Duty, Honor, Country 2007


An Open Letter to the New Generation of Military Officers Serving and Protecting Our Nation
By Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret., National Commander, The Patriots


"Our oath of office is to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Might I suggest that this includes a rogue president and vice-president? Certainly we are bound to carry out the legal orders of our superiors. But the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which binds all of us enshrines the Nuremberg Principles which this country established after World War II (which you are too young to remember). One of those Nuremberg Principles says that we in the military have not only the right, but also the DUTY to refuse an illegal order. It was on this basis that we executed Nazi officers who were "only carrying out their orders."

The Constitution which we are sworn to uphold says that treaties entered into by the United States are the "highest law of the land," equivalent to the Constitution itself. Accordingly, we in the military are sworn to uphold treaty law, including the United Nations charter and the Geneva Convention.

Based on the above, I contend that should some civilian order you to initiate a nuclear attack on Iran (for example), you are duty-bound to refuse that order. I might also suggest that you should consider whether the circumstances demand that you arrest whoever gave the order as a war criminal.

I know for a fact that in recent history (once under Nixon and once under Reagan), the military nuclear chain of command in the White House discussed these things and were prepared to refuse an order to "nuke Russia ." In effect they took the (non-existent) "button" out of the hands of the President.. We were thus never quite as close to World War III as many feared, no matter how irrational any president might have become. They determined that the proper response to any such order was, "Why, sir?" Unless there was (in their words) a "damn good answer," nothing was going to happen.

I suggest that if you in this generation have not had such a discussion, perhaps it is time you do."

New Rule - 9/15/07

If anyone watches Real Time with Bill Maher, last night's show included (for the first time) a message to bloggers who have asked him repeatedly to bring up the subject of 9/11 Truth on his show. Anyone who watches RT on a regular basis knows that Maher does not believe in the alternate theories concerning 9/11, and has taken pot shots at guests who have brought up the inconsistencies in the story.

Last time in the "New Rules" segment of the show, he addressed us by calling us "naive", "lunatics", and that we need to ask our doctors if Paxil is right for us. Entitled "Conspiracy Weary", he gets his facts wrong (like stating that the towers were on fire for 2 hours, that of course planes and burning jet fuel were the obvious reasons why the towers collapsed, never mentioning (of course) Building 7, the Pentagon, or the lack of debris at Shanksville, because that would have ruined his joke.

I think it's time Maher got some mail from us regarding his lack of understanding of PNAC, the alleged War on Terror and the fairy tale he seems to be clinging to for dear life.

Here are some contact emails:


If anyone can find out the production company that produces "Real Time", that would be another contact point as well.

Here's the video from RT: the conspiracy rant begins at 6:35.