Government

Exclusive Sneak Peek: The Blaze Magazine’s Report on Anti-Military Sentiment in the U.S.

Blaze Magazine: The U.S. Military Is Under Attack From the Government, Americans, and Islamic ExtremistsEditor’s note: In every issue of The Blaze Magazine, we bring you EXCLUSIVE stories, research, analysis and reporting you can’t find anywhere else — online or in print.

The magazine’s content is reserved for subscribers to the print edition, which is created by the same team that brings you TheBlaze.com.

Below is a brief excerpt from the June 2012 cover story “Taking Fire From the Home Front” by Dave Urbanski.

———

The U.S. military is under a domestic attack—from the administration, American citizens and Islamist groups. Who has their best interests in mind if the government doesn’t?

“We will have to make tough decisions about defense spending … even on programs that I like.”

—United States President Barack Hussein Obama
Twitter Town Hall event, July 2011

President Obama’s feelings about the United States military, courtesy of his telling tweet, surely elicited a chorus of groans from Democratic strategists across the fruited plain—but the possibility that his perspective surprises anybody is as remote as the Voyager 1 space probe.

Obama is no fan of the American military.

We get it, and then some—message received.

Unfortunately for Obama, presidential duties include that commander-in-chief to-do list, so he’s compelled, at least, to offer a compulsory salute here, a by-rote Semper Fi utterance there and the perfunctory surprise visit to a base in the Middle East desert every so often. Sure he’s more inclined to trod the sand on Martha’s Vineyard beaches (and to be fair, who isn’t?), but he’ll flash that famous grin and bear that Air Force One jaunt overseas. Goes with the territory.

Blaze Magazine: The U.S. Military Is Under Attack From the Government, Americans, and Islamic ExtremistsWhile Obama soldiers on, sort of trying to hide his distaste for the armed forces—those patriotic pros who knocked off Osama bin Laden, helped overthrow Moammar Gadhafi and eliminated a few other menaces whom Obama happily took credit for removing from the earth—a growing number of powerful forces besides the president are making no such attempts to obscure their contempt for the uniform.

Whether it’s courtesy of Louis Farrakhan throwing down the gauntlet, terrorists wreaking havoc within U.S. borders, Islamic advocacy groups silencing non-PC speakers—even military leadership and related federal agencies stamping on their own—a homeland assault against our men and women in uniform has been bourgeoning for quite some time. And the attacks are coming with greater regularity.

Can Obama’s name be directly attached to such offensives? Are these aggressors simply emboldened by Obama’s not-so-secret disdain? Or is something else going on? [...]

Who Will Stand Up for Those Fighting for Us?

The U.S. government has never performed a perfect job when it comes to setting up our soldiers for success. The armed forces have always been in need of more funding, and when they do receive it, the cash isn’t always well spent or accounted for.

Blaze Magazine: The U.S. Military Is Under Attack From the Government, Americans, and Islamic ExtremistsOur troops don’t conduct themselves perfectly abroad or at home. None of the latter is news.

But concurrent with what Glenn Beck has repeatedly observed coming out of Washington, D.C.—a scary, step-by-step, frog-in-the-kettle dismantling of our basic freedoms to make room for perhaps a socialist society—the American military also has been systematically hampered and savaged by not only those who hate it (of course) but also depressingly by those who are supposed to love it and support it and, most importantly, lead it.

Who will stand up for our fighting men and women? And who will stand against those who want to undermine their pledged mission and put them, ultimately, in harm’s way?

The full report is available only in The Blaze Magazine. Subscribe today.

Comments (76)

  • Kinnison
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:15am

    There is plenty of waste spending in the military to cut. The problem being that when cuts are made they don’t ask people who know what the wasted spending is, they let the civilian and military leadership at the top of the DOD, the Congress and the Administration pick what they think can be cut. And no one wants their pet program or favorite in-district base on the chopping block. Get a non-partisan commission to poll mid-level NCOs and officers on where the waste is and then cut that waste… Don’t eviscerate Army and Marine combat units or Air Force fighter and bomber squadrons or Navy warships and carrier squadrons, cut the waste and the expensive “gee-whiz”, over-budget programs so dear to the hearts of 4-star generals and defense contractors.

    Report Post »  
  • TaterSalad
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 7:23pm

    A Vietnam Veteran is being sued by Muslims for “discrimination” when all he was doing was…….his job!

    http://www.debbieschlussel.com/44577/more-sharia-in-dearbornistan-vietnam-vet-lawsuit-against-muslim-discrimination/

    Report Post »  
  • authorchriskeys
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 9:26am

    It is not the Conservatives complaining about the military. The millitary is the only reason we are still a sovereign nation. They are this nations protectors from our so called friends around the world. Dipolmats are not the answer and they are not going to save us from those who wish to do us harm, like the Muslims and the petty dictators around the globe, they can only surrender our freedoms to appease them. If the cost of keeping a prepared and capable military is the problem,stop all of the Foreign Aid, talk about giving away the farm. Stop giving money to our enemies and we’ll have lots of cash for our military. If the liberals don’t want to live in a country with a military, I hear Kirabati is lovely and there’s no need to have a military. Probably because no one wants their island nation. They have fish and thats about it. I guess the liberals could go live in France. They have a military but it doesn’t do much except lose wars all the time. I guess they‘ve had rules of engagement since the 1400’s.America has natural resources beyond compare and we have the world’s best infrastructure despite it age and the needed repairs. This natural wealth is why the worlds dictators hate us because we are rich in natural resources that they want. They also hate us because we are free and only a military can keep us free.

    Report Post »  
  • ShawnB
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 7:56am

    I can see why: Sgt Dan USMC was all proud to serve with NATO troops and patrol our streets and forget about posse comitatus! Some of these men are being trained to fire upon American Citizens.

    Report Post »  
  • TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 5:52am

    DESERT. Again I try at great length to put my thoughts regarding the “contingent” and “conditional” declarations and how the Founders would be very familiar with this just as they are intimately with the Constitution… but alas, I must be getting too technical for the topic here and it’s denying me any further explaination, lol. I can‘t seem to get my thoughts out without going the distance regarding 1500 word limitation and maybe that’s the problem who knows? What I do know is that I’m tired of trying at this point and not happy about it.

    I will be gone until this evening… maybe if you catch me on another related topic… we can continue? Or heck… any topic where you may see me posting. It’s nothing new to go “off topic” here on The Blaze at any given time…. lol.

    Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12  
  • Case_Logic
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 4:03am

    I get the feeling that when obama seemingly mispronounces “corpsman” it is his own little passive aggressive leaning. I could be wrong.

    Report Post » Case_Logic  
  • One of the strong
    Posted on June 5, 2012 at 11:40pm

    WE will stand with our fighting men and women, and THEY better stand by US when and if the time comes…..hopefully the real soldiers of this country will NOT allow what is going on to proceed in the end. Otherwise, it will be US against THEM as well ………………..and they can’t win that fight without air support and bombs, or even tactical nukes. We will not submit to any of this, be warned.

    Report Post »  
    • BilderbergBeck12
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 11:53pm

      Oathkeepers.org

      Report Post » BilderbergBeck12  
    • Wolf
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 1:31am

      OneOf, my sentiments as well. Having been one decades past, I support our troops.
      What I do not support is using our troops to act as wolrd policemen or in futile acts of ‘spreading democracy’ to countries and people who dont want it, or using our men and women as storm troops for the UN.
      When the time comes- and I believe it will be soon- that our soldiers will have to decide what or who they will follow- the Consitution and their oath, or the hand that feeds them, I pray they all make the correct decision.

      Report Post »  
  • BilderbergBeck12
    Posted on June 5, 2012 at 9:17pm

    Now days if you arent for bombing the whole middle east and sending our brothers and sisters off to die in some hell hole, your labeled anti military. Thats sick. Its us who want the military to be safe and only fight when it is necessary. Saying we need to go to war with a country because we THINK they might be a threat is BULL. And to hell with anyone who says diffrent. Its us libertarian conservatives who want the rules to be followed. And Beck is no Libertarian conservative.

    Report Post » BilderbergBeck12  
    • soybomb315
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 9:40pm

      Rome is burning – and they are worried about the outposts

      Report Post » soybomb315  
  • rja444
    Posted on June 5, 2012 at 8:12pm

    No Anti Military sentiment here, just a deep ANTI obama sentiment. Time to replace this putz as Commander in Chief with some one who cares and has an idea of what they are doing. I take you to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Memorial day past, the expression on his face said it all, he would have rather been some where else, like on vacation. Well lets send him on a perminent one.

    Report Post »  
  • KidCharlemagne
    Posted on June 5, 2012 at 7:45pm

    The flip-side to that is that the U.S. Military is largely financed on credit via U.S. treasury bonds that are held by foreigners.

    When the federal reserve prints additional trillions of dollars to purchase additional treasury bonds (in order to keep interest rates down), then those foreigners that hold U.S. treasury bonds realize that they are being paid back with devalued dollars, so they start looking for investments with a better rate of return instead.

    We have been fortunate lately that the Euro zone has been melting down and that a lot of the money that had been invested in Euro bonds has been flooding into U.S. treasury notes…..but that won’t last forever:

    ZeroHedge: “China And Japan Dropping Dollar Cross Rate System, Will Transact Directly”

    Report Post »  
  • bankerpapaw
    Posted on June 5, 2012 at 7:41pm

    There is no anti-military sentiment in my part of the country. However, there is alot of anti-government
    sentiment.

    Report Post »  
  • TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
    Posted on June 5, 2012 at 7:06pm

    Besides the vile and disgusting anti-war/anti-Military liberal Obama left, and by and large the Democrat Party as a whole… we Conservatives also have to recognize who camps out on the right (inside the GOP), who often mirrors the same viewpoints, talking points and generally low opinion of our Military, not to mention our Country.

    Yes folks, I am writing in regards to the disease ridden “strain” of “new” Libertarianism that is and has been espoused by Ron Paul, his minnions along with Paul’s personal associations. Paul may ride off into the sunset soon, but those minnions will remain and continue to infect Conservatism and the GOP if allowed to go unrecognized and unchecked.

    One of these losers is Lew Rockwell (of Lew Rockwell.com), part of the “Three Stooges”… including Ron Paul himself and the now deceased (thank God) Murray Rothbard. A guy who once posted a picture of an Afghan child missing one leg with a bunch of leg prosthetics surrounding him with a caption… “Hey Marines, how about some toys for this tot in Afghanistan.”

    The Paul acolytes here will offer you the same smoke and mirrors that Ron Paul himself does, but make no mistake… for the most part they are not (once you really look deeply into their ideology) lovers of our Military or our fellow Americans who comprise our Military… past and present and future.

    We Conservatives should take great offense to the left and those on the “fringe” right who meet the left often.

    Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12  
    • moose8684
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 7:27pm

      It disgusts me to hear people like you who claim to support our military, but in reality only support wars that you will never have to fight, or pay for. You cowards condemn anyone who opposes your view that America is somehow divinely ordained to police the world, yet you, and probably your children will never wear a soldier’s uniform. You are the worst kind of trash on this planet, supporting our troops means sending them to war only when it is necessary, and declaring those wars so they can actually win them. How many of our military men and women have we lost since the end of WW2? Every one of them was lost in an illegal military campaign as our leaders have refused to declare the war. Now people like you and Obama support sending our troops to war on simply the command of the UN, and under their direction. Not only is this illegal, but it is a slap in the face to our troops. The old cowardly war hawks like you may have been the past in the Republican Party, but the Libertarian leaning younger generation is the future, and will be the saviors of this great country. I support the troops, and I support the man that they support, I will vote Ron Paul 2012 if I have to write him in, and so will many others, get over it, your control over the Republican party is gone. Semper Fi.

      Report Post »  
    • DesertPaine
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 7:38pm

      Gotta go with @Moose on this one, @Time. But if your conservative position can make a convincing case that the wars since WWII were prosecuted within clear, given Constitutional boundaries, I’m listening. If not, and the military duties, obligations, privileges and immunities explicitly outlined int he Charter mean anything to you or to conservatism, I’m listening closely for your reasoning about how and why you support trashing those govt restrictions designed to protect We, the People from exactly what is happening now.

      Report Post »  
    • TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 7:40pm

      Sorry MOOSE. Should have ended my comment with the

      CSM, USA (RET) with Service connected Disability.
      Plus one child (daughter) who served SSG, USA (RET) . Retired medically and with Service-Connected Disability.

      Now, what was it you were writing there Mr Semper Fi Ron Paul supporter?

      Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12  
    • DesertPaine
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 7:52pm

      Gee, @Time, with those kind of credentials it’d be reasonable to suppose you could have spared a moment to read and understand your primary job — to protect and defend the Constitution. If, i your years, you went to war, my genuine question remains: how did you square your action with a Constitutional restriction that wars can ONLY be declared by Congress? I am entirely, genuinely, curious. All’s the Ron Paul people say is, ‘it’s written right there in black and white’. Doesn’t seem unreasonable to me and a whole lot of others.

      Report Post »  
    • TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 7:53pm

      DESERT. I can sypathize and even agree with the premise to a certain extent but every veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (as an example) also have every reason to feel insulted by Ron Paul. We are already feel and have been insulted conti nually by the left).

      Almost lost in this din of everything else were/are Paul’s repeated characterizations of theses wars as “illegal.” These statements are and should be taken as a personal affront to every Veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.

      After all, if the wars were truly illegal, it would follow that our Veterans (me included) who prosecuted them must be criminals because America’s Military are duty bound under the military’s Uniform Code of Military Justice to refuse to carry out any illegal order. Moreover, not only would the aiding of the prosecution of an “illegal war” itself be illegal, it would be a clear violation of the solemn oath taken by every Military service member. That oath requires us to uphold the Constitution and to follow lawful orders. Engaging in illegal wars would violate both precepts. So, Paul implies that every Veteran, because of their Service in the wars, has violated the law… and broken their word of honor.

      Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12  
    • moose8684
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 7:57pm

      So you are really going to sit there and tell me that you and your daughter served in the military, and yet you still support sending our men and women to get shot at in some God forsaken country for nothing? Our Constitution is clear on what must take place in order to call up our military. Are you also aware that the military must be reauthorized by Congress every 2 years, and only in a time of DECLARED war? So you can claim that you want to uphold the Constitution, but our founding fathers were very clear about the dangers of a standing military in times of peace.

      Report Post »  
    • DesertPaine
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 8:04pm

      @Time, thanks for your thoughtful response.

      It is the response I have heard, literally, hundreds of times. Yes, of your two commitments, one is to obey the orders of the officers appointed over you. Military members adhere to this without compromise. If (lawfully) ordered to do Y, you do Y.

      But that spectacular success is just half of the commitment. The other is, as earlier stated, to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. If Y means Y on lawful orders, then why is Congress’ EXCLUSIVE duty to declare wars so easily set aside?

      The restriction was a lesson learned in times past. It was designed to ensure that you would not have to send your daughter to die in foreign adventures of a person, party, or grouping. My heartfelt question remains: how could you accept and enforce the orders of your superiors so supremely well — a skill you clearly learned precisely and well — yet never have taken the time to consider your first duty to the Constitution?

      Report Post »  
    • moose8684
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 8:04pm

      So Ron Paul is wrong, because he states the truth? The UCMJ makes it clear that a soldier can refuse an unlawful order, and some have tried, and lost in court. I just don’t understand your premise, you seem to be saying that because all the military conflicts we have been in since WW2 have never been declared as outlined in the Constitution that would make them illegal wars, but that makes you feel bad, so it cannot be true. Please explain to us how it was legal for us to enter Iraq and Afghanistan without a declaration of war? Furthermore, how do you feel about our military action in Libya? When our SOD went before Congress and said he didn’t need a declaration of war because it was authorized by the UN? Are you starting to see what happens when we go down your path?

      Report Post »  
    • KidCharlemagne
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 8:04pm

      TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 7:53pm

      After all, if the wars were truly illegal,
      ========================================

      The last time that the United States Congress actually declared war was 70 years ago today:

      June 5, 1942: Declaration of War against Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary

      Report Post »  
    • TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 8:31pm

      DESERT. Having a hard time posting a follow-up regarding your return comment. Had a lengthy explaination… not seeing it posted. But it dealt with…

      Congressional Authorization… and the statement, or lack of therof stating “declaration of war”.

      The Supreme Court upholding these wars to be pefectly legal…

      Contingent and conditional declarations…

      Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12  
    • TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 8:38pm

      MOOSE. Have heard all the supposed Constitutional expert noise from many a Ron Paul acolyte over many, many years. You‘re just parroting the same noise and bring nothing new as far as I’m concerned. Play your game with someone else. I prefer to communicate with DESERT as you are way out of your league here. Pay attention to what I respond to him with…

      Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12  
    • moose8684
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 8:47pm

      So you cannot tell me how these wars can be legal if they have not been legally declared, so you just refuse to talk to me? It seems as though you are the one out of your league here. Burying your head in the sand and talking loudly does not make your problems go away. At any rate, thank you for your service.

      Report Post »  
    • TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 9:04pm

      DESERT. Twice I’ve tried to post a lengthy retort and nada, zip, zero regarding the above. 3 areas I wanted to cover. It pees me off when it happens (and happens quite often, sorry). I have to run to store, and when I get back will write again for the third time if you’re still up or interested. Don’t take this as a cop-out answer as I brought up the comment to begin with and would love to finish my thoughts… argggghhhhh.

      If not, will try and follow up in morning. I also was trying to cover “Congessional authorizations”… Madison and Jefferson (The Barbary Wars… 1st and 2nd) and omission of the phrase…“formal declarations of war”, legal use of force etc…

      Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12  
    • BilderbergBeck12
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 9:22pm

      LOL at this guy. He gets a little crazier everytime someone says ron paul. Hey dude Paul is not going to be president so you can come back down to reality. Just cause we dont want to send our brothers and sisters off to fight and die in some foreign hell hole, does not mean we are anti militarty. If you and all your other “republicans” friends think your going to keep sending us into endless wars your dead wrong. We are going to get the word out and bring in all sorts of diffrent people to beat the pro endless war crowd. So keep fighting time, we will meet you head on, on the battle field.

      Report Post » BilderbergBeck12  
    • BilderbergBeck12
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 9:28pm

      Cant forget this link. TIME hates it.

      Its the Army Times writing how RON PAUL recives most of all the military donations to presidential elections.

      http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/02/military-ron-paul-gets-most-military-donations-020912w/

      Report Post » BilderbergBeck12  
    • DesertPaine
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 9:37pm

      @Moose, I’m with you re: posting problems here. It happens often. I’ll hope that you take the time to post again.

      Two points. First, I applaud you for making a case. Understand the dichotomy with which I deal far too often: military people who spend two or three decades conditioning, testing, perfecting their craft; i.e; their second duty. But who, in that time, gave minutes or perhaps hours to their primary duty. If all military members spent the exam time you appear to have done, the nation would be far different.

      That said, there are red flags in your bulleted response. Congressional authorizations are not declarations of war, and invoke entirely different legal and warfare conditions. SCOTUS has opined on these statutory distinctions, but at no time since the Prize Cases have they opined directly on the Constitutional questions of modern wars. Finally, I do not know what a contingent declaration of war is, but look forward to hearing about it. Overall, my immediate reaction is that these sorts or arguments sway from the Constitutional fundamental of restricting govt, not of finding a way to authorize its expansion.

      I’ll check tomorrow and hope to see you here.

      Report Post »  
    • soybomb315
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 9:47pm

      Time2
      Just because someone disagrees with you – it does not make them evil. A LOT of people think the our military adventures are financed with debt and inflation, does that mean we are anti-military??? We have great americans in uniform but that does not cover up the fact that they have to do whatever our corrupt polticians and bureaucrats tell them to do. You have to square with that at some point or another

      Report Post » soybomb315  
    • TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 10:07pm

      Will try again and put thoughts into smaller bites…

      Attempts by Ron Paul to build his political power base by criticizing the wars may be good politics for a certain element of Americans. But doing so by erroneously calling the wars illegal was/is an attempt to build his base at the expense of the honor of our troops. That is highly insulting. The left tends to do the same thing. That is wrong. Our veterans are neither criminals nor dishonorable for having served.

      Let me be clear… Ron Paul is not just making a claim that the wars are ill advised. Time after time Paul has demanded an end to the “illegal” wars. He believed the wars were/are illegal because the Congressional authorization for them did not actually say “declaration of war.” His argument is historically and factually inaccurate. It belies a profound ignorance of Military culture and history from someone who would want to be Commander in Chief of our great Military. After all, the Military courts of every Branch of Service as well as the U.S. Supreme Court have held the wars to be legal. And so they were/are.

      Will attempt to continue….

      Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12  
    • TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 10:38pm

      DESERT. The posting nonsense continues…

      Tried twice more to finish thoughts/comments regarding Congressional authorizations for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan constituting a type of declaration of war known as a “contingent” or “conditional” declaration” but it ain‘t happining for some reason and it’s very frustrating…

      BILDERBUILDERBURGER… or whatever. Have never seen any posts from you before but you act as though we have some sort of history together? I’m thinking you are a retread with multiple accounts… eh? Strength in numbers right? Pffft…

      Will see if I have time in morning….

      Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12  
    • soybomb315
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 10:52pm

      Time2
      So your case rests on your opinion that the wars are constitutional and anyone who thinks otherwise is anti-military? We havent had a formal declaration of war since WWII (although we have fought at least 6). It just so happens that the constitution has been completely ignored by other branches of government during that time. So you think the people in power from 1950-2012 have fought wars in a constitutional manner – while the majority of the things they do domestically is unconstitutional?

      I’m trying to understand why you have such faith in our politicians over the last 50 years….

      Report Post » soybomb315  
    • BilderbergBeck12
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 11:09pm

      Lol what a smart guy. Now if you wanna dance your way around your support for wars that were declared illegally then be my guest. But the second you think that because I want to follow the constutition and have wars decleared by the congress I am somehow a threat to the conservative movement is when I will call your load of BS and send it right back to you. You dont like Paul fine. But he served his time in the military (oh yeah you discredit him there also) He is a voice of the patriot movement. So keep dancing old man.

      Report Post » BilderbergBeck12  
    • TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 5:21am

      SOY. Sorry. Had problems posting a comment to you also last night, but am trying again quickly. As you may have seen in my first retort to DESERT I did in fact acknowledge…

      “I can sypathize and even agree with the premise to a certain extent but…”

      Not trying to leave you a sound-bite comment, and not trying to carry the water for the politicians who have or will send our Military to war Constitutionally or not, but there is a flip side to the coin or rational IMO. The anti-war crowd (ahem, sorry… Constitutional experts here) see it one way (the only way in their minds)… and then there are we (me) who might explain it another way…

      Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12  
    • TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 5:53am

      DESERT. Again… I try at great length to put my thoughts regarding the “contingent” and “conditional” declarations and how the Founders would be very familiar with this just as they are intimately with the Constitution… but alas, I must be getting too technical for the topic here and it’s denying me any further explaination, lol. I can‘t seem to get my thoughts out without going the distance regarding 1500 word limitation and maybe that’s the problem who knows? What I do know is that I’m tired of trying at this point and not happy about it.

      I will be gone until this evening… maybe if you catch me on another related topic… we can continue? Or heck… any topic where you may see me posting. It’s nothing new to go “off topic” here on The Blaze at any given time…. lol.

      Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12  
    • DesertPaine
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 8:44am

      @Time. I agree; this is not the forum for this discourse. Another time, another place, for such a cogent discussion that really does have two arguable sides amongst those who understand the nuanced, but vital, differences. That said, a couple of brief points. Firstly, you’d surely agree that while 100% of military take action on their oath commitment to follow orders, not even 1% could think out a position as you have done. Secondly, whilst this discussion distilled to one question, the oath commitment to ‘protect and defend’ extends to the entire charter. Regarding your Ron Paul antipathy, that examination would have to first begin w US Const Art I, Cl 8 Sec 5 and related monetary provisions to which you already eluded. Much more complex, but also much less defensible. But that is just a start. Briefly, if ret., vets, active duty can look at BO (and others who got us here) and understand organically that the nation has strayed far, far from foundations — and each of those groups remain silent on grievance to ANY Const impairment, then the high-bar oath each took voluntarily, and which forms our FIRST duty, fails. To those who argue that the commitment is too high of a standard, I ask what would happen if they made the same compromises to other oaths of their lives – and why they believe that the consequences of failure are any different. // THX @Time. I’m heartened to see a Ret paying attn, not quipping platitudes.

      Report Post »  
    • BilderbergBeck12
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 7:48pm

      Lol

      Report Post » BilderbergBeck12  
  • truecolorpatriot
    Posted on June 5, 2012 at 6:30pm

    Remember, if you don“t have people to ”protect you” like the Military / State Patrol / Country Sheriff / City Police….then it will be all out Wild West and Civil War…everyone will sleep at night with a rifle / shot gun / or pistol in hand.

    Report Post »  
    • lukerw
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 6:50pm

      So… you do not… because you trust everyone?

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • Soothsayer
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 8:30pm

      I toss and turn too much to keep them in hand.
      Ruger SR40 under the pillow.
      Mossy 500 in the hall closet.
      Stag .223 in the bedroom closet.
      And that’s just the LOADED ones.

      Report Post »  
  • Brian Williams
    Posted on June 5, 2012 at 5:47pm

    I am totally against what the military is doing in the middle east, but I am totally for our men and women in the military. This piece seems like propaganda. The military will become unpopular if they decide to come against American citizens.

    Report Post »  
    • shogun459
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 6:09pm

      You can’t do both. You’re just trying to have it both ways. Our troops are the job they are doing. You cut funding for the War you find distastful and that gets our people DEAD. Then you say you support them, You’re only fooling yourself.

      Report Post » shogun459  
    • AustinMilbarge
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 6:26pm

      A soldiers mission is everything to them. It’s what they do, it‘s what they’re about. You don‘t support the mission you don’t support them. Ask any soldier.

      Report Post »  
    • thewatcher93
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 6:52pm

      You are under the impression that the military actually decided they wanted to go there.

      Report Post »  
    • moose8684
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 7:31pm

      You can’t do both? No, what you can’t do is say you support our troops, and then send them to some God forsaken sand pit for 10 years with nobody to fight. Our guys have been riding around in Iraq and Afghanistan for 10 years, the enemy knows who they are, but they don’t know who the enemy is. If you truly support our troops then insist that war is declared by Congress before we send them off to die.

      Report Post »  
  • RLTW
    Posted on June 5, 2012 at 5:43pm

    “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; may your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countryman.”

    Samuel Adams

    Report Post »  
  • BobfromTN
    Posted on June 5, 2012 at 5:30pm

    As a country, we are not anti-millitary…we are war-weary. I do not begrudge or look down on everyday soldiers for their service. But, not wanting to occupy countries, killing civilians with robots and threatening to involve ourselves in civil wars-to some-makes me dislike the military or somehow makes me anti-American.

    Report Post »  
  • DesertPaine
    Posted on June 5, 2012 at 5:28pm

    Beck is right on POTUS of course, as goes without saying. But the article goes too far. The military’s “pledged mission” is to protect and defend the Constitution….from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Does anyone want to honestly say that military members meet this “pledged mission”? The large majority have never read the charter, the vast majority have never read it twice, and almost all haven’t too much of an idea of anything past its most basic tenets. An unpopular observation, but an important one. There aren’t many things worth fighting for in the world that survive assault when protectors do not know what they are protecting.

    Speaking of military oaths, here’s a scary recollection: Just about the first action of alleged POTUS was to float a trial balloon (lead, as it turned out!) to replace the oath to protect and defend the Constitution with a personal loyalty oath to him. Whew!

    Report Post »  
    • shogun459
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 6:11pm

      Nice say you support our troops and then go on to say how uneducated they are, as I remember the Charter as you call it is the Oath that the soldier has to memorize you shmuck.

      Report Post » shogun459  
    • Halo9x
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 6:21pm

      I’m sorry you have a low opinion of what our men and women know about the Constitution. I served for 21+ years in the Navy and while I could not quote it like you apparently can I knew what I was talking about when I raised my right hand. I’m also dismayed that you think anyone beyond a few would ever take an oath involving personal loyalty to Obama or any President!

      Report Post »  
    • DesertPaine
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 6:25pm

      Yes, I support the troops. Yes, they are uneducated about their Oath of Enlistment or their commissioning Oath. Run-on sentence from you, and then name-calling. Military members do memorize things like General Orders, but I am unaware of any service that requires memorizing their Oath as you state. I cannot recall ever meeting a military member who has. Other than your seeming to feel better for name-calling, you offer no substantive support or refutation of the observations. However, if you do have a different experience than do I, and have been in a situation where military members do indeed know the Constitution of their pledge inside and out, it’d be useful information for all of us.

      Report Post »  
    • DesertPaine
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 6:45pm

      @halo09x – I offer no opinion, just observations. I’m glad that you did 21 years USN and I appreciate it. Regarding the question at hand, I taught Constitutionally-based NCPACE US History coursework for fifteen years. Sixty-two deployments, several hundred course sections. Over that time, 6% of sailors came to coursework stating they had read USC in its entirely. Amongst sailors, CPO mess and wardroom, 1% had read it through more than once. Like you, a high percentage believed they knew, protected and enforced the Charter. Examples of this included 88% who believed that USC guaranteed equality and 77% who believed that free speech did not include language that offended them. &c &c &c. Less than half – 48% – could identify the century in which USC was born. Less than one third knew that the original charter protected slavery and far fewer could say why. Few understood the difference between civil liberties and civil rights, and the rest believed that civil rights were giving in the original charter.

      This isn’t to pick on USN halo09x, and I’m sure that you did much better than the numbers. Thanks again for your service, halo.

      Report Post »  
    • Bill Rowland
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 7:36pm

      I spent 23 years in the military and know the oath and took it (and still take it) very seriously. I have a grandson who just got out ot the 101st and a Grand Nephew who just got out of the USMC. Either of them can tell you what the oath says and what it means to them.
      They would never take an oath to an individual (POTUS or Emporer) and are not fond of our current President. According to both the military loathes Sweet Old Barrack and thinks he is uneducated where the military is concerned.

      OMG Nov 6,2012

      Report Post »  
    • taxpro4u03
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 7:59pm

      @Shogun 459 — Most have memorized the ABC‘s and 123’s also — but it appears moot when lQQking at the fuzzy D.C. math and the ‘empty’ promises — since say, I dunno — 1791-ish? ALL political ‘parties’. ;-) Just sayin’ ———> http://www.apfn.org/apfn/bcolony.htm

      Report Post »  
  • Knot4u2no
    Posted on June 5, 2012 at 5:23pm

    So what’s new under the sun? I was a Viet Nam era medical service officer entering graduate school … as naive as can be related to bias against the military. I had no concept of “politically correct” academia. It took me years to figure out what happened. I was so ignorant that I thought all students were treated equally and critical thinking skills would be appreciated. Now I prefer sour grapes … unless there is wine.

    Report Post » Knot4u2no  
  • saranda
    Posted on June 5, 2012 at 5:04pm

    The real problem is not that people are anti military. The problem is that the white knuckle grip many on the right have towards not allowing any cuts to the military has resulted in many many many instances of waste within military spending to justify the budgets. Our military budget is bloated and needs to be treated the same as any and all departments that need to be cut. We have bases in countries that do not even want us there and that is just the start.

    Report Post »  
    • RLTW
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 5:53pm

      You write of waste without knowing you’re a—from a hole in the ground when it comes to the military.

      Let me ask you a couple of questions: 1. Is it cheaper to maintain a car over its life or buy a new one?
      2. When your car runs out of gas do you buy a new one?

      Cut the military at your own peril, every time we do something happens and it costs 4X’s as much to bring it back.

      Report Post »  
    • moose8684
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 7:37pm

      When have we ever cut the military and had to spend 4x to get it back? How about we start trimming the DOD budget by eliminating ALL defense contractors? There is no reason to send mercenaries back into Iraq and pay them $120,000 a year just so we can say there are no combat troops in Iraq? Why do we need to pay DOD contractors 3-4X what our military men and women make to do the same jobs? We could cut the DOD budget by 25% and lose nothing, and if you disagree then you were obviously never in the military.

      Report Post »  
    • RLTW
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 8:35pm

      Moose

      The so called mercenary contractors are paid by the state department, not the DOD, so different pots of money.
      You ask when we paid 4X to rebuild the military 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, and 08. I retired in 06, I was around during Clinton when it required 2 helicopters to make 1, or 3 vehicles to make 1. This was all done by a liberal in the WH and a R controlled congress, this is not a matter of L/R it’s a matter of doing one of the few things required by the Constitution.

      protect the people

      Report Post »  
  • Locked
    Posted on June 5, 2012 at 4:54pm

    “We will have to make tough decisions about defense spending … even on programs that I like.”

    —United States President Barack Hussein Obama
    Twitter Town Hall event, July 2011

    Why was the full quote not used? As is, it makes no sense. The actual quote says “or” instead of the ellipses. “We will have to make tough decisions about Defense spending, or even on programs that I like.” The real quote is even worse than what was written here and better makes the case of the author that Obama doesn’t like the military. I’m honestly not sure why it was truncated.

    Report Post »  
  • Watermain
    Posted on June 5, 2012 at 4:51pm

    As a Vietnam Veteran it makes me sick every time this president is shown in the company of American heroes in the service of our great country. What an insult to all of our fighting men.

    Report Post » Watermain  
    • Brian Williams
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 5:50pm

      Very Well Said!!!

      Report Post »  
    • AustinMilbarge
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 6:42pm

      I feel the same way! I many of us feel that way. My brother did three tours in Iraq, winning two Bronze Stars w/ V, before he was wounded in combat at 47 years old. He can’t stand Obama (or the left) and can’t stand seeing him with the troops either! Thanks for YOUR service!!

      Report Post »  
  • 4GODUSAANDISRAEL
    Posted on June 5, 2012 at 4:38pm

    Personally, I think we need to Amend the description of who can be president. I fully believe that the Commander-in-Chief, should have at least 4 years military background. Obama has no knowledge or training in the arena of war or military, he has no right sending our troops to fight and die for something he doesn’t even understand and never could. sure he has generals keeping him up to date and giving him advice, but go ask general petreus just how often he actually listens to the advice coming from the people who actually do know what’s best for our troops.

    Report Post » 4GODUSAANDISRAEL  
    • WakingSheep
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 4:52pm

      And which presidential candidate has military experience?
      Also, which presidential candidate recieved the most money from active duty military?

      Report Post »  
    • 4GODUSAANDISRAEL
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 5:07pm

      where did i say romney would be better because of his lack of experience? And there’s still currently 2 candidates with military back ground, Ron paul USAF,and Vern wuensche USAR, I don’t think Romney is fit to lead our military either, but unlike this current POTUS, at least romney would support our military.

      Report Post » 4GODUSAANDISRAEL  
    • 4GODUSAANDISRAEL
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 5:19pm

      As far as who’s getting the most donations from active military for their campaigns? Ron Paul overwhelmingly, followed by Romney then obummer.

      Report Post » 4GODUSAANDISRAEL  
  • RightUnite
    Posted on June 5, 2012 at 4:34pm

    Oh please spare me… Name one Military program that Obama likes! What a bunch of hooey!

    Report Post »  

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love