Sunday, April 13, 2008

Enemies Foreign, Enemies Domestic

“I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” – from the U.S. military officer oath

In an April 10 speech at the White House, Mr. Bush stated that, “two of the greatest threats to America in this new century” are “al Qaeda and Iran.” For once in his presidency, Mr. Bush is probably right. Al Qaeda and Iran, in fact, may be America’s only two remaining foreign threats.

Russia and China won’t try to beat us militarily; they’ll take us down economically. Europe doesn’t even need to take us down economically because it already has: The European Union’s gross domestic product surpassed ours by about $600 billion in 2007. Australia’s happy the way it is; Japan won’t rock the boat. South America is too corrupt. Africa is far too hot and Canada’s too cold, as the song by Randy Newman says.

Yep, as far as significant foreign enemies go, Iran and al-Qaeda are about it: a country with a gross domestic product and defense budget barely six percent of America’s, and an “organization” with no economy or navy or air force at all, and no proper army to speak of.

Mr. Bush was telling us, in the Freudian fashion he so often utilizes, that the enemies we really need to worry about are of the domestic variety.

Enemies Within

In his speech, Mr. Bush admonished that those who complain about the cost of his woebegone wars forget that “during other major conflicts in our history, the relative cost has been even higher.” He noted that our defense budget consumed a higher percentage of America’s GDP during the Cold War than the current level of “just over four percent” (it’s about 4.06). Mr. Bush noted, “the imperative of stopping Soviet expansion justified this expense,” and compared the Soviets to today’s “enemy that is not only expansionist in its aims, but has actually attacked our homeland--and intends to do so again.”

Comparing al Qaeda to the Soviets is equating apples and elephants. The Soviets were a peer military competitor; al Qaeda never will be, nor will Iran for that matter. That a properly sized defense budget must be a certain percentage of the overall economy is a long standing neoconservative mantra, but it makes even less sense that most neocon rhetoric. If the GDP metric were a true measure of a nation’s military might, America would be at the mercy of such notable powerhouses as Qatar, Eritrea and Swaziland (10, 6.3 and 4.7 percent respectively).

The military industrial complex has met and exceeded President Dwight Eisenhower’s dire prediction. No longer merely a potential danger, the “disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist” for as long as regional American economies and political careers wholly depend on defense spending.

Perhaps the most glaring example of runaway arms expenditures driving security strategy amok is our use of nuclear submarines to assassinate terrorists. Maybe I should say our attempted use of nuclear submarines to assassinate terrorists. The last time a nuclear submarine tried to employ its cruise missiles to rub out a terrorist in Somalia, it missed the terrorist but killed at least six other people not known to be terrorists instead. There’s buck-for-the-bang defense spending, huh?

Pavlov’s Dogs of War

Mr. Bush also said in his speech that he has “accepted” the recommendation of General David Petraeus to stop the reduction of troops in Iraq when the five surge brigades redeploy at the end of July. The notion that a four-star general should be dictating foreign policy to a president and Congress upset a few people. Juan Cole remarked that, “Bush has now turned over the decision-making about the course of the Iraq War to Gen. David Petraeus. So Congress abdicated to Bush. Bush has abdicated to the generals in the field. That is not a Republic. That is a military dictatorship.”

America is not a military dictatorship exactly. It’s a more of a militaristic oligarchy with a fascist overtone and a theocratic undercoat. It’s the civilian leaders, not the four-star generals, who want to drag us into war everlasting. American generals like Petraeus are domesticated pets of the truly powerful: the politicians and the one percent of the population that owns the politicians. Petraeus is among the Bush administration generals who rose to four-star rank and operational wartime command by following a revered tenet of military tradition; he found out what the boss wanted and gave it to him. Someone is dictating policy and strategy to George W. Bush all right, but it isn’t David Petraeus. Petraeus gives Bush the advice Bush advises him to give or he wouldn’t be in a position to give Bush advice.

Though the Petraeuses of this world won’t overthrow civilian government, we have much to fear from them. Since taking over as Mr. Bush’s “main man” in Iraq, Petraeus has lived up to his reputation for grandstanding and self-promotion in pursuit of selling America on the notion that his surge is “working.” Among his most deplorable stunts was the Baghdad shopping trip he staged in spring of 2007 for surge supporters and Bush loyalists John McCain and Lindsey Graham, a propaganda event made possible by the 100 plus heavily armed soldiers and five Army helicopters that provided security.

You have to be looking an ostrich in the eye to not see that congressional shopping spree for what it was: a commander putting the lives of his troops at risk to pave to the path to his retirement career in politics. You might think that Petraeus would be reviled among the military officer corps for being, in the reported words of former Central Command chief Admiral William Fallon, "an a**-kissing little chickens***," and you might expect that like Fallon, most officers would “hate people like that."

But no. Petraeus has a cult-like following in the officer corps. Granted, many of his acolytes are the sort of folks who like to brag about how few teeth they have left and who doubtless feel more allegiance to the Republican Party and the Confederacy than they do to the American flag or mom or apple pie. I hear from these yahooligans all the time. One of them, after giving me the standard admonition for disparaging the general’s honor, gave me a lecture about the officer’s oath that I could only follow well enough to figure out that the yahooligan didn’t understand what the oath actually says.

Unlike the oath administered to enlisted personnel, the officer oath says nothing about obeying “the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me.” Officers merely swear or affirm that they will “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” This ensures, among other things, that officers have no moral obligation of obedience or loyalty to any individual in their chain of command--including the commander in chief--that trumps their duty to the Constitution.

The oath also admonishes officers to “well and faithfully discharge” their duties, something Petraeus can hardly be said to have done when, in support of the Bush administration’s disinformation campaign, he blames the Iranians for arming Iraqi militant groups even though he himself was directly responsible for distributing weapons to both Sunni and Shiite factions in Iraq’s Hobbesian civil war.

Petraeus has put his troops at unnecessary risk and deceived the American Congress and public in order to further his ambitions, and supports the policies and strategies of a president who has exercised imperial authority in violation of the Constitution. Some of Petraeus’s supporters within the military, like the one I described earlier, possess insufficient sentience to understand this; but many of the general’s followers are every bit as brilliant—and ambitious—as he is, and share his evident capacity to compartment and rationalize. I’d still like to think that the vast majority of military officers are men and women dedicated to their people, their service and their mission and who put duty above their personal priorities. Lamentably, few of these individuals ever wear stars on their collars, and if David Petraeus becomes the “model” officer, everyone who ascends to the rank of bird colonel or higher will be stamped from his mold.

When that happens, our military will have become a praetorian guard, and the shapers of American policy will be neoconservative elites like Frederick Kagan, who wasn’t elected or commissioned by anyone and who never took an oath of any kind.

Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes at Pen and Sword.

"So we can play war…"

"Populated by outrageous characters and fueled with pompous outrage, Huber’s irreverent broadside will pummel the funny bone of anyone who’s served." — Publishers Weekly

"A remarkably accomplished book, striking just the right balance between ridicule and insight." — Booklist

View the trailer here.


  1. Good God, Commander Huber: once again, you simply nailed it.

    Why is it so difficult for others to understand these issues? As a former Army officer, branch qualified in military police and military intelligence career areas and tasked with assignments to field artillery, civil affairs and training units, it's always been clear to me what is going on.

    Thank you for once again strongly speaking out about these matters. I salute you.

  2. I appreciate the kind words and encouragement, Michael. Have a great week.


  3. Speaking of support and defense of the Constitution, do you plan to say anything about the torture admissions last week...?

    As pointed out by Digby (IIRC), Mukasey's testimony last fall is explained now: if he'd admitted all he knew, he'd have become AG and then been forced to arrest the POTUS for war crimes.

  4. That's a good question, Jeff. I'm not sure what to say, or what can be said. Once again, we finally get an admission of something we knew about all along. The simple defense is that none of the things he approved constitute torture (which is why his new AG wouldn't comment of the legality of water boarding).

    Another outrage under the bridge, already driven below the noise level by a whole new set of outrages.


  5. wkmaier9:26 AM

    But Jeff, Senator Obama bowled a 37 and drinks orange juice! That's much more important than officially sanctioned torture!

    Great stuff, as usual, BTW.

  6. Anonymous11:39 AM

    Where is Barbara Jordan when you need her?

    Doesn't every Congressman or woman, or Senator, or federal judge, or any other federal official take the same oath "to solemnly swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies -- both foreign and domestic".

    We then, had a Supreme Court (s) elect a president -- who spoke of The Constitution as "nothing more than a g.d. piece of paper." And, proceeded to treat it as such.

    Thanks for speaking out on this issue.

    If we can "preserve, protect, and defend," the Republic may survive, if The Constitution survives. The founding fathers knew that men, good and bad, leaders of the country, and their followers, will eventually be gone. We all will be. In their wisdom, they tried to assure that The Constitution and the Bill of Rights would survive.

    Even as we watch the Commander in Chief, abdicate his responsibilty, Congress abdicates theirs, and the rest of us watch in horror.

    And, we are hit, by "the media' with whether or not "angry" or "bitter" would have been the better choice of a word to describe people with no jobs, no help, and no hope.

    I don't know which is worse, the people -- the neocon elites - who are not elected, and don't take an oath of any kind, but who do set policy, -- or the people who are elected, who take the oath, and ignore the words, and the document to which it refers.

  7. EdNSted12:27 PM

    Jeff said,

    "This ensures, among other things, that officers have no moral obligation of obedience or loyalty to any individual in their chain of command--including the commander in chief--that trumps their duty to the Constitution."

    Forgive my ignorance on this issue but are officers in our military required have a solid understanding the US Constitution? By "solid", I don't just mean having read through the Cliff notes for the document and its subsequent amendments, but rather, a demonstrated knowledge of its application over our nation's history, i.e. what parts the courts have viewed as unambiguous, what major supreme court decisions involved constitutional law, etc. It would seem to me that if our officers are sworn to uphold and protect our constitution, they would need a much keener understanding of the issues than Joe Sixpack. I would imagine this kind of solid training exists for many jobs in our military, but is there any universal requirements for most military officers?

    Here's why I see this as important. There are countless faults with our current administration but one fault I believe underlies many of the other problems we see is the tendency of this administration and its servile followers to value loyalty over competence at every turn. And the kind of loyalty we see being demanded is not loyalty to the US Constitution or loyalty to the highest standards of personal performance but rather, a sick and twisted kind of loyalty; loyalty to a single human; loyalty to a single political party. Loyalty to the neocon agenda. That kind of loyalty has no place in our military, our congress or our courts.

    Oh, one other thing, minor typo - McCain's deplorable stunt vis-a-vis the Baghdad shopping trip was performed in March of 2007

  8. In reverse order:


    I only took one test on the Constitution that I can recall, and that was in grade school. Yeah, pretty much every one in government who swears in makes a pledge to uphold, support, defend, whatever the Constitution.

    Thanks for the correction on the junket date. Funny how those came almost exactly a year apart.


    Yeah, the media: angry, bitter, or just plain not doing it's job. Did anyone see the Chris Matthews take down in NY Times Magazine?


    Well, it's important to me that Obama doesn't know how to bowl, so there! ;-)

  9. Wow, been called many things before believe "Yahooligan" is a first. Thanks...I guess.

    “I, (your name) do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will continue to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and the Country whose course it directs, and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation. So help me God.”

    Think this is what you're looking for. At least it's the last one I signed. That's ok it supports that whole Title X stuff too, because that's where it gets into the proper verbiage when talking about Presidents and such. But you know that too. Ah, the luxuries of retirement, eh?

    That shopping trip thing? Yeah, all CODELs that visit, besides sucking up all the resources in the AO, they tend to set their own agenda (which we know about in advance, sorta). Had to live thru several CODEL visits. In fact when John Kerry came to town, he stopped by the new gym at our base. That's the same gym where we lost 2 and wounded 19 recently.

    Is Gen P ambitious? Isn't any FO/GO? For that matter, would you want a leader that isn't "ambitious"? Doesn't make much sense to me. However, "Petraeus has put his troops at unnecessary risk and deceived the American Congress and public in order to further his ambitions"...that does not strike me as accurate either. Deceived is a big word. I think he has made several appearances before Congress testifying each time. I imagine his correspondence has been even more frequent.

    And lastly, I've never known him to risk a Soldier, Sailor, Marine or Airman's life unnecessarily. That is an inflammatory call and you know it.

    But, we do agree on al Qaeda and Iran being significant threats. AQ needs to be extinct, just not sure that's possible. Iran? Give them time, the internet, and some more rock music...the people will be fine. The Ayatollahs need to assume the same position as AQ.

    But that's me and as you stated, I'm dumb, right?

  10. Great Caesar's ghost, Sailor. Petraeus put 100 plus guys in harm's way to make a congressional photo opportunity happen and you've "never known him to risk a Soldier, Sailor, Marine or Airman's life unnecessarily?"

    Say "cheese" for us, okay?

  11. Jeff,
    Smell that? That was the early stages of Victory, sorry if that runs counter to your ongoing dialog of defeat.

    CODEL determines their agenda. Area Cdr determines level of force protection required. Most of those that were "out there" were doing what they'd normally be doing anyhow, patrolling the neighborhood, that's rather key to the whole "surge plan". Sure there were extras.

    But "at risk"? Somewhat melodramatic, I think. Of course there's always the "sniper story" of the left to equate to "true heels on the ground reality".

    Was that a "flash" I felt? Why, thanks, you may have missed my better side. Let me know next time, eh?

  12. Oh my God, you're bedazzled with Petraeus and you're brain damaged. I can't understand half of what you just said, nor can anyone else.

    This is the last time you get to post this trash here. I'm out of pig wrestling patience.

  13. Anonymous11:22 PM

    Every time some VIP shows up, the troops are there to make the photo-op that has been directed. Flag rank officers become politicians after the first star. I'll go with the admiral's description of Petraeus.

    Just curious, as commander of an AEW squadron, did you ever fly the bird we called 'a stoof(S2F)-with -a roof' or did you begin with the turboprops?

  14. Anonymous,

    For the record what you say about standard VIP treatment is true, but throwing on 100 plus heavily armed guys and five helicopters to protect DVs on a propaganda tour of a part of Baghdad where a lot of people were killed by militants recently is not standard VIP treatment.

    I didn't fly stoofs, but my neighbor across the street did, and my first two squadron skippers started off flying E-1B Tracers, which as I recall were the same basic airframe and recip engine as the Stoof. Am I correct about that?

    I used to know a lot more about the last of the recips, but have unfortunately forgotten most of it. I fondly recall the older guys bragging about how back in the day a cut light actually meant "cut your engine" ala the old "Beer Barrel" style LSO flag signal.

    While we're waxing nostalgic on the old days of carrier aviation, it still amazes me to think that they figured out a way to land at night in WWII. No instruments, no CATCC, no glide path, no lens, no nothing.




  15. Anonymous10:08 AM

    Thanks to Sam Smith, and Progressive Review for this Word:
    "That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ... Theodore Roosevelt.

    Just for the heck of it, I went to Wikipedia, for some info on David Petraus. It must be one of the longest, if not the longest entries on the website. Between the edits by the faithful, and the counterpoints by those who disagree --- and is it appropriate to include the "chickensh**" quote from Admiral Fallon -- because was it made as a "personal" or a "professional" assessment -- I got dizzy, and then I started laughing. An "encyclopedia" that depends upon the "on-line public" for editing, and information, has as a ground rule --- that people cannot bring a specific point of view -- to their editing and/or information?? Interesting. Not too realistic, but interesting. Listing (in color) Battle Ribbons and medals = Good information. ad = bad information. Cornyn Amendment = good information. Admiral Fallon = not sure. Oh, you get the idea.

    In Teddy's day, Petraus would, at least, be considered "servile."

  16. It think TR would have called him a "servile popinjay," which is turn of the century American English for "chickenshit little ass kisser."


  17. The Reality Kid1:12 PM

    Lost in the shuffle of comments is an important point made in this column - that if AQ and Iran are the worst "foreign" enemies the U.S. has, then chances are its greatest enemies are "domestic".

    Recognition of this possibility would lead to rather a significant shift in focus, wouldn't it?

    Can you imagine waking up every morning to a morning paper (or Drudge Report webpage) clamoring for more action to be taken against the domestic enemies seeking to do harm to the constitution?

    What a wonderful world that would be...

  18. Two edged sword, RK. That could turn into neo-McCarthyism real fast.


  19. The Reality Kid2:40 PM

    Your point is understood, but I guess I was thinking more about the Church or Ervin Committees...

    More generally, I was thinking about anything other than the current state of affairs where, imo, the constitution is under attack but there are few signs of an effective defense being mounted.

  20. I hear you, RK. I suspect that a lot of the hesitance to really go after Bush and Co. over constitutional issues is that it would likely unleash a sort of unrestricted political warfare nobody would survive. A political nuclear winter, if you will.

    It's a pretty sad thing that we can't really count on the courts to protect the constitution from the executive branch any more.

    Good discussion. Thanks for bringing this up.



  21. Anonymous8:56 AM

    Bush has had almost 8 years to Petrayify the military. We can take it for granted, at this point, I think, that nearly anyone in a signifigant position of authority in the military is a yes-man or yes-woman.

    That's not a knock on the military. That's a knock on administration policy (= betrayal of both the military and the country).

    In my opinion, the real reason for Petrayus' Congress performance was to keep our soldiers in Iraq for an attack on Iran, which I think WILL involve a ground invasion from Iraq as well as air attacks and a marine assault.

    I realize that most pundits think an attack on Iran is unlikely at this point, because it would be politically risky and militarily risky. Unfortunately, I think such pundits are forgetting that Empire has a momentum of its own. Currently, three Empires are jostling in very close quarters in Central Asia, all of them very concerned about access to and control over energy: the US, Russia and China (setting aside India for the moment). Reason isn't driving the international dynamic. Commonsense isn't even on the train. The imperative to dominate is fueling the ongoing political intrique.

    It's true that Europe, China and perhaps even Russia have the US by the throat economically.
    But that doesn't mean they are satisfied with things as they are, and even if they were, it's the player with the losing hand that's certain to take the Big Gamble.

    And when that player is led by a sociopath/gambler determined to leave his mark on history, one way or another...we've seen where that has led in the past. We've seen this story before.

    The US High Command seems to think it can take a nearly impregnable command over the international situation with one bold stroke, driving deep into the petroleum heartland. The Russians and Chinese are holding their cards close to the vest, but there's no question that they are frowning heavily over what the US HIgh Command seems to be anticipating. They probably don't like the idea of US dominance over the petroleum heartland, especially since it is right in their backyards. They have sent some pretty dark signals, both diplomatically and militarily.

    On the other hand, should the US High Command decide to further overextend its already overextended military, the stakes of the 'game' could change overnight. The US forces are the most powerful the world has ever seen, but they are also increasingly exposed. Were it not for nukes, involvement on the part of Russia and China might be a nobrainer. They could level the international military playing field signifigantly, if they defended Iran, and it would be in their obvious interest to put a stop to further US incursion into territories near and dear to them.

    But, surely, the threat of US nukes would keep things from going global!? Everyone knows that nuclear warfare would be devestating on a level never seen by humankind before. No one would go there.

    Yet, people also knew that about artillary prior to WW1 and they still 'went there'. They knew it about aerial bombing prior to WW2 and they STILL 'went there'. They were far past the point where they were making rational decisions when those wars happened. The inconcievable became 'concievable' (we've already seen that step happen with nuclear warfare) and then the concievable became the 'necessary' (we KNOW that Bush at least is working on that step, developing 'tactical' and 'bunkerbusting' nukes).

    Put simply: take a whole lot of international brinksmanship and throw in a gambling madman and what do you get?

  22. For what it's worth, I don't think we'll see them roll out the nukes. But never count anything out with these characters.


  23. Anonymous6:44 PM

    Re: the E-1B Tracer, yes it had the same basic airframe as the S-2F and S-2E Tracker used for ASW. Also the cargo version used for COD.
    I recall that when I was aboard the USS Midway, they still used landing lights on deck. Later, landing on the USS Wasp, we had sodium vapor lights which lit up the deck like a football field. Flight ops on the 'straight decks' must have been really interesting.

  24. Yes, really interesting and really scary!

  25. I wonder if you are aware of other pilots raising questions about 9/11.

    It's not clear whether 9/11 was the act of enemies foreign or domestic or both.

  26. Ninjen,

    Thanks for the link.


  27. "It’s a more of a militaristic oligarchy with a fascist overtone and a theocratic undercoat. It’s the civilian leaders, not the four-star generals, who want to drag us into war everlasting. American generals like Petraeus are domesticated pets of the truly powerful: the politicians and the one percent of the population that owns the politicians."

    It's been said in different ways by many a blogger but coming from you I think it bears more weight. Congratulations on the book, I have been absent for a long while and was happy to see it being finally 'out'. As for Ilona Meaghers book, she also has a great blog with the same name ( I bought her book last Fall and her blog is extremely resourceful, literally. I am hoping to be a more regular visitor and poster as I see I've been missing out on a lot of good writings. Of course, my own writings are a hodgepodge and not even close to your caliber.. but I have a good excuse; 'my babies' cannot be put in cages and are not as obedient as yours!!lol
    take care jeff. My husband just walked in and saw your name and book and said, he's very well known! He works for the VA (civilian background) but his brother and sister are veterans. I of course am more ignorant and was just drawn to your opinions and writings..:)


  28. Ingrid,

    Good to see you again! I hope you can come back often.


  29. Anonymous3:53 AM

    First of all for you to say our bigest enemies are “al Qaeda and Iran.” You must still be blind to the truth and reality that 9/11 was an inside job.It boggles my mind to see someone so intelligent as yourself still so blind to the obvious.Wake up man.Just a few basic facts in case you didnt know.
    1.It is impossible for a manned spacecraft to travel through the Van Alan Radiaton belts let alone get to the moon.
    2.Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Lauryl Sulfate are poisons used in many products including tooth paste.(water supply)
    3.The same people who control our gov.,Media, Federal reserve,Schools,and so on are the people who killed JFK to shut him up.(the Illuminati)They are the pupet masters,and Bush is just their puppet.
    4.just one simple test you can do yourself to blow the so called official account out of the water.
    Stand at the top of a 110 story building with a billiard ball in hand and a friend at the base of building with a stop watch to record impact.Drop the ball as you say dropped over the phone or radio to your friend at the bottom.IF THE BALL ENCOUNTERS NO RESISTANCE ON THE WAY DOWN your friend will record an impact time of aprox 9.28 seconds.The towers each fell in less than 10.5 seconds.Actualy they exploded and disintegrated.As a matter of FACT there is one CNN video that actualy shows the steel core of one tower turning to dust.If you look back at the photos and videos of the event you will see what is left of the buildings after the dust settles is not even as high as the top of the lobby windows.
    (space based microwave technology)
    Not only was it NOT a pancake collapse.It was much more than just a demolition.
    5.The first time Sodium Fluoride was added to a water supply was in the concentration camps.(it was not to help the oral hygiene of the prisoners)
    6.Prescott Bush (George Herbert Walker Bush`s Grandfather) helped fund Hitlers cause through H.B. Bank in N.Y. .
    7.Marvin Bush was in charge of security at the WTC on 9/11.(securecom)
    This is just the tip of a very huge iceburg.
    The Illuminati has been working on this brilliant plan for the coming of thier NWO since Rothschild became Rothschild.
    Sad thing is they are very close to thier goal.
    Research please,investigate please,Learn the truth,turn off the subliminal mind warping TV and WAKE UP.

  30. No threat to the US Constitution itself, by enemies foreign or domestic, can succeed without the cooperation of treasonous federal officials aiding and abetting them, since only they have legal access to it. Only they can manipulate the laws to remove original safeguards, distort, circumvent, or subvert it.

    Only they can usurp authority, strip citizens of God-given rights, minimize sovereignty, weaken our borders, military, and economy, impose financial bondage, advance tyranny, institutionalize secular humanism, legalize socialism, marxism, and fascism, create a militarized police-state, or suggest suspending the Constitution. Only they can destroy the principles of freedom our Founders and Patriots have fought for.

    America has no greater enemy, foreign or domestic, nor greater criminal offense than a federal official, past or present, who (willfully, or through neglect, bribery, or coercion) undermines the Constitution and violates the Founder’s intent.

    New laws protecting them are unconstitutional and obstruct justice, since no one, especially domestic enemies of the Constitution, can ever be above the law.

    The legal actions of every federal official should be scrutinized annually to determine whether they are supportive or destructive of the Constitution. Every enemy within should be identified, indicted, and permanently defeated.

  31. Anonymous2:40 AM

    Really trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I have booked marked your site and am about to email it

    to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading..
    sesli sohbet
    sesli chat