Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Iraq Veteran Speaks His Mind About the MIAC Report and DHS Smears of Veterans and Third Party Supporters as "Terrorists"

Below is a video from yet another Iraq War veteran sounding off with outrage at coming home after serving his country, only to be characterized as a potential terrorist simply because he is a supporter of Ron Paul (smeared in the MIAC Report) and simply because he is a veteran (smeared by the DHS report on "rightwing extremism").

He is plenty ticked, and once again we have to warn you that this video contains some strong language, but it is also well said, and rather humorous - enjoy.




As this veteran points out, the intent of such government "reports" is to chill speach and association - make people afraid to speak out and associate with those of like mind - and to demonize nearly anyone who dares to support the Constitution, dares to support the concepts of liberty, dares to support third party candidates, or dares to own guns - or dares to be a veteran.

31 comments:

Hulagu Khan said...

Glad to have you with us and thank you for your service to this Country. Don't
let them get you down there are millions that feel the same.

Brock Townsend said...

"there are millions that feel the same."

Absolutely, and prepared. Actually, each one of these transgressions only brings more to our side, so keep them coming big boys!

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your service, you are a true patriot.

Tunney said...

I understand your anger, can you understand the anger of the people of the countries where American soliders have taken their rights away (and in some cases their children).

This is blowback, strange it's coming from inside your "own?" government.

Anonymous said...

Glad to have you F'in with us (lol). I am still active duty. You said everything I have been wanting to say but can not yet do so publicly, although I have come damn near it even at work. Had to bite my tongue many a time. WEL SAID BROTHER!

Anonymous said...

The strong language is entirely appropriate here. Like others have said, millions and millions of us out here feel exactly the same.


Diane

Anonymous said...

I think that you are a true American. Thank God that all of our young people are not brain washed idiots. You give us hope for a future. I am a militia member. Have been for 20 years. We are not a young bunch either. You young people have the most to lose. We have fought this monster for two decades and been called everything you can imagine. We will resist. No matter what. God bless America. Death to the new world order!

hANOVER fIST said...

We need to run the quislings, the fifth-columnists and the dual loyalists out of our government, our lives and our nation - only then do we have a chance to restore America to greatness.

CorbinKale said...

That was awesome! Sounded like one of my own rants! lol

Thanks for standing up and fulfilling your Oath.

TheMouse said...

To whom it my concern,
I hear all this chest beating and sabre rattling and a lot of words about kicking their sorry butts out of Washington. Remember one thing & that is that it is the STATES who're electing the scum who run Washington so it's the individual states who're producing the scum and electing them. You'll find that if you cleaned up Washington, you still have a load of crap in the states who'll float to the top and re-infest Washington. Washington isn't the problem. There's a MUCH bigger problem in the individual states and that is that the selfish voting population, voting for their own comfort and/or selfish gain, are out-voting the right. What's that tell you about the heart and mind of the average American ? They're mush-heads full of liberal thinking and ignorant of the constitution nor do they love the constitution. Washington is not "the" enemy but is only the tip of the iceberg. Get used to it. Better yet, prepare for it, for when the shooting starts, too many of us will be surprised to find out that our neighbors, fathers, brothers & uncles may be numbered among "the enemy". "They" are not just a bunch of faceless "thems". "They" have faces and names and parents and children. "They" are motivated more by their own comfort, if not by selfish greed and "they" may have no problem at all turning you in. One of the cardinal sins of a warrior is to myopically focus on one target, forgetting in their adrenalin rush the many other enemy who're flanking that warrior. If you are convinced that Washington is the enemy, then you're already out-flanked and may be one of the earliest casualties of war.

seenbetrdayz said...

I once heard it said:

"It is not about left versus right, it is about freedom versus control."

That is what we are facing today: control freaks. For the sake of our posterity, the American people MUST step out of the political matrix and see that our country suffers at the hands of the singular party ruling Washington. If it weren't for third parties, there would have been no one to vote for who offers REAL change in our foreign policy. There would have been no one who will stand for principles and heed Benjamin Franklin's warning, "Those who sacrifice liberty in exchange for security will lose both." Yet, we are supposed to fear the 'fringe' groups? I think we know who poses a true threat to our Constitution.

Fighting Grandma said...

Thank you Oath Keepers - what a powerful organization. I feel much safer knowing that you are there and that this powerful organization is growing exponentially.

Anonymous said...

To find the root of the polocies that call our returning service men and Americans Christians (and others) terrorist you must look at the ADL. They are the organization that has fathered EVERY hate crime that has ever been introduced to Congress. They are behind the pedophile protection act and the "preventative detention" measures that obama is considering. For those of you that don't know, preventative detention is when they put you into prison without cause just because you fit the "profile" of a potential terrorist, like our returning service men and women...and Christians, and gun owners, and third party supporters, and anti-abortion groups, and anti-homosexual groups, and anti-Communist groups,...HELLO? Can anybody say "HEIL HITLER?"

Anonymous said...

You know why he is targeting US military personnel. It is because they are likely to remember their oaths to protect our country and fight the UN troops when they come for the guns. Many service personnel will NOT turn their guns on their brothers and sisters. Sadly some will though.

Anonymous said...

I think that the oath keepers go a bit too far in not recognizing the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution. President Eisenhower ordered federal troops into Lilttle Rock to remove resistance to a ruling of the Supreme Court that ordered school integration. I think he was right in doing so. On that occasion, he said the following:

"I hold to the basic purpose", he began, "There must be respect for the Constitution - which means the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution - or we shall have chaos. We cannot imagine a successful form of government in which every individual citizen would have the right to interpret the Constitution according to his own beliefs, convictions and prejudices. Chaos would develop. I believe this with all my heart and shall always act accordingly."

So Eisenhower ordered the troops into Little Rock, even though he was not convinced of the need for school integration. The Oathkeepers though, emphasize that everyone should interpret the Constitution for themselves and I think that is a serious mistake. Stewart Rhodes who started Oathkeepers does not even agree that the Supreme Court should have the final say in interpreting the Constitution. I cannot agree with that line of reasoning.

Anonymous said...

You don't do your cause any good by having that foul mouthed young veteran on the video. He seems more like an whack job than anything else.

TheMouse said...

All powers vested in the federal gov't are extended from the people. In a republic, the people are the authority and it is the federal gov'ts job to do the bidding of the people.

The constitution bares no "interpretation" for it was designed ( successfully ) to be understood by the "common man".

It is not the Supreme Court's job to create laws nor do they have the privilege of misinterpreting the constitution but are rather, as appointees of the fedaral gov't who themselves are elected by and subject to the will of We The People, to recognize the obvious in the constitution and to uphold it as written.

The fact is that the constitution needs to be ENFORCED, and beggs no more interpretation than the applicable cliche' "This ain't rocket science".

I trust that neither you nor the supreme court will misinterpret either my words or my intentions ( tho I wouldn't be surprised if you/they did ).

Stewart Rhodes said...

Anonymous said...

"You don't do your cause any good by having that foul mouthed young veteran on the video. He seems more like an whack job than anything else."

Sure, go right ahead and continue to smear veterans with your "whack job" label. Keep it up. You don't do your cause much good by doing so, but you do show your true colors. What is your cause, anyway? What are you doing, reading from a script? "Whack Job," "racist," "extremist," "terrorist," = whoever does not agree with your political view.

Good luck with that program.

Anonymous said...

It seems that some people are more concerned with a few curse words than the death of our nation. If that young guy is a whack job then so am I. So is every body I know. We all feel the same and we are PISSED! The young man has every right to speak the way he did. It is because of him and guys like him that give idiots like "foul mouth" the right to speak anyway. So screw you whack job!

Brotherhood Of Eternal Love Aquarian TempleU.L.C. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

At the end of the day, the extremist talk that shows itself on this forum will not win. When your fringe views are rejected, as they have been to date, you will still have to go along with the majority of the population that accepts the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution. If you do not, then what will you do? Will you continue to insist on your views and try enforce your views, even though only 5 percent or less of the population agrees with you? Will you start a rebellion as was done in 1860? Remember that failed before and it will fail again.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

The above post is crazy and the author of it does not live in the real world.

CaptGooch said...

Anonymous said...
The above post is crazy and the author of it does not live in the real world.
May 28, 2009 7:24 AM
-----------------------------------

Which is exactly why it is now gone.

CaptGooch said...

Anonymous said...
At the end of the day, the extremist talk that shows itself on this forum will not win.
May 27, 2009 4:25 PM
---------------------------------

So ....

In your opinion our insisting that the public servants who work for us the people of these united States and who, each and everyone of them, swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, which is our ONLY mission here at Oath Keepers, is an example of "fringe views" ?

I suppose that would make the Founders of this nation a bunch of fringe view radicals as well then wouldn't it ?


Quote:
".... you will still have to go along with the majority of the population that accepts the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution."

Let me ask you a question.
Can You show me where in that self same Constitution that it says that the Supreme Court has the authorization to "interpret" the Constitution ?
It is not there.
It was the Supreme Court itself who gave them that "power" and Not the Constitution nor the Congress nor the People of these united States.
Doesn't the concept of having the fox guard the hen house seem just a little dangerous to you ?

According to the Constitution the Supreme Court is supposed to judge all new legislation against the Constitution to see if the New Legislation is "Legal". Nowhere does it say that the Supreme Court has the authorization of the either the States nor the People to change, correct or interpret the Constitution.
Thy ignorance is glaring, sirrah.

To Be Continued ....

CaptGooch said...

Continued from above ....


And now to the second point in the same sentence.


Quote:
" ... you will still have to go along with the majority of the population ..."

So You publicly admit that you are in favor of Mob Rule ?
That is exactly what you are saying or don't you understand the basic concepts inherent in the word "majority" ?
Democracy, for you and any other that doesn't know, is little more than a pretty word for Mob Rule.
Basic stuff and all you do is parrot the propaganda line. Very good .... for a puppet or a parrot.


Quote
"Will you continue to insist on your views and try enforce your views, even though only 5 percent or less of the population agrees with you? "

Now it is your ignorance of the actual history of our great nation that blinds you.

Less than 30% of the population of the original colonies took up arms and repulsed the world's then superpower when it attempted to seize their means of self defense.
Different scholars have different numbers but the average guesstimate is that during the actual war itself, much later than April 19th, 1775, 30% fought for Freedom and Liberty, 30% fought for being Loyal to the Tyrant and 39% wanted nothing more than for the "war" to go away so they could plant and reap their crops in order to feed themselves and their families.

Will we attempt to "enforce" our views on the public ?

No sir. That is the tyrants way.
We only want the Constitution restored to its place as the law of the land and the Constitutional Republic it authorizes reinstated.


Will we continue to resist ?

You can count on it.
If my forebears were willing to devote themselves, their fortunes and their sacred Honor to the cause of Freedom and Liberty how can I do any less ?
Since you are not familiar with our Real history you Might be interested to know that a goodly percentage of the Founding Fathers who did survive the war for Independence did, in fact, lose their lands and houses and fortunes. They were thrown into the future penniless But Free.

Perhaps you will attend the words of Samuel Adams one of our Founding Fathers of these united States. A brewer by trade.

Quote:
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
Bold emphasis is mine.

So I say to you "go from us in peace".

We are Oath Keepers.
We will protect and support and defend the Constitution of the united States and her People to our last breath if need be, and Yes that means even you.

Anonymous said...

There is more than one approach to applying the Constitution to present day situations. It is not simply a matter of adhering to the Constitution. Here is a link to a discussion of various ways to apply the Constitution in the real world. Also, there was a post that mentioned that I am in favor of "mob rule". I am in favor of our present form of government. If that means in some cases to bow to the will of the majority, then I prefer that to bowing to the will of the minority. Which do you prefer, Capt Gooch?

Anonymous said...

In the post just previous, I mentioned a link but did not post it. Here is a link to a discussion of various approaches related to interpreting the Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html

Anonymous said...

Another view on interpretation of the Constitution:

Many provisions of the Constitution, however, are drafted in general terms. This creates flexibility in the face of unforeseen changes, but it creates the possibility of alternative interpretations, and this possibility is an embarrassment for a theory of judicial legitimacy that denies judges have any right to exercise discretion. A choice among semantically plausible interpretations of a text, in circumstances remote from those contemplated by its drafters, requires the exercise of discretion and the weighing of consequences. Reading is not a form of deduction; understanding requires a consideration of consequences. If I say, "I'll eat my hat," one reason why my listeners will "decode" the meaning of this statement in nonliteral fashion is that I couldn't eat a hat if I tried. The broader principle, which applies to the Constitution as much as to a spoken utterance, is that if one possible interpretation of an ambiguous statement would entail absurd or terrible results, that is a good reason to reject it.

Even the decision to read the Constitution narrowly, and thereby to "restrain" judicial interpretation, is not a decision that can be read directly from the text. The Constitution does not say, "Read me broadly," or, "Read me narrowly." The decision to do one or the other must be made as a matter of political theory and will depend on such things as one's view of the springs of judicial legitimacy and the relative competence of courts and legislatures in dealing with particular types of issue.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html

CaptGooch said...

Anonymous said...
There is more than one approach to applying the Constitution to present day situations. It is not simply a matter of adhering to the Constitution. Here is a link to a discussion of various ways to apply the Constitution in the real world. Also, there was a post that mentioned that I am in favor of "mob rule". I am in favor of our present form of government. If that means in some cases to bow to the will of the majority, then I prefer that to bowing to the will of the minority. Which do you prefer, Capt Gooch?
May 29, 2009 3:58 PM
--------------------------------

You start off on the wrong foot completely Mr Anonymous,
The Constitution is not there to be "interpreted" so it can apply to the modern world.
It is a list of the things that government Can Not do in regards to the Rights of the several States and the People.
It is not a list of talking points that can be "modified to fit" the present day.
It is and was always intended to be the Law of the Land.
It is the ruler against which all new laws are supposed to be measured not the other way around.

Mob Rule

" I am in favor of our present form of government. If that means in some cases to bow to the will of the majority, then I prefer that to bowing to the will of the minority. Which do you prefer, Capt Gooch?"

Neither. Do you actually think those are the ONLY choices ?
Do you not understand what Constitutional Republic means ?

Your reading assignment ... constitution.org

----------------------------
Anonymous said...
In the post just previous, I mentioned a link but did not post it. Here is a link to a discussion of various approaches related to interpreting the Constitution.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html
May 29, 2009 4:00 PM
--------------------------------
There you go "interpreting" the yardstick again.
Is it a yard or 36 inches ? How shall we interpret this "thing" today ?

While the 28 inch "law" that is supposed to be measured against it fails and the fact that it fails gets completely conveniently ignored.
Handy that when one wants to put out laws which are unconstitutional on their faces.
Just "interpret" the yardstick to be a "little extra long" today so OK that "law" is ok it's the yardstick that is too long.Do you really not understand this stuff ?

to be continued ...

CaptGooch said...

Anonymous said...
Another view on interpretation of the Constitution:

[snip] [snip]


May 29, 2009 4:15 PM
----------------------------------
*sigh*

You don't seem to be able to understand the Constitution is not supposed to be interpreted. It is supposed to be read. Period.

"The Proper Use of the Constitution of the united States of America" an example by a retired boat captain with no law degree to get in my way and clutter up my thinking or my understanding.

Congress passes a law.
Somebody complains about that law.
The complaint rises through the court system.
The supreme court decides to see if the new law in any way violates the Ultimate Law of the Land. [The Constitution]
[They even don't have to if they can see it is wrong from a mile away ....]
The new law either does or does not violate some portion of the Constitution.
If it does it is ruled unconstitutional and is struck down.
If it does not then it is ruled constitutional and allowed to stand.

Interpretation is not anywhere in the process UNLESS one is trying to subvert the Constitution so that their new law can be come "legal" even though it violates the Law of the Land, the Yardstick of Juris Prudence of these united States, the Constitution of the united States of America.

This is exactly why this stuff is NOT taught in our schools any more.
It is so simple that only lawyers and professional political parasites are confused by it and usually only when they are trying to find a way to get another unconstitutional law passed.

Quote:
The Constitution does not say, "Read me broadly," or, "Read me narrowly."
end quote.

Nope.
All it says is "Read me".
"Interpret" is nowhere to be found.

This is going to be the end of our little "debate" Mr Anonymous.


As much fun as I am having teaching you about how to read and all I really do have to get back to saving the Republic from the blatant fascist takeover that is already in process.

Oh but I forgot ... They haven't told you about it on TV yet so you don't know about that do you ?