There are so many things I want to write about this week. My kindly editor strongly desires that, in Colorado Politics, I write on Colorado politics (Ed: absolutely!). That’s quite reasonable and he is the boss so here goes…

So, about President Donald Trump (don’t worry, a Colorado connection is coming).

I’ve oft penned remarks on whom I regularly call Colorado’s national congressional embarrassment, U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert. Her blind and obsequious fawning over the president, along with her own outrageous behaviors, has made her a national laughingstock. Well, that sort of changed recently, albeit not entirely, when she surprised quite a few people by her vote and, frankly, her leadership, in joining with all the Democrats to vote yes on a discharge petition on the Epstein files.

Recall, please, from your civics classes, though a Speaker of the House can choose to kill a bill he or she doesn’t like by burying it in a committee, the rules of the House also say if a majority of members vote to bring the bill directly to the floor, with 218 votes, the bill immediately and automatically comes to the floor for discussion and a vote. Boebert was one of only four Republicans critical to the Epstein discharge bill passing, albeit ultimately with near-unanimous support (when Trump realized the jig was up, because he has no moral center, and requested the GOPers vote with Boebert for the release). Mustn’t look like a loser!

Boebert withstood very significant political pressure (including a presidential “summons” to meet with him in the White House situation room, which she declined in a rare demonstration of GOP refusal directed at Trump.

A stunning move, but I’m not going to talk about that.

Nor am I going to talk about Trump’s incredibly childish response, vetoing a bill that passed both houses of congress unanimously to add additional funding to a vitally important (for Colorado) water project in Boebert’s district. I can’t remember in my 67 years (my grandson loves that I’m “six seven!”) a time when a president was this petty. And, sadly not surprisingly, when Boebert tried to lead an override of the veto of the bill that, again, was passed unanimously, enough Republicans caved in terror of ticking off Trump, and switched their votes to oppose the override, moves that demonstrate a profound lack of character as well as a toadying bending of the knee to Trump.

But I’m not going to talk about that.

Heck, I’m not even going to talk about the Out West Roundup, though I would love to comment on the tribe in Kansas that canceled a deal it made with ICE.

OK, with so many things I’m not going to talk about, let’s see how much space I have left to talk about what I’m really worried about right now, and…, not that many.

So, let’s just leap into it, shall we? I am appalled and horrified and outraged, but not the least bit surprised by the CoPo story regarding the actions of the single most unqualified Secretary of Defense (not “war” unless congress changes it, but he doesn’t care), Pete Hegseth.

Specifically, let’s talk about his threat or order or whatever he thinks it is to reduce the rank and retired pay of U.S. Senc Mark Kelly, a retired Navy Captain (equivalent to a full Colonel in the other services). Kelly, as I imagine you already know, is a legitimate war hero, with 39 actual combat missions under his belt and four missions to space (including two as commander) of the space shuttle. He is married to Gabby Giffords, who was a member of congress until a radical right mass murderer shot Giffords in the head, killed six and wounded 16 at a voter outreach event.

As you recall, Kelly, along with Colorado’s own U.S. Rep. Jason Crow and four other former military member Democrats, made a video a while back, reminding those in the military, and I guess, everyone else, a military member has no obligation to obey illegal order. Indeed, he or she has an obligation not to obey illegal orders. Back when I was teaching at the Air Force Academy, I would give my students a scenario in Iraq (as was appropriate at the time) where they had orders to bomb an anti-aircraft location, only to see, upon arrival, the AAA gun sat atop a hospital. Do they drop their bombs or not? Happily, nearly every cadet understood bombing a hospital is an illegal order and must be disobeyed.

Recent actions by a certain overly vain president (did you notice he is now wearing a pin of himself?) gave this group of six cause to worry about the legality of many of his actions. I share those concerns. Not surprisingly, Trump and his petty minions were outraged and demanded swift and powerful action be taken, even though what everyone said in the film was, well, spot on. In his letter to Kelly, Hegseth said, “By telling servicemembers they “can refuse illegal orders” … in the context of operations you have specifically characterized as illegal, you have counseled members of the armed forces to refuse lawful orders related to National Guard deployments and counter-narcotics operations.”

Hegseth’s twisted logic is iffy at best, but most importantly is an attack on free speech. Heck, the Constitution even has a clause, Article 1, Section 6, that specifically and absolutely protects members of the Congress from being legally attacked for what they say. The Founders knew speech had to be protected entirely, lest some pin-wearing demagogue attempt to silence his opponents.

I suspect the main reason, beyond pettiness and childishness, behind Trump’s attack (via Hegseth) on Kelly was an attempt to silence a wide-ranging and influential group of Americans, military veterans. Because Kelly is the only one of the six in the film that served long enough to retire, he is the only one who (as a retiree like me) is still under the legal requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the core legal structure for military folks.

Trump hopes, I’m sure, if he can attack Kelly, he will scare off the many, many other retirees who find his actions to often be illegal. I don’t imagine they will come after a mere retired Lt. Colonel like me, but they have already come after friends of mine who earned eagles or even stars on their shoulders for their service. Given there is no legitimate defense for, say, ordering a second attack to blow up people in the water clinging to “drug boats” without due process, Trump hopes to silence those whom the civilian world find the most credible on these issues.

Of course military members have a duty to obey lawful orders (as I did for my 25 years in uniform) and to ignore and, indeed, oppose, illegal orders, it’s quite a remarkable thing Trump and his sycophants seem to honestly think they can control our legal speech.

I’m not a bit surprised though, and that’s also a tragedy.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.