Sponsorship opportunities are available.

To learn about advertising with The Crossbow, click here.


Click here to
choose a feed

[What is a 'feed'?]

Click this for other subscription options.

Books by Tom Kovach

Dec 2006

Aug 2008
Tribulation: 2008

About the author

Tom Kovach lives near Nashville, is a former USAF Blue Beret, and has written for several online publications. In December of 2006, he published his first book, Slingshot. Tom's second book, Tribulation: 2008, was released in August of 2008.

Tom is also
an inventor, a horse wrangler, a certified paralegal, and a former network talk-show host. (He would like to lauch another talk show -- perhaps on your station.)

One highlight of Tom's career in the Air Force was serving on a protection detail for US President Ronald Reagan. Tom has also run for Congress (and might run again).

Join the group

Click the link to visit
Tom Kovach's
official Web site

Public Speaking

To book Tom for a speaking engagement, please contact the 1SG Agency.

(When you contact them, ask what Tom Kovach has in common with Chuck Norris. Click here for a hint.)


You can help Tom to change things by using this "donate" button

via your secure
PayPal account

NOTE: if the PayPal button does not work, then you can always mail a contribution. See this page for contact info.

January 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

« December 2008 | Main

Sunday, 11 January 2009, at 1817 hours
Central Time -- Nashville, Tennessee, USA

The Obama Oxymoron

ox-y-mo-ron : (noun) a combination of contradictory or incongruous words; (broadly) something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements.  (from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)


At the gut level, there is something inherently incongruous about the terms "Barack Hussein Obama II" and "Commander-in-Chief" being in the same sentence.  And, I'm far from the only one that feels this way.

Having served as, among other things, a military law-enforcement supervisor, I am familiar with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  That is the primary set of laws under which the military operates.  (And, they are indeed "laws" in the dictionary sense, because the Code is part of a larger set of laws passed by Congress regarding the operation and maintenance of our military forces.)  The UCMJ is a finely-crafted balance -- between military discipline and personal initiative, between historic tradition and youthful exuberance, between necessary military operations and greedily voracious rampage.  In much the same way that a helicopter manages brutally opposing forces of gravity and wind to fly gracefully and with precision, the UCMJ manages the above-described opposing forces of human behavior to build the wall between militarism and murder.

The mortar that holds together the bricks of the UCMJ is honor -- a concept that seems uniquely foreign to the man scheduled to soon become the commander-in-chief of the military that conquered three evil empires in one century.  Without honor, it is far too easy to turn our nation into the next evil empire.  Honor is the pure wool from which the mantle of military leadership is woven.  Command without honor is, at best, mere brutishness.  It is also honor that causes a wise subordinate to -- rarely, and with reasonable trepidation -- rise up to disobey an order that is unlawful.  Or, in the potential case of a soon-to-become President Barack Hussein Obama II, an order given by a person that is unlawfully in a position of command.

Enter:  an honorable man.

Gregory Hollister is a retired US Air Force colonel from Colorado Springs.  He is the plaintiff in a recently-filed lawsuit against "Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama", the ostensible president-elect of the United States of America.  Colonel Hollister's lawsuit, like several others, alleges that Obama was born in Kenya.  Thus, the usurper-in-waiting is not eligible to become president, because he is not a "natural-born citizen" as required by the Constitution of the United States.  But, the lawsuit by this retired military officer goes in a different direction than previous lawsuits.  Colonel Hollister raises the question -- finally... and officially -- of whether military personnel under an Obama administration would be required to obey the orders of a commander-in-chief that has obtained that position by fraud.  In fact, the suit also raises the question of whether said military personnel would have "an affirmative duty" to actually disobey orders that they believed to be unlawful.  This is no trifling matter, no mere intellectual exercise.

The strategic military capabilities of this country are guarded by some of the most highly-trained personnel in all of the military.  Conventional soldiers are trained to attack and overcome an organized enemy force.  The enemy wears a recognizable uniform that is different from ours.  They engage in warfare on a battlefield.  Even in the counter-insurgency environment of Iraq and Afghanistan, the enemy usually has certain generally-recognizable features.  But, for those that guard the nuclear arsenal of the United States, a potential enemy could be "one of our own".  Thus, the training includes deterring, detecting and defeating ruses and diversions.  Many of the nuclear weapons, and nuclear-launch command posts, are protected by those that wear the Blue Beret.  "Our" duties (after all these years, it's still in my blood) are different.  To protect strategic resources, and the president, I've pulled weapons on members and employees of my own Air Force.  And, if I had not, then my career would've been in trouble.  The short version is that I was a "paid, professional paranoid for Uncle Sam".  And, without people like that, our most dangerous weapons systems would be horribly vulnerable.

Now, it might fall upon some young Air Force SP (or a Marine MP, or a Navy MA, or a joint-communications officer, or a White House Fellow, etc.) to protect a military command post from the president.  What an oxymoron!

For those that have not served in such a high-stakes environment (and, that even includes many military veterans -- especially those in non-combat jobs), a little explanation is needed.  The rules for the security of locations that store or control strategic military resources are more strict than the rules for other parts of a military base.  Most of the high-priority areas contain "no-lone zones" -- areas where no one can enter by themselves.  The sentries that control no-lone zones do so under rules where "use of deadly force is authorized".  In the world of nuclear security, it is still "shoot first, and ask questions later".  It must be that way.

But, what if the intruder purports to be the president?

And, what if the sentry truly believes that the man installed as the president is in that position unlawfully?  Which order does he obey -- the standing general order to keep the area secure, or the immediate verbal order of an imposter commander-in-chief?  This is a real and legitimate question.

For the uninitiated, the best example of a nuclear-security environment gone awry is the 1995 movie Crimson Tide, which starred Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington.  Hackman's character (Capt. Ramsey) believes that a nuclear launch from his submarine is warranted while on patrol off the Soviet coast.  Washington's character (Lt. Hunter) is Ramsey's executive officer, and he does not believe the launch is warranted.  Under the rules of nuclear security, Lt. Hunter is warranted to seize command from Capt. Ramsey to prevent the start of a needless nuclear war.  But, if his decision turns out to be wrong, then Hunter will be guilty of mutiny and sedition (which is leading or inspiring others to commit mutiny).

STANDOFF -- Capt. Ramsey and Lt. Hunter

Standoff -- who is right?

Lt. Hunter challenges an irate Capt. Ramsey, in an attempt to avoid nuclear war.

(photo copyright:  Buena Vista Pictures)

Rule 916 of the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), "Defenses", especially subsections (c) and (d), makes clear that not only should a military member not be charged with a UCMJ offense for not obeying an unlawful order, but also that said military member does, indeed, have an "affirmative duty" to disobey an order that he knows -- or, "that a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known" -- to be unlawful.  The commentary of Rule 916 also cites Rule 801(e), stating that the question of whether the person giving the order was in a lawful position to give said order becomes an interlocutory question.  The brilliant men that wrote the Constitution of the United States did so in a manner that "a person of ordinary sense and understanding" could properly interpret the entire document.  Nowhere is that more clear than in the clause requiring the president to be "a natural-born citizen".

Thus, at any time after the soon-scheduled inauguration ceremony of Barack Hussein Obama II, if a military sentry should deny the incoming president access to a command post or other strategic military resource, a key question will arise.  That question will be whether the sentry was disobeying an order or enforcing a higher order.  (The long-standing rules of military security, especially in the nuclear world, go far beyond the tenure of any one particular occupant of the White House.)  In such a standoff, will the sentry's superiors back him?  Every military member takes an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".  The Constitution overrides the authority of any specific president.  (And, if modern politicians truly understood that concept, then the question of whether Obama can be a real president would never come up, because the Congress would have challenged his qualifications long ago.)  Thus, if a sentry declares that he is enforcing the Constitution by denying Obama access to, for example, the White House Situation Room, then how can the sentry be charged with a UCMJ offense?  The fact is that the sentry would be protecting the facility from penetration by an illegal alien, as the text of Colonel Hollister's lawsuit makes quite clear.

It matters not that people like "Peggy the Mooch" believe in the Obamessiah, that he will buy them gasoline and pay their mortgage.  It matters not that, somehow, an illegal alien has occupied a seat in the United States Senate for four years.  It matters not that this illegally-seated senator has managed to conduct a presidential campaign -- despite clearly illegal campaign contributions from foreign sources, and despite not being eligible for the office of president.  It only matters that somewhere, someday, someone in a position of military security duty will deny that usurper the opportunity to enter a command post.  Or, hopefully, the officer in charge of the "nuclear football" will simply refuse to hand it over to Barack Hussein Obama II.  I was there the 1983 day that Col. Rodney Cox said, "The fate of Western Europe lies in the hands of an 18-year-old Air Force Security Policeman standing in a weapons-storage area somewhere."  It was true then.  A similar situation may become even more true in the near future, if some military sentry (probably wearing a Blue Beret) confronts a person purporting to be the next President of the United States.  (The starry-eyed idealist that still resides in this 50-year-old body hopes that the incident would be investigated by Special Agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs, of the TV series "NCIS".  Then, charges would not be brought, because Gibbs would conclude that no offense occurred.  The realist that also resides in this body worries that some career-happy officer would throw that young sentry under the political bus.)

Any way you slice it, at some point very soon, the world will face The Obama Oxymoron.

Friday, 09 January 2009, at 2152 hours
Central Time -- Nashville, Tennessee, USA

The Filistin Factor

If you think that the title of this column resembles the title of a Robert Ludlum novel, you're right.  And, yes, it's by design.  I just like the man's style.  He was a master of his genre.

Similar to "a voice crying in the wilderness", I will continue to proclaim the importance of what I call "The Filistin Factor" until people finally get it on a large scale.  To say that The Filistin Factor is a concept of world-changing importance is not an exagerration.  So, you might ask, "Just what is The Filistin Factor?"

The Filistin Factor is actually more than one concept.  It is the confluence of several concepts.  One of those concepts is the propagandistic twist of language (the English language, in particular) to cause the mass population to overlook the obvious.  And, just what is "the obvious"?

The people referred to as "The Palestinians" in the so-called "mainstream" news media are the same people as "The Philistines" recorded and described in the Holy Bible.  Really.  And, the word Filistin is the English transliteration of the Arabic word that is normally translated "Palestinian".  In other words, they call themselves Philistines.  So, why shouldn't we call them Philistines?

In most translations of the primary canon of the Holy Bible, there are 20 references to the place called Gaza.  In modern language, we still use a metaphoric technique that is used even more frequently in Bible language.  That technique is to refer to an entire land by the name of its capital city.  Thus, when the Bible refers to the "land" of Gaza, it is actually refering to the country whose capital is the city of Gaza:  the country of Philistia -- the land of the Philistines.

map of the Holy Land, showing Philistia

The word "Palestine" itself -- with its "long-I" final syllable -- is a linguistic lie.  So, too, is the word "Palestinian".  The people of that area speak Arabic.  And, in that language, they are called Filistin (pronounced exactly the same way as the English word "Philistine").  It is only when we come to grips with that reality that we can even begin to understand The Filistin Factor.

The Philistines were one of the ancient enemy nations that surrounded Israel.  Their capital city was Gaza.  (And, it still is.)  The Philistines were the people that often harrassed Israel.  In one battle, their champion soldier was a giant named Goliath.  In addition to the 20 mentions of Gaza in the Bible, there are another 29 uses of the word "Philistine" and 215 uses of the plural "Philistines".  There are other mentions of the Philistine cities of Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron.  Gaza is the city where Samson -- the strongest man that ever lived, and a champion of Israel -- was put into slavery after he was tricked into cutting his hair (and thus losing his great strength, which was given to him by God through his long hair).  The modern State of Israel should heed the moral of the story of Samson, because they have given away the strength of their numbers to the Philistines by withdrawing from their settlements in Philistia (otherwise known as the Gaza Strip).  Just as the Philistines constantly harrassed Israel in ancient times, the same is true today.

Only with all of that background can one begin to understand The Filistin Factor.

The population of the world -- but especially of the Christian West -- is being duped into thinking that the conflicts between Israel and the "Palestinians" is nothing more than some ethnic dispute over land.  But, it is much more.  It is the acting out of the conflict between Isaac and Ishmael.  It is the perpetuation of the conflict between Israel and Egypt.  (In the wake of the destruction of Egypt at the original Passover, the king sent away a group called the Sea Peoples, who had been living in Egypt.  Some scholars believe that the Sea Peoples were the ancestors of the Philistines.)  But, some "leaders" in the modern news media do not want people to realize that this ancient conflict still rages, because they also do not want people to realize that God exists.  If anyone recognizes this ancient conflict for what it truly is, then they might be forced by circumstance to realize that the conflict (and its outcome) were predicted thousands of years ago by the Holy Bible.  And, if that is true, then the other predictions of the Bible must also be true.  And, if that is true, then so must the moral laws be true.  And, there are some that will go to great lengths to support the idea that there is no way that the Bible could be true.

So, the next time you watch a TV news story that says the Israelis are causing destruction and are "oppressing" and/or invading the people of the "Gaza Strip", just think of the word "Philistines" every time you hear "Palestinians".  The next time you hear the lamestream news media say that Israel should back off from the attacks against the terrorist group Hamas, just remember that God told the leaders of Israel that they were expected to "utterly destroy" the Philistines.

And, don't worry, that destruction will come ... soon.  How can I be sure?  Because there is no mention of Gaza or the Philistines in the various Bible prophecies of the End Times.  So, because the Tribulation is already upon us, the time for the Philistines to be conquered and/or destroyed is upon us.  With that in mind, it seems that Israel will soon defeat Hamas ... by totally destroying them.

If you steel your mind in that manner, then you will not fall prey to The Filistin Factor.

Monday, 05 January 2009, at 0409 hours
Central Time -- Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Help keep me out of jail

This blog entry is short and simple.

Please help me to stay out of jail.

This is being typed at 0300 (that's 3am, for civilians) on Monday, 05 January 2009.  I've already been awake for almost two hours, and didn't sleep much before that.  At 0900 this morning, I must be in court.  The topic is a follow-up hearing, after the dismissal last year of my lawsuit against Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen.  The topic is the so-called Bredesen Bunker.

For those that don't know, the Bredesen Bunker is a planned $19-million underground party hall at the Governor's Mansion in Nashville.  Out of eleven million citizens in the State of Tennessee, I'm the only one that tried to take the governor into court to block that wasteful and arrogant project from getting started.  The state sent a senior attorney from the Attorney General's Office to face me in court.

The suit was dismissed on a technicality.  There is a law on the books in Tennessee that says a plaintiff can only sue the state in Davidson County (the county that surrounds Nashville, the state capital).  That law is unconstitutional, and I made that argument in court.  (I live in neighboring Wilson County, and had filed the action in my home venue.)  I also cited several cases, which had survived appeal, in which plaintiffs in other parts of the state had sued the state in their various home counties.  The judge dismissed my case anyway, and also decided that the first lady is "an official of the state, and therefore cannot be sued".  (The first lady, who is the driving force behind the Bredesen Bunker, was a co-defendant in my lawsuit.)

Now, the court wants me to pay court costs.

Imagine that:  being required by a court to pay money to come into court to defend the Constitution by airing a "redress of grievances" to stop an arrogant move to waste taxpayers' money.  Imagine that nobody else in the entire state filed a similar lawsuit.  (There are about a half-million citizens living in Davidson County alone.  Why didn't one of them simply copy my papers -- which I had posted on the Internet for that reason -- and then sue the state in that county?)  Imagine that only one person (yep, me) drove in circles for four hours around the State Capitol, honking a car horn to protest the Bredesen Bunker.

2001 -- Tennessee Tax Revolt

In 2001, thousands surrounded the State Capitol and honked their car horns for several weeks.

Well, guess what?  I'm not gonna pay!

Never mind the fact that I can't afford it.  Never mind the fact that the wealthy neighbors that live near the Governor's Mansion spoke on talk radio about raising $30,000 to fight the Bunker, but then only spent it on a flimsy Web site and some glossy brochures.  And, despite my several written requests, multi-millionaire car dealer Lee Beaman (the guy that put up most of the $30,000) has not sent me one penny.  His phone number is in the Nashville phone book, along with the numbers to his several dealerships.  (or, click the above link)  Feel free to call him, and remind him that the Bible says "the workman is due his wages".  The legal work that I did would've cost a paying client thousands of dollars.  (Even Judge Smith said in court that not even most lawyers know about the law that caused my case to get dismissed.)  Never mind the fact that I injured my back at a job in early September, and have not found another job since.  I'm not gonna pay today.

So, you're wondering, "What can be done to help Tom Kovach?"

The answer is simple.  You see, I don't like asking people for money.  (If I were any good at that, then I'd already be the Congressman for this area, and then I wouldn't need to write this to ask for money.)  I prefer to actually earn my money.  So....

Please purchase, for only one dollar, a copy of my spoof song, "The Battle of Bredesen's Bunker".  And, please send that link to all of your friends, and ask them to also buy a copy.  That way, I'm not asking to "mooch" even a dollar from anyone in these difficult times.  (Admittedly, I don't sing well.  But, then again, I'm not selling it for ten dollars.)

The song is done to the music of the Charlie Daniels hit song "Simple Man".  And, I sent a copy of it over to him.  I didn't get to talk with Charlie directly, but his manager told me that they played it on the tour bus, and Charlie liked it.  That was good enough for me.

Hopefully, I can make a good argument in court today, and convince the judge to waive the court costs.  But, if not, I have no money to pay them.  Theoretically, he could send me to jail for contempt for not paying.  Then, in order to get out, I would need to "remedy the contempt" (legalese for pay the costs).  If the judge does send me to jail, then selling that spoof song will be my primary means of earning money to get out of jail.

Thank you, in advance, for your support.

(I have some topics planned for this blog for the next few days.  If you don't see them posted, then that means I'm in jail.)

Hosting by Yahoo!