  In summary, by history and case law, there are two basic criteria called out by the Law of Nations (the common reference of the time) which constitute natural born citizenship.  One demands that to be a natural born US citizen, the individual must be born of two people, both of whom are US citizens at the time of birth.  The other states that a child is the natural born citizen of the nation to which his father is a citizen at the time of his birth.  Please remember these are time and court tested definitions, that establish the minimum qualification all candidates for the presidency or for the vice-presidency of the United States MUST meet.

The Democrat Party seems locked in a pattern of running candidates who excel in dishonorable behavior.  Consider Obama, Pilosi, and Reid, among a host of others.  Speaking of Obama, we must talk about another one whom the Democrat Party intends to deify.  Ms Hillary Clinton has, to date, been anointed as the best person in the Democrat Party to serve as the 46th President of the United States.  As in 2008 and 2012, their candidate for 2016 has time and again to have displayed proven dishonorable conduct in personal and professional interactions.  She is a known congenital liar.  For example: about Benghazi, she failed to protect her people and then deliberately lied about her actions and the cause of the atrocity to people in general and, perhaps worse, looking into the faces of the parents of the men killed in the service of the United States — while standing in front of the coffins.  Then, when asked about her conduct, she wondered why anyone would think such activities might be important enough to make a difference.  In the case of official records (e.g., E-mail and the personal server) she deliberately broke Federal regulations and then lied over and over about what happened and why.  Rather than abide by demands for access to records, she deliberately destroyed those records before they could be reviewed.  If proven, that is illegal as well as dishonorable.

I can go on and on, but you can do a simple search and discover her history is rife with examples of dishonorable behavior and a willingness to do anything to further her personal agenda regardless of the personal cost to others or to the United States.  And she is, apparently, the best candidate the Democrat Party can offer?  Isn’t that a shame?  And, if true, does it not say volumes about the state of “honor” within the Democrat Party?

The Republican Party:

In terms of honor, or lack thereof, the Republicans certainly do not take a back seat to Democrats.  Let me start with the Speaker of the House.  He is well aware of his sworn duty to support and defend the Constitution, yet he has never used the power vested in the House by Article I of the Constitution to hold in check the excesses of the Democrats or the individual who sits in the Oval Office and deliberately flaunts the Constitution and the Congress.  By his inaction, the Speaker has allowed the President to repeatedly make law — a clear violation of the Constitution – the highest law of the land and the document the Speaker and all the other members of Congress are sworn to uphold.  That alone should disqualify him for the position he occupies.  And, remember, The Speaker of the House is the man third in line for the Presidency.

Mr. Boehner has not de-funded the results of Mr. Obama’s flouting of the Constitution, whether we are talking about Obamacare (which should have been implemented as written, not arbitrarily changed time and time again by Executive action) or the “vesting” of foreign invaders (the politically correct term is undocumented immigrants) in various rights and privileges normally accorded only to US citizens.

And it is not just the Speaker of the House who is guilty of dishonorable behavior.  With few exceptions, all Republicans have demonstrated cowardice by not doing their duty and abiding by their oath of office.  They have deliberately voted for bills that clearly exceeded the limits on Congress placed by Article I of the Constitution.  They have contributed to, rather than opposing Government excess.  In particular, they are reluctant to oppose the sitting president because they might be considered politically incorrect (called racist, homophobic, anti-woman, or whatever the current cause celeb’) and that might cost them their job.  Cowardice is dishonorable and cowardice, thy name is Republican.

However, none of the above, while atrocious, even comes close to the latest actions condoned, if not actively encouraged, by the Republican Party.  Senators Rubio and Cruz have declared themselves candidates for President of the United States although both know, or certainly should know, they do not meet the Article II natural born citizen criteria.  This is particularly outrageous in the case of Cruz because he has, according to the famous Democrat legal scholar, Alan Durschowitz, one of the finest legal minds in the Nation.  To hear Cruz (when talking with Hannity at the CPAC) state he was a natural born citizen of the United States because his mother was an American citizen was a best deliberately misleading.  There are no historically or legally supported circumstances (except those touted by his and earlier Mr. Obama’s supporters) in which he meets Article II criteria.   By the definitions (above and available to anyone who takes the time to look) he is most probably a natural born citizen of Canada – and renunciation of Canadian citizenship can never change that fact.  Unlike legal citizenship, natural born citizen status is established at birth and can not be altered by legal fiat.  Senator Rubio isn’t qualified because neither of his parents were American citizens at the time of his birth.  He claims natural born status because he was born in the USA (the 14th Amendment).  Now comes a really important part.  Regardless of whether or not you agree with the qualification opinion, you and they must recognize that by continuing their candidacy they create a questionable situation that may result in the reluctance of many to vote for them.  Therefore, by continuing their candidacy, they are placing their personal agenda above the good of the nation since it may guarantee a Democrat follows Mr. Obama into the oval office.  Should they be successful in becoming the Republican candidate, many voters will believe that by allowing that to happen the Republican Party joined the Democrat Party in committing fraud against the American People.  Many would potentially believe it glaringly apparent that maximizing the probability of winning the Oval Office is more important to the Republican Party than personal or organizational honor or keeping the faith with the people and Constitution.

It is a damned shame the Republican Party has not found someone, as yet, to present as a candidate other than three first term Senators, none with serious executive experience (didn’t we learn anything from the Obama administration?).  Further, the qualification of two of the declared candidates (Cruz and Rubio) and one potential candidate (Jindal) is at least questionable under the Article II criteria.

How does this pose a significant risk?  Let me remind all that the oath taken by each military veteran includes the words “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies…” and forcing veterans to choose between their oath and voting for a candidate they believe not constitutionally qualified will result in a substantial number simply staying home.  The last time the Republican vote was split (by Mr. Ross Perot’s candidacy), Bill Clinton won the election.  Does the Republican Party really wish to deliberately encourage a similar possibility in 2016?

In conclusion, regardless of your registered political party, it is We the People that form the last bastion defending the Constitution.  It should be clear that should the personal and organizational degeneration continue, the sole hope for the United States to endure as a nation of laws will be lost.  We the People must keep faith with the founders and do the honorable thing.  We must remove from power those that would dishonor themselves and this great country by their words, actions, or their failure to act when faced with decisions that may be politically incorrect, politically unpopular, or personally damaging.  Our very survival, and certainly the survival of the United States as a Republic depends on us.

I don’t know how it will end.  Will there be a rediscovery of of the meaning of HONOR at the personal, organizational, and national level?  Will we be willing to live up to a viable personal code?  Those questions must be answered by each of us.  It will be reflected in how we conduct ourselves every hour of every day whether or not we are being observed.  We must recognize the difference between right and wrong.  We need to have and live up to a personal code of honor and to share that code with our children by word and deed.

Perhaps, if enough of us do that the Republic will stand.

Robert D. Jones, LTC, USAF (Ret)

Harry Reid — Beyond the Pale


The conduct of Harry Reid on the Senate Floor goes far beyond any semblance of acceptable behavior.  He knowingly and deliberately lied to the sitting Senate and to the American People about the conduct and behavior of a candidate for the highest office in the United States government in order to secure the election of his candidate.

Regardless of political persuasion, that act should be absolutely unacceptable to all of us, but particularly to his colleges in the Senate.  His actions dishonored himself, his position as the Leader of the Senate, and every single member of the Senate.  The fact that no other senator, Democrat or Republican, called him to task for his blatant lies spreads the shame to all of you.

To my senators, you and your colleges in the Senate of the United States have an opportunity to redeem yourselves and to some extent the reputation of the Senate by acting promptly to impose consequences on Senator Reid for his onerous behavior.   However, you must act swiftly because, based on his response when confronted with his vile action, he feels no remorse and, in fact, seems to believe such actions are quite acceptable, he is proud of what he accomplished by his lies.  You must prove him wrong and, further; send a message to all who would contemplate such disgusting behavior in the future.

The existing Department of Justice and no other element of the Administration will call him to task; it is solely up to you to take disciplinary action.  So, what would be suitable?

It must be something entirely within the control of the Senate to prevent it being relieved by executive action.  Therefore, it must begin with Censure.  Then, a penalty suitable for the seriousness of his action must be immediately applied.  Ideally, he would be dismissed from the Senate.  If that is impossible, he should forfeit his seniority and have his pay and privileges stripped as well as his retirement.  Nothing less is acceptable because he clearly exhibited a complete distain for his constituency, his fellow members of the Senate, the Senate as an Institution, and We the People.  He deserves the maximum penalty the Senate can impose.

This note will be sent to my senators today.  I hope each person who reads it will also send a copy to his or her senators with a request that they co-sponsor such action.  This is not a partisan party issue; it goes to the very heart of the Republic.  Mr. Reid obviously cares nothing for the Nation and certainly does not deserve to receive any reward for debasing his position.

The man is without honor.


Robert D. Jones, LTC, USAF (Ret)