Total Pageviews

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Shoot to thrill?

Brought to light by a few comments on previous post, I pose a delicate dilemma. As a citizen soldier, that also served several years on the active duty side of the fence, I have taken both oaths to serve my country, and to serve my state. In both cases I have sworn to protect the Constitutions of the United States of America, and the wonderful state of Colorado. Now those documents sometimes come in conflict with each. Being a citizen soldier I have the unique ability to offer my loyalty to my state first and my country second. Though we have times when we are on federal orders, and therefore working directly for the federal government.

Now there are issues that we can discuss on either side of that fence that might require defense from enemies both foreign and domestic. Some would say there are several violations that are written into law. Starting with the existing tax code, but by no means limited to that. We have to seriously look at what people have done through out the history of our nation, and in that I am sure you will not have to look much further then the comment box of this and other post to see what others have to offer in this regard. That however is not the purpose of this post. The purpose is to clarify how far I am willing to go to support my pledge that I gave of my own free will, and how far I would be willing to go to stand by that conviction.

As stated in a couple of post before this, there are people concerned that the US military will be used inside its own borders. I am not talking about that whole Penn state type of use either. We are talking about a state of martial law to support or protect the current government. So where do I stand on this, and where is the stance of members of the military? Well I will not pretend to speak for others but I will speak for myself. I take my oath, and all the other oaths I have made in my life very serious. I do what I promised I would do. So if it comes to the wire and I have to draw a weapon on an American citizen I would do so if the orders were indeed lawful.

That is the key, lawful orders. I have a certain trust in my leadership, that a soldier must have in order to perform their job to begin with. That trust extends to them preforming their due diligence and looking to understand and support the orders they give. If I ask are they sure this is a lawful order they received and in turn passed down to me, I have that trust that they have done their home work. This trust is not blind, but it is necessary, and goes beyond being deployed in our borders. Police are expected to perform those duties day in and day out. Seriously I have major respect for a guy that can willfully pull his weapon on a civilian and shoot if need be. It is hard enough to draw done on some asshole in a foreign country that is a clear enemy. Its harder when you are dealing with people that live in your backyard.

As a soldier there is much more thought to things then people thing. It is not all simple knuckle dragging. We just think about things with a different view point and have different priorities. There are things that we hold more sacred and precious then life. This is why we put our life on the line to protect an idea, and an old piece of paper. Now I am in no way speaking for every soldier I know, but this is how I feel through and through. I see many military members that once they are retired or get out of service still pursue civil service in one way or another. They do this as cops, firefighters, or dare I say politicians. While they no longer collect a DOD paycheck they still seem to carry that oath that made before the headed off to boot.

So in response to if I would draw and fire on American civilians, if those civilians are a threat to the Constitution that warrants the use of deadly force then yes. Would I draw and fire on members of my own government, if the same situation applied, yes. Would I like it, hell no. We do a lot of things we don't like though, living in a tent in the Iraqi desert is not exactly camping. Do I see that happening any time soon though, no, and I hope I never see it. You see there are groups out there trying to pick a fight, and they want to see these issues resolved in blood, but most of them have never seen blood. You see our system can correct itself if our voices are heard loud enough. We could solve 90% of issues with this country with one amendment and not have to even think about shedding blood. One amendment taking the money out of politics, and poof shit gets fixed. This is why I choose to defend the Constitution, because it is a self correcting document. Trouble is everybody is trying to use that damn autocorrect and we know how fucked up that can be.

So am I ready to fight this never ending war on stupid, yes. I will not take a stance or side without thought. I will continue to trust the judgment of the officers appointed above me, and I will continue to offer them my thoughts and question things that need to be questioned. I will do my job, I am just hopeful that people will do their jobs as citizens and use their voice with votes and get shit fixed without having to cross that line between hard and retard. Seriously people this shit can get fixed, and it can get fixed if we read the Constitution, and protect it.


  1. I find it interesting that your line is drawn at LAWFUL. Not correct, or right, but at lawful. You'd be willing to take a morally incorrect action to uphold the law? If the law is immoral or incorrect you'd still stand on the side of law as opposed to the side of right? Is your oath worth as much when it is being invoked to protect something that is harming others (Either government or civilian)? What if that which you are protecting which is harming others is legally correct? What if there is suddenly a law passed, voted on by the entire nation, that allows the next president to put people into a wood chipper to ensure the correct behavior of the citizens? What then? Do you fight to protect the people who don't want to live under that regime? Or do you fight to protect the government who legally has the right to put people into a wood chipper?

    All of those are subjective, and none of them are asked out of judgement. Simply an active interest in where that line is for you. Everyone draws one, and everyone has their own set of criteria with which to do so. I just like seeing how far the line goes, how movable it is. At what point does upholding an oath become harmful to yourself.

  2. Critter, I have found that right and wrong are a matter of perspective. That is an individual reflection of a persons morality. My right could easily be your wrong, and I find that to be truthful in most cases of my life. The law though is the collective right and wrong. If you find a law to be wrong in your eyes you can fight to have it changed, but if you find something wrong I would be hard pressed to enact a real change in your view. The concepts of good and bad are subjective, but the law is the law.

  3. As for the oath being harmful to myself, well let me ask you how harmful would it be for a person to die in service of their country or state? So I say that line goes pretty far. My oath has caused strain on most every relationship I have ever had.

    As for a regime that can put people in a wood-chipper, well read the Constitution and see if there would ever be a situation that such a regime would or could be perceived as Constitutional. Hence where the lawful is much more applicable then the simple perception of good or bad.

  4. Brother, I don't think most of the people calling for revolution (and I admit to reposting a certain picture or 2 ) truly understand what that means, in terms of being on the other side of a potentially deadly line from their neighbor, the civil servant or soldier. Blood would be spilled, bonds would be broken. And I agree with working within the confines of the established laws/ammendments to effect change. Our system is built on laws and procedures, not on morals and right/wrong judgment calls. Yes, there are morals mentioned, and often even addressed, but the foundation of our country is built on these laws and amendments. Working within those laws and amendments to effect the change needed is the best way to rebuild the system. Even the occupy movement is using the existing laws to make their desires known and discontent heard, so that they can attempt change.
    I'm not sure I could say whether I would stand in your position, were I a soldier. Having small children changes the fabric of many things, including what I would do to protect their safety. Were my children not a factor, I would stand beside you, obeying lawful orders, but not liking it.although, I would likely end up with way more kp, because I tend to question orders....a lot :)

  5. 4096 characters Pffft!

    This post is not to bitch and moan, it is to try and open eyes to the happenings over the past few years. Over the past few years I have researched and used other people’s research to find the truth about things for myself. It is to point out that LAWFUL orders are impossible when the laws are Unconstitutional in the first place. Let it be known that it is a felony and federal crime to violate, or deprive citizens of their Constitutionally protected rights. The decision to stand up and DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION over Unconstitutional laws will most undoubtedly separate the Men from the boys. Freedoms MUST be defended as they can NOT defend themselves.

    First let me point out a few little know Acts. I will start with:
    The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (18 USC ss1385).
    This act was to limit the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies from using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land. It requires that any orders to do so must originate with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress. This Act only addresses the US Army and the US Air Force and does not refer to units of the National Guard (State Controlled). What about the Navy and Marine Corps, well they are prohibited by a Department of Defense directive from deploying within the US (self-regulation) and not by the Act itself. It DOES allow for the use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis (Katrina, Hugo and so on). It has been 120 years since that Act was instituted and just as long since American Troops have been deployed INSIDE the CONUS.

    In 2008 the 1st BCT - 3rd ID was deployed WITH Homeland Security and was under US Army North, a unit established in 2002 (six YEARS before). The 1st BCT was officially called Consequence Management Response Force or CCMRF. So from 1878 until this blatant violation of the Act, it was followed.

    Let’s move to the:
    Defense Authorization Act of 2006 that was passed on 30 September 2006.
    It empowered the President to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist “incident,” if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of “public order,” or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations. Furthermore, section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from “Insurrection Act” to “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” Basically put, The Insurrection Act of 1807 allowed the president to deploy troops within the United States only: “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” (NOTE the word CONSPIRACY). The new law (2007) expands the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition” (OTHER “CONDITION” - is NOT defined).

    Now, the 2012 NDAA (and the 2006/7 Acts) has paved the way for this original Act to be gutted and thrown out so that the Corporation known as THE UNITED STATES can protect itself from those that want it to stop its abuse of powers. This was reported in the US Army Times for those that want to research it.

  6. Being called the Federal Government and being “in control“, makes not the right choice by default. Over many posts, I have shown numerous times how they have abused and continue to abuse power. The same powers that are supposed to be STATE powers, GUARANTEED by the same Constitution you (I and many others) have sworn to protect and DEFEND. The difference here, is that you (and others) are still sworn to defend it and are under CONTRACT to do so with the Federal Corporation (THE UNITED STATES). Me on the other hand, my eyes have been opened and I can see and understand that they can NOT give a lawful order under the guise of merely protecting their own asses and measly jobs. Many order they give are in violation of the Constitution that you have sworn to defend (both Federal AND STATE). The Colorado State Legislature in the passage of the Drivers License statutes have in FACT violated my Federal and STATE Constitutional rights to travel freely. There are THOUSANDS of law enforcement officials in Colorado that have sworn to uphold and DEFEND the Constitutions, YET, they CONTINUE to toss that oath out every time they write a citation to someone without a driver’s license, registration or insurance and opt to UPHOLD AND DEFEND STATE LAW over the Constitution. (Yes people, I have already proven this on other posts as well)

    You say it is not simple knuckle dragging and you are right, it is much more than that. It is COURAGE to stand up and DEFEND what is Constitutional. It is NOT a matter of right or wrong - it is a matter of Constitutional and Unconstitutional. It is NOT a matter of lawful or unlawful - it is a matter of Constitutional and Unconstitutional. As an Agent for the Federal Corporation, I can GUARANTEE you that 9 out of 10 Officers and NCOs have NO CLUE as to constitutional or Unconstitutional. These 9 out of 10 officers and NCOs are more interested in LAWFULL and unlawful. Your OATH is not to defend the LAWS of the united states, it is to defend the CONSTITUTION for the United States. From the Constitution you get the laws and those laws are either Constitutional or Unconstitutional. So you are in fact right, it is much more than knuckle dragging.

    Making an Amendment to take money out of politics wont change anything, this country has to go back to what WORKED. What worked was prior to the Tax code. Money has ALWAYS been in politics. Money has always and will FOREVER drive men to do more with less and do more for themselves. Money has not corrupted politics, unconstitutional power has. Power gained by the ignorance of those governed; Power gained by those that don’t care how they are governed; Power gained through deception and coercion; Power gained by none other than the sword that defends it.

  7. As I read your sentence Jesse, it scares me to think that you have drawn your line already.
    “ I will do my job, I am just hopeful that people will do their jobs as citizens and use their voice with votes and get shit fixed without having to cross that line between hard and retard. Seriously people this shit can get fixed, and it can get fixed if we read the Constitution, and protect it.”
    These “retards” are the ones who started telling us YEARS AGO about everything that is coming to pass now. We called them Conspiracy Theorist and “retards” among other things, yet we are now turning to them for answers on how to fix things. The problem Jesse, is that more and more people ARE doing what you want them to do and READING the Constitution. They are getting EDUCATED and the Federal Corporation does NOT like it so it is making UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws that will confine those of us getting an education and those of us that are starting to DEFEND the very Constitution we LOVE and HONOR.

    To EVERYONE --- The day you pick up a weapon and point it at a Citizen of Colorado (or any other state) inside the CONUS and squeeze the trigger, you have in fact drawn the line to support the Federal Corporation and legal entity known as THE UNITED STATES. You have furthermore at that point, made the decision to continue down the Unconstitutional line and defend the LAW over the Constitution and in fact picked the wrong side. More than likely, you will be on the winning side but you are on the WRONG side and everyone will know what type of person you are. You will FOREVER be known as a sell out.

    I shall carry with me to the grave the most grateful recollections of your kind consideration and your name and fame will always be dear to me. Save for defense of my native state, I never desire again to draw my sword.
    Robert E. Lee to General Winfield Scott

    Robert Edward Lee was the son of Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee III who was a Revolutionary War Officer, 9th Governor of Virginia and Representative to Congress. For Robert E. Lee to leave the Union and fight for his native state of Virginia and therefore Confederacy, there had to be a pressing reason. That reason was the CONSTITUTION. If Robert E. Lee could fight for the Constitution and potentially rip apart the very country that his father helped fight to get instituted , that Document MUST BE worth Defending.

    He is quoted in a letter to his son G.W Curtis Lee as saying:
    “I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honour for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force.”
    He despised slavery and that is shown in a letter to his wife Mary Anne Lee when he said:
    “In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically.”

  8. He is also quoted as saying:
    “So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.”

    WOW, the Commanding General of the ENTIRE Confederate forces was against slavery, yet he fought for the South. Right -v Wrong - Constitutional -v Unconstitutional - Legal -v Illegal. You want to know the REAL reason General Robert E. Lee fought against the North? Let him tell you:
    “I have fought against the people of the North because I believed they were seeking to wrest from the South its dearest rights. But I have never cherished toward them bitter or vindictive feelings, and have never seen the day when I did not pray for them.”
    And Jesse, this one is for you BROTHER…
    “Obedience to lawful authority is the foundation of manly character.”

    I follow in his footsteps in that my family ancestors, John White-Paul, John Paul and John Paul (Jones) from Scotland also fought for America during the Revolutionary War. My willingness to DEFEND the Constitution is what my ancestor Richard Paule came to America in 1638 searching for, FREEDOM.

  9. Mike, you have me in agreement. Lawful does not always mean right, and I am all for state rights. The lines that would be drawn if it came up would be interesting to say the least. If I had to say where I would be on this, right now I am under oath to protect the state of Colorado as a member of the National Guard. When under federal orders my oath of enlistment is still to the state of Colorado. I agree that there are a lot of laws that could be viewed as unconstitutional, and they should be reviewed. The trouble is right now they will not be reviewed because those in power are motivated self preservation so they like things the way they are. Hence the need for an amendment that would remove the money from the equation. That also a slim possibility of even being proposed based on the same issue of self preservation.

  10. So. Many. Capitalized. Words. After a while I just started reading those. Sadly they weren't an awesome code.

    As a preface for the questions in my first post, since there is a reason that this blog is what made my mind churn and not any of the others he has written recently along the same lines:

    I have one piece of advice that I give to everyone. It fits in any situation. It is this: Do what you need to do to be able to look yourself in the eye the next day and honestly say, "I'm all right." That being said, I know where my lines are drawn. They are drawn, now and always, at my personal morals-- which, while they differ from the average norm, they are fairly set in stone. This line drawing is one of the many reasons why the military doesn't particularly want me. I don't mind defending my country. I do mind doing so at the expense of my integrity. Read as, I will die to protect my country, my family, my freedom, and the freedom of those I care about. I will not die to kill that poor innocent guy over there, to protect a monetary venture, because you told me to, or really for any reason that is IMO incorrect. I will not follow an order that I believe to be wrong. Period. I don't care who's giving it or why. This is not a quality that our military services want. Add to it the inability to do what I wanted to do within the armed forces since my eye sight is craptastic, and I am staying a well educated civilian.

    Being a well educated civilian means that I have to do my duty to my country in other ways. I believe we all have a duty to do. One of the most important ways I do that duty, in my opinion, is voting, and voting in an educated manner. Not voting party line because it's party line, but voting the way you believe is correct. In order to do that, you need to know who is running, how they've actually voted versus what they talk about on television, what issues they're backing, and who's money is backing them. You need to educate yourself on their politics. Really you just need to educate yourself on YOUR politics. I think that's important.

    Having said that, I was researching candidates and I ran across a page bitching about Obama. This led me further down the path of NDAA. This led to the realization that in signing that bill it allows the military to detain American citizens indefinitely without due process or any form of justice. Something our Constitution doesn't allow. This led to the question of line drawing.

    I don't expect anyone else to accept, follow, or agree with my line of thinking. I am content that they don't. We wouldn't have a military if more people did. It's just interesting to see where other people have drawn their lines.

  11. Critter you are a week behind on the 2012 NDAA as I have been telling people about that since the second Obama signed it into law. Just to be clear, it doesn't allow the military to detain Americans, it allows the military to detain anyone that is a threat or poses a threat, anyone who has or plans to engage in terroist activity. That is why it is so dangerous. It does not spell out nor does it define who that person is. So in the broad reachings of the government, that could be all of us on this thread.

    See, that paragraph had no MEAT to it without the caps. I dont do it to yell, because none READS in yelling. I do it to emphasize a word because there are no bolds, italics or underlines here. Caps is a great way for people to know a word means something in the phraseology of something as well. :)

    You are wrong with your military thinking too. Even as long ago as 1995 when I was getting out, the Marine Corps was wanting a more educated Marine. They wanted us to question illegal orders and not blindly follow lawfull orders. They wanted us to know WHY we were doing something. Then again, the American military is a different animal than that of most countries. Dont get me wrong, I am not saying question everything all the time, but to ask why and be informed on the whys of why you are doing it. I saw that change in the Marine Corps start around 1990-1991 and personally think it is a good change. It never lead to the junior Marines questioning much because they had FAITH that the senior Marines knew what we were talking about and ordering them to do. They would however, question the orders that seams a little to far out there if you know what I mean... I can NOT speak for the other branches, but that is what I saw in the Marines.

    Thew problem with our laws is that they are (mostly) based on the Morals and Ethics of the majority. Just because something is lawful according to the law as written, doesnt make it right for my morals. Again, I take you to the DL issue. The Federal Constitution says one thing, the state laws say another, yet the Supreme Court has ruled against the state laws. Yet the state laws are still on the books. WHY, because they are morally acceptable to those that dont know any better and they generate revenue for the state. The Federal Constitution AND Supreme Court both trump state laws and the Constitution says the Supreme Court is the "Law of the Land" so when it goes to court, the junior corts will side withthe supreme court every time. We still win in the end.

    You can also use the Posse Act of 1878 for this argument. That was a law written to limit the use of Federal Troops in the CONUS. However, over the years it has been rewritten and reworded so that its original meaning is lost. The 2012 NDAA was the final straw on that Act as "anyone" can now be arrested and held without charge. The Federal Constitution in Art I, Sec 9, Clause 2 - Prohibits the suspension of Habeas Corpus (unlawful restraint) this meaning, you have to be told WHY you are being arrested. Well, with the passage of the 2006 and 2007 NDAA Acts and now the final cog on the wheel with the passage of the 2012 NDAA, ANYONE can now be held without charge or trial for as long as they see fit if you pose a threat to the United States. Just because those laws are written, does it make them Constitutional. OK, one can say that Habeas Corpus can be lifted in time of rebellion or invasion or the public safety may require it according to that Clause. We have NOT been invaded, we are not yet in rebellion and public safety does not require it. We have not had a single terrorist act in America for over 10 years. So why then are we still under the War Powers Act? Ill tell you, so that Habeas Corpus CAN be suspended and the Corporation CAN control the masses. :)

  12. With all this being said, even if something is NOT illegal, but it goes against my morals or ethics, I will more than likely (99.9%)NOT do it (there is always an exception to the rule). The only thing someone else can NOT TAKE from you are your morals and ethics, everything else can be taken. You have to give your morals and ethics up of your own free will through your decisions. Just remember, once you give them up once, you can NEVER return to what you were before you gave them up.

    Because I feel I have a firm grasp on what I beleive to be Constitutional and morally right according to ME, I want to be clear here -
    My line(s) are to defend my family and loved ones FIRST and foremost and I will do it according to the laws of the land that are CONSTITUTIONAL.
    Secondly I will defend the Constitution (Federal and State) against all enemies that wish to do it harm or choose to follow the Corporation on the current path it is on.., for without these documents we have NO BASIS for civilization.
    Thirdly - I will call anyone BROTHER that wishes to do the same and will serve so that others may live the dream.

    Will others spell out their lines.

  13. I'm totally down for your capped words. Beyond being sad that they don't secretly spell out anything cool, they don't bother me. Just an awful lot of them and I have to force myself to read normally because I want them to say something. I'm a nerd like that.

    *Laughs* I do know that marine doesn't actually stand for muscles are required intelligence not expected. I promise you that I'm not being facetious when I say that the military doesn't want me. Beyond the fact that both my parents were military, my grandparents on both sides male and female were military, all four of my uncles on my father's side, most of my siblings (I seem to have caused some sort of terrible disruption, as it is myself and my younger siblings that broke the joining the service tradition)I actually talked to my recruiters, people in the service, and people out of it. I wanted to be in the Navy translation department so bad it's not even funny. I'm amazing at languages and I love learning them. My ASVAB scores are out of this world, so it, along with anything else I wanted to do, was a possibility *except* that my eyesight is really bad, which disqualifies me. (Ok, I totally get that they use translators as body guards but seriously? Are they going to shoot the glasses off my face so that I can't tell my guarded body that there's trouble? WTF? I see just fine with corrective lenses and I still hit what I'm aiming at when I shoot even without them on. It's just... a blur and I pray my shot is lethal.) There are other things I could do, but my father cautioned me early that if it wasn't something I loved that nasty personality quirk might bite me in the ass. The military is neither kind nor forgiving when they feel slighted. Oddly, the Marines have a bio program they're attached to that I also loved and would have learned to shut my mouth to be a part of until the recruiter couldn't get past my name. You see, there's this little box I filled out clearly telling anyone reading it that I am female. Regardless of how odd my name appears, I don't swap gender just because my name more commonly belongs to men than women. If it weren't for one incredibly stupid recruiter I might be a Marine. A nerdy, science Marine, but a Marine none the less. C'est la vie, I am happy with the choices I've made.

    So, no, I don't often make a habit of talking out of my ass. Simply put I think you don't quite understand what I mean when I say I will not follow an order I don't agree with. To put this in perspective let me explain how I believe Iraq should have gone: Walk in. Kill Saddam. Walk the fuck back out. Total elapsed time? Three days. Afghanistan? Get the fuck out as soon as Bin Ladin died. Also, same three day limit. We aren't Team America World Police, but if action is necessary than I am a minimalist. I don't think we needed to be in either country until both of those things could be done. So I wouldn't have gone. I'd gladly have been on the team that went to capture/kill either, but not until that time. Because I'm not going to be party to killing people who's only crime is living under a fucked up dictator. We have our own religious zealots that I can be fighting in my own country, thanks. So I wouldn't have gone. There's so many other ways my quirk could cause issues.

  14. (And it's a two parter cause I want to be like mike!)

    What if I was instrumental in creating tech that could help the vehicle industry? What if I'm ordered to keep it quiet, even though it could create hundreds of thousands of jobs AND wean us off our dependance to oil products? Yeah... I'd be leaking the shit all over the place. And then I'd be dealing with all kinds of trouble that could run the gamut from a slap on the wrist to treason. (This is similar to a situation my father faced in real life working on a project that was super hush hush. He kept his mouth closed because it was the right thing to do for him. I am fortunate in that he also understands that it wouldn't be the right thing for me and supports my decision to potentially go to jail for the rest of my life...No, really. That's how he phrased it. Not helping people, not doing the right thing, no, he supports my decision to go to jail for the rest of my life.) What the hell is the point of joining the military to do something I only feel mediocre about just to have them dishonorably discharge me, which is a strong potential in the current political clime.

    All of these things I'm fine with not doing. I'm even fine with other people doing them. They aren't wrong, they just also aren't right for me and I'd just rather be honest with myself and not besmirch my family's fine name. What if my kids want to serve? They don't need trouble because mommy was a stubborn bitch who was more interested in personal integrity than she was serving in the military. You see, my parents and my siblings still all go off into the corner and have sekrit military talks and grumble about their strange little black sheep and that's all good. *laughs* I'll pick up a gun and be on the lines when the fight comes here.