Category Archives: Uncategorized

We Didn’t Fight For This

Obama has created a global nightmare.  To watch the results of his reckless and asinine foreign policy is truly excruciating.  ISIS massacres its way through Iraqi cities we had secured, horrifically slaughtering Christians and Muslims who don’t comply.  Now the unspeakable burning alive of the Jordanian pilot.  Radical Islamists undermine and abuse the freedoms of non-Islamic countries in which they live in order to burn the country’s flags, impose Sharia law, and spread their venom and hate.  Five thousand American men and women didn’t give their lives, tens of thousands wounded didn’t give their wellbeing, all who have served in the war on terror didn’t work, sweat, bleed, and sacrifice just to have any gains shattered by a shameful and cowardly withdrawal that so predictably favors only the savage cavemen we’ve been fighting all these years.  All of us gave some, some gave all, but none of us fought for this.

We fought to prevent all of this.  Each of us who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, we said, “Here am I,” and we went to stand between these savages and you.  Many of us joined after the Twin Towers were attacked.  We each said to America’s vicious enemies, as did those who fought our foreign wars before: “You’ll have to come through me first.”  We wrote that blank check to America.  We put our lives on hold, put other aspirations aside, left our loved ones behind.  We brushed aside the cruel accusations from mindless anti-war activists, some once our friends, that we were doing nothing but killing innocents.  It was never for oil, it wasn’t for imperialist motives or to decide Iraq’s fate for it.  It is and always has been truly a war on terror, the very literal terror we’re seeing expand once more across Iraq now that we left without victory, that has taken hold from the Netherlands to England.  We saw how these radical Islamists treated their own people, how they treated women and children, how they treated those who don’t believe as they do.  We saw how they didn’t wear uniforms and were willing to use women, children, and their religious houses as shields behind which to wage their bloody, medieval, unjustified slaughter.  They are making their way outward with their ultimatum of convert or die just like Mohammad did hundreds of years ago.  We’re seeing them behead children.

We signed up to stand between them and you.

Because of political correctness and a lack of guts, Shock and Awe and the unheard of four-day victory in Baghdad morphed into a strange mix of appeasement and whack-a-mole exercises instead of successfully wiping out this inhumane enemy.  Look what ISIS did within days.  We could not stay indefinitely in Iraq or Afghanistan, nor should we be nation-building, but we should not have abandoned them as we did without finishing our job, with no security force and little stability.  The void we left was bound to be filled by even worse terror, and so it has been.  They will never surrender, they will never stop, they do not want peace.  They want utter subjugation and they are enabled by our very president to torture and kill unhindered and unquestioned.  The blood of all those killed by ISIS is on Obama’s hands because he did nothing to prevent it and nothing to stop it, while lying that the world is safer on his watch. We didn’t fight for this.

Now they are spreading far and wide unimpeded, brutally slaughtering any who stand in their way.  Who will stop them now?  Practically all have been cowed by insane political correctness, with any references to radical Islam and jihad forbidden.  Imagine if we had been forbidden from telling the truth that Hitler slaughtered 6 million Jews?  Our government dictates that we cannot name the enemy, and so we cannot fight to win.  Our borders are wide open for them to carry out their loudly proclaimed mission: “WE WILL NOT STOP UNTILL WE QUENCH OUR THIRST FOR YOUR BLOOD,” as they wrote to the Foley family after beheading their son James last summer, the first of many beheadings of Westerners to come.

The world is burning and our defenders are being destroyed from the inside out.  Our warriors are bound and gagged by Rules of Engagement that put them in unnecessary danger, stifle their ability to fight, and favor the enemy.  The burden of proof is long since on the American soldier to prove that the terrorist shooting at him didn’t put down his weapon after shooting, as if that would somehow suddenly render the insurgent a non-combatant.  Our fighters at the tip of the spear now have to let themselves be shot at twice in order to engage the enemy, and the high ranks in our military dutifully enforce these senseless rules with little objection lest they jeopardize their rank and pensions.  The misogynists we’ve been fighting like to stone, rape, mutilate and murder women with impunity, they torture and hang gays.    Our military performance standards have been lowered and lowered and lowered again, because being tough on recruits is considered abuse in our absurd, politically correct bubble.  We’re not allowed to forge our volunteers into really tough fighters anymore, we’re not allowed to really prepare them for the unrestrained enemy they will face on the battlefield.  Meanwhile the enemy himself bears no such ludicrous hindrances.  They will do whatever it takes to destroy us, and this administration is doing everything it can to prevent us from defending ourselves, to say nothing of taking the offensive.

Obama has welcomed the Muslim Brotherhood to the White House, he has sided with Hamas against Israel, he has supported Iran’s nuclear proliferation, he has done practically nothing but impotent “pinprick” strikes, and he has not only refused to protect our borders, he has opened them to whomever wants to cross and with whatever motives they may hold.  The man – I use the term very loosely – has little to say on all these matters, and the hollow words he does issue are vague empty platitudes when what is called for is swift and decisive action.  He barely interrupted a golf game to breathe a measly few shallow words on the beheading of James Foley.  No harsh words about burning the pilot alive. We could easily wipe ISIS off the map, and we should.  They, like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, are the ones hiding behind women and children.  We could secure our border, and we should.  We have the means, we just need the will, the guts.  It is easily articulated, it’s not rocket science.  Dead civilians are on their hands, not ours.  They are the ones who hide behind them and target civilians, and they win because we are silent.  The American people should be reminded of this again and again and again.  But we’re too afraid of being considered mean.  This is a fight against true evil; we need to be mean and unapologetic.  They must be made afraid, very very afraid.  Nothing else will work, nothing else has worked.  ISIS has declared war against us.  They will not stop until they terrorize the world and leave nothing but ash.  But with a president who supports and arms terrorist states, who ignores and impugns our allies, who refuses his duty to protect against all enemies foreign and domestic, the future looks grim.  And he was elected twice by the apathetic American majority.  Scary.

We didn’t fight and sacrifice for thirteen years just so this president could pamper and embolden our enemies and open the gates wide for terror on our shores.  We fought, we sacrificed life, limb and well-being to curb and stop the spread of this terror, so that it would not again reach our shores, so that freedom would have a chance where there was none and to protect our loved ones and way of life.  We fought to protect even those who were against us for serving.  We fought so that exactly what is happening now wouldn’t happen.

This president doesn’t give a wit about America, freedom, responsibility – name anything good and decent.  He has been completely unwilling to do anything to protect America or her interests, her people.  He seems happy to let it all burn as long as he gets his multi-million-dollar vacations and his posh soirees with Hollywood celebrities.  He sure as hell doesn’t care about our military or the costs we have paid.  He announces everything we’re going to do militarily so that our enemies have ample time to prepare and execute maximum damage to our forces.  Our president doesn’t care.  He is either a fool or a sympathizer to think these monsters can be “contained.”  We’ve already had another attack on our soil, the Boston Marathon terrorist bombing, and Obama and his administration have done nothing to protect us against our enemies.

Gut-check time is long since here.  We need to be willing to break things and kill our enemies, or they will break and kill us.  It’s that simple.  The tit-for-tat reactionary method hasn’t worked.  It will never work.  They need to be terrified of acting against us.  They need to be afraid there will be a thousand hells to pay for attacking us and then hiding behind women and children.  They have no moral high ground.  Is America awake yet to the threat we have been facing all these years?  We who have served have our eyes wide open.  We would be happy to terminate this vicious foe, but it’s not just up to us.  It is up to Americas leaders to turn this tide and face down these brutes.  Will they?  No.  So we will be left to fend for ourselves.


Who Will Stand?

Who will stand for me
In the lawless land
When appeasement leads to slaughter?
To the whim of the brutal?
As Hitler rose
as it is with tyrants
appeasers and the
silent
nonviolent
majority
enabled holocaust

But this is not an abstract question
Long gone the luxury of ignorance
Of wondering how atrocity got so far back then
Would you have spoken up?
Stopped Nazism before it spread?
Would you have stood for me then?
Stopped them from taking me
To the trains?

Today you apologize for terror
We can’t name them
We can’t blame them
We can’t stop them
So broad minded and tolerant
“The enemy is us” while
they sing songs of
of bathing their hands
In the blood of the Jews
That’s me they mean
Not some someone far away
Your friend
the red-headed minstrel
the one you imagined with
played and walked and talked with
The one who left to fight
Because Never again
They said
But you’re next,
You long lost scalliwags
Floating in everything’s relative
You’re a nonbeliever too
Serving me up first
Just means
You’re a later course
In the meal

150107132332-paris-shootings-cell-footage-story-top

Photo: edition.cnn.com

 


Happy Birthday Marines

Patrick Nichols_by Jude Eden 05


Aftermath

CentralPark_midSeptember2011

Central Park, the week after, September 2011 by Jude Eden

Central Park, September 2001.
Knowing the Towers attack meant war, questioning why it must…
Knowing there is always evil in the world, questioning why there must be.
Broken hearts, shattered lives, collective ‘ individual consciousness changed forever.
The weeks after, NYC was bonded, united, united in grief an tragedy. By two weeks after the divisions reared their heads once more.
Will there ever be peace? Not as long as we continue to appease, protect and justify radical jihadists, the only group making war in every country across the globe, trashing human rights wherever they settle. Some chose to protest. I chose to fight, and I always will. For the sake of peace and the preservation of freedom.

Never forget.


Happy Independence Day from Political Animal

God bless America, the Founders who created the freest, most prosperous nation of all time on earth, and all those who have fought and served to defend her! 

bigstock-Statue-of-Liberty-New-York-la-29835170


Combat: Testosterone Required (More Than Ever)

Are double standards and endemic discouragement of women to train hard to blame for the fact that women continue to wash out of the Marine Corps’ Officer Infantry Course? That is the charge of female Marine Lt. Sage Santangello in an article for the Washington Times. She says:

“I believe that I could pass, and that other women could pass, if the standards for men and women were equal from the beginning of their time with the Marines, if endurance and strength training started earlier than the current practice for people interested in going into the infantry, and if women were allowed a second try, as men are.”

Can she do a dozen pull-ups in all this gear? Photo c/o misguidedchildren.com

Can she do a dozen pull-ups in all this gear? Photo c/o misguidedchildren.com

I absolutely agree that the military should have one standard from the beginning, and it should be the men’s higher standards.  The tiers could remain – higher standards for combat military occupational specialties (MOSs) and support units, appropriately lower for the rest – but within each, women making the higher men’s standard.  It would be optimal for military efficiency and readiness (not to mention the most effective use of our tax dollars), but most women wouldn’t make it into the military in the first place. And although their caliber would be higher for having to pass and maintain higher standards, the ones who did make it would suffer far higher rates of injury (currently 4-10 times those of men, even on lowered standards) and attrition than we already do. We’d see women promoting more slowly, having shorter and fewer military careers, and the percentage serving would drop from 20% to 5% or less. The quality of women serving would be higher, the quantity would be lower, but the military would be stronger and more battle-ready.

While that would be the best thing for a country at war as we are with child-raping, honor-killing, suicide-bombing, amputation-happy savages, the problem is that feminists won’t tolerate it. Mainly through the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS), quotas for women have been imposed on the military for sixty years. And every time jobs have been opened to them, the standards have been lowered to accommodate their lesser physical capabilities and to reduce their high rates of injury. (Say, if those military men are such thugs, such brutes, such women-hating monsters, how come they’ve accommodated women this way since 1948? Weird.) So the 2-person (one daren’t call it 2-man) stretcher-carry is now a 4-person stretcher-carry, women don’t have to do the pull-ups men do, throw a grenade as far, run as fast, scale the wall without steps, and on and on. Between lower standards for women and political correctness that sees making men out of boys as abuse, the standards are de facto lower for all.

Breaking ground. Fallujah, Iraq 2005. © Jude Eden

Breaking ground. Fallujah, Iraq 2005.   © Jude Eden

Any testing to evaluate women’s strength, how they respond to types of physical training, or qualifying tests to determine job suitability have been defunded, abandoned, or, when the results show that women don’t qualify for the heavy-lifting jobs that feminists want them to occupy, discredited. One example is the Military Enlistment Physical Strength Capacity Test (MEPSCAT). It was initially developed to address a problem brought to light by the military itself: Although they were filling their quotas, 85% of women filling the slots couldn’t do what the jobs required. As Stephanie Gutmann writes in The Kinder, Gentler Military, research scientists

“…categorized all Army jobs as light, heavy, or very heavy, and then devised standard physical requirements – expressed as low, medium, high – with which to separate applicants for a particular MOS. They then conducted preliminary tests to see if soldiers in the field, already out there in assigned jobs, were matched with an appropriate MOS. ‘The results,’ as the Army Times put it, ‘did not bode well for women.’ While most men exceeded the high and medium standards for aerobic capacity,’ the paper reported, ‘no woman met the high standard and very few the medium. In other words, by the proposed test’s standards, all of the men were qualified for their jobs in heavy-lifting specialties but fewer than 15 percent of the women.’”[1]

Military readiness? Hardly. The reaction from a member of DACOWITS? “The Army is a male-oriented institution and officials are resistant to changes that will allow women to be fully utilized.” Testing showed the obvious, women couldn’t do the heavy lifting in jobs where they were placed via quotas, so the data had to be buried. The MEPSCAT was never implemented as a way to match recruits to appropriate jobs, even though that makes all the sense in the world to anyone but feminists and their lackeys at the Pentagon.

Lt. Santangello has a similarly feminist angle on why she was powerless to supplement her own training to prepare for the OIC: “Women aren’t encouraged to establish the same mental toughness as men — rather, they’re told that they can’t compete. Men, meanwhile, are encouraged to perceive women as weak.” It’s the male-dominated culture, stupid.

Why does a strong young college hockey player with the guts to join the Marines and the ability to become an officer suddenly wilt at negativity from anyone? Is that the attitude that got her through Officer Candidate’s School? Why would such a tough cookie listen to anyone who told her she couldn’t compete? Why wouldn’t she use it, as so many athletes do, to fuel her ambition to prove them wrong? Herein lies the usual riddle of feminist dogma: Women are as strong as men, but women are victims of men. It’s garbage. Advocates for women in combat are desperate to explain away the natural ability differences between the sexes.

I only served a four-year term in the Marines, but in that time (2004-2008) no one ever told me I couldn’t compete because I was a woman. Nor are men encouraged to perceive women as weak. If anything, their encouraged, at peril of losing their careers, to make themselves believe the lie that women are their physical equals. Today, we all are. Point out the obvious and you’re charged with waging the “war on women.” In my experience, feminism is so prevalent in the military that men trip over themselves trying to ensure they don’t offend. They can’t afford to even think the truth. Women are not as strong and athletic as strong, athletic men. That is why women, even very athletic women, are failing OIC. That is why women aren’t competing with men in professional football, wrestling, or mixed martial arts. It doesn’t mean women are inferior human souls, nor does it mean there is no place for women in the military. It means it makes total logical sense for many MOSs, especially the combat units, to remain closed to women.

Hey Girl, forget your pack?  Photo c/o Marine Corps Times

Hey Girl, forget your pack? Photo c/o Marine Corps Times

Equal training standards would indeed put women in better stead. It’s hard to take pride in the hollow affirmations that we’re doing everything that men are when we know we’re held to a lower standard. It would be better for us as women serving, better for the men with whom we serve, and above all better for a winning military. However, women’s failure to make these kinds of standards is not just for a lack of training. For example, the women going through Marine Corps boot camp throughout 2013 were being trained to achieve the men’s minimum of three pull-ups. They were trained to pass the test, yet 55% of them couldn’t make that minimum. 99% of male recruits can, whether or not they were particularly athletic before shipping off.

When I decided to join the Marines, I already worked out regularly. I had been jogging and hitting the gym since my teens, my sport was martial arts. To prepare for the Marines, I worked out harder and more often. No one had to tell me to, I knew my own weaknesses. If I made it to graduation, I didn’t want to let down the Marines to my left and my right. Once I hit the fleet, despite developing knee problems, I worked out more often than anyone in my platoon to maintain a first-class PFT and perform anything else that was demanded. The guys could eat fast food daily, smoke and drink, then run 6-minute miles. Meanwhile I ate clean and mixed weight training and Semper Fit classes to supplement our regular PT schedule. I envied the guys’ natural ability and found their metabolism particularly infuriating. I may have had more to overcome than some of my female peers, but my experience is not singular. To complete the same physically demanding task, a woman expends much more effort than a man. His units of work effort are worth many of hers, and he will be able to maintain a demanding, arduous level of performance for far longer than she in both the short and long term. Double standards didn’t create this reality, and women training harder won’t change it.

In his book, Coed Combat, Kinsley Brown, a law professor whose graduate work includes physical anthropology, points out that,

When males and females both start out in good physical condition, women gain less than men from further conditioning, so that the gap between the sexes actually increases. A study of male and female cadets at West Point, who all started out in relatively good condition, found that although women’s upper body strength was initially 66 percent of men’s, by the end of their first two years, it had dropped below 61 percent…Sex differences in physical performance are here to stay. As Constance Holden observed in Science magazine, the male advantage in athletics will endure, due to men’s ‘steady supply of a performance-enhancing drug that will never be banned: endogenous testosterone.’ [emphasis in the original][2]

img6503p124 Army Lieutenant Colonel William Gregor, who taught at West Point, also compared the performances of male and female cadets.

“Gregor found that the upper fifth of women achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom fifth of men, but even with equivalent scores, the men and the women were not physical equals: ‘The women who achieved this level of fitness are unusual. They are confident, they are talented, but they are limited in their potential relative to men. The men, in contrast, have the potential to do much better…APFT scores do not measure relative strength or performance [and are therefore] the kindest to the woman, because she works only against her own weight. If we were to add a load, the gap between males and females would widen. If we were to reinstate the 40-yard man-carry that was part of readiness 20 years ago, we would find far fewer women achieving passing scores using the male tables.’ Gregor also testified that a man is more likely to be able to meet minimum standards later in his career, whereas a woman has nowhere to go but down, and rapidly as she ages.”[3]

www.anatomy4sculptors.comFemales can train as hard as we like, and we may increase strength, stamina, and fitness. But our increased fitness still won’t put us on par with that of the men who are training to their utmost, like men in combat units. No matter how widespread feminism becomes, our bones will always be lighter than men’s, more vulnerable to breaks and fractures. Our aerobic capacity will still be 20-40% less, and we’ll still be less able to bear heavy gear at a hard-pounding run. Can we scale the eight-foot wall in full combat load? No steps are provided to give women a boost in the heat of battle like they are in coed military boot camps (and even the MC’s Officer Candidate’s School). Santangello boasts that she got 16 pull-ups on her last physical fitness test. That’s excellent, but PFT’s are done in a t-shirt and shorts. Can we do a dozen pull-ups in full combat gear? That’s just one of many requirements in the OIC combat endurance test. Can we carry another man on our back with both our full combat load and his? These differences in ability are deal-breakers in combat. The standards are not arbitrary. They’re designed to keep the weak out, because accommodating the weak means lives lost and mission failure. This is not just competitive sports, this is war. Infantry officers must not only be educated, brave, and highly athletic. They must be better at everything than all their men because Marine officers lead from the front. Hence their motto: Ductus Exemplo, leadership by example. Which of these women is better than an entire infantry platoon?

Today, advocates for women in combat, primarily civilian feminists and a handful of feminist officers, are doing everything they can to see that the standards are lowered once more to accommodate women. Hence, reservist Army Colonel Ellen Haring, one of the women suing to open combat units to women, wants the OIC’s combat endurance test thrown out (so tries to discredit it as merely an initiation rite). The females who made it through the Marine Corps’ enlisted School of Infantry were still rated on a double standard for the combat fitness test, a fact dutifully and deliberately omitted by those reporting breathlessly: “Women Pass Infantry Training!” (How will that help them when they’re actually in combat, to have passed on a lower standard?) And in the announcement of the WIC policy last year, General Dempsey said, “[I]f we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?” We all know where this is going, and it will be catastrophic for all: women and men on the front lines, our ability to win wars, and the country and loved one’s we’re protecting.

Finally, Lt. Santangello’s contention that women are unfairly barred from a second chance at OIC is deliberately misleading. The only officers who get a chance to remediate and try the course again are those slated for an infantry unit, as Marine Lt. Emma Stokein explains in a recent piece, The Mission Goes First. Since combat units are still closed to women, they don’t get a second try because this delays the training for their assigned MOS and unfairly pushes behind other Marines waiting their turn. As a Marine and officer, Santangello knew this when she wrote her article, so she had no business calling it discrimination. Letting her try the course again, which the commandant of the Marine Corps did after she published, was applying a double standard. She asks that the rules and standards be ignored and that she get special treatment because she’s a woman. That’s quite a start for an officer claiming to want equal treatment, and wanting to lead men in combat. Does she want men to follow her example? Once she’s head of a platoon, will she expect her men(and women) to follow her example?

[1] Stephanie Gutman, The Kinder, Gentler Military. New York: Scribner, 2000.

[2] Kingsley Brown, Coed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn’t Fight The Nation’s Wars; New York, New York: Penguin Group, 2007.

[3] Brian Mitchell, Women in the Military: Flirting With Disaster; Washington DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1998.

The author before heading out on convoy to checkpoint duty, Fallujah, 2005.

The author before heading out on convoy to checkpoint duty, Fallujah, 2005.


Why Operation American Spring is Unconstitutional

Angry-Mob-acwraith“It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy.”  – Publius, Federalist Paper No. 9

For those who haven’t heard, Operation American Spring is a group of so-called patriots led by retired Col. Harry Riley, who are planning to demonstrate in Washington on May 16th. Their announced aim is to oust politicians they deem corrupt, and to replace them with politicians they like. OAS is claiming the authority of the Constitution and Declaration, to “throw off the bonds” of an unjust government and to redress grievances. There’s just one problem. Transferring power by these methods is totally unconstitutional. If we follow this lead, we can forget elections and voter sovereignty.

Any group of citizens can collect in public to air grievances and urge a course of action. They can speak to create a tension in the mind of the community. But OAS can’t claim to be restoring our constitutional republic by inviting ten million people to show up in Washington to throw people out of office outside the electoral process. Be they ten or ten million, no one voted for them to represent America; and they certainly do not represent the Tea Party, which has from the start been a constitutionalist movement. Riley and OAS represent only themselves.

In the Federalist Papers, Publius warned against exactly what OAS is, a faction: “…a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens…” (Federalist Paper No. 10).

PubliusThe Founders took great pains to create a government that would prevent the changeable passions of a group in frenzy from imposing their will on the rest of the country.

Dr. Mickey Craig of Hillsdale College, puts it succinctly:

“The Constitution, while it is a popular government, it is a form of popular government which recognizes the disease of popular government, and has put in place institutional arrangements that will make it less likely that a factious or tyrannical majority will form and lead to the loss of liberty for the country.”

Operation American Spring is taking its cues from the populist Occupy and Arab Spring movements. The first brought destruction and anarchy to the streets of New York City and elsewhere. The second lead to the installation of one of the most tyrannical, fanatical leaders in Egypt’s recent history. This is horrifying enough. But more, they are preying on the well-meaning patriotism of many in the Tea Party movement, trusting that these same folks won’t see that OAS is completely antithetical to how we change power in America.

They are using the genuine and understandable frustrations of patriots who are fed up, citizens who see government out of control and want to do something to bring us back from the brink; from unsustainable debt, a government that won’t enforce our laws, a tyrannical health care policy that infringes on our liberties, and an economy and foreign policy that are in the toilet. They want to do something – something with faster results than our republican form of government allows. So here comes OAS with a call to action, miming Constitutionalism and encouraging the people to rise up and kick the corrupt bastards out via Washington sit-in.

constitution imaeThe slow, deliberative nature of our electoral process exists to temper the passions of just such a furious mob with its great potential for violence and anarchy. The constitution guarantees the peaceful transfer of power through the consent of the governed. It doesn’t matter how many papers OAS submits to Congress to get the Obama administration and John Boehner to resign. They can’t usurp and disregard our electoral process. To do so is to destroy the civil rights of the rest of the country who voted in 2012 and who certainly have a stake in November, 2014.

As Publius says in Federalist Paper No. 54, “This constitution will only work if the people choose men of wisdom and virtue to occupy the offices.” Where there are corrupt politicians, it is our duty as citizens to vote them out and vote in better representatives. Where there is voter or election fraud it is our duty to expose it and to stop it by requiring the same government-issued photo IDs we need to do everything else in our lives. Where millions are persuaded to vote for corrupt politicians and destructive policies, it is our job as citizens to persuade them otherwise. Where these problems are addressed we can begin to right the ship and save our country, no revolution needed.

Either Col. Riley and OAS are totally ignorant of what they are claiming to represent, or they are deliberately hijacking constitutional patriotism to enact what comes down to a coup – and mere months before our next election. Isn’t it ironic that a group claiming to restore our constitutional republic won’t use constitutional methods to do it?

Patriots from coast to coast should soundly reject Operation American Spring for exactly what it is: a tyrannical faction that is illegitimate, destructive, and unconstitutional.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,241 other followers