Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?
Reg: F-ck off! We're the People's Front of Judea!
Michael Gaddy attacks Oath Keepers below for something he calls "comfortable patriotism." My reaction can be found below it.
Gaddy: Comfortable Patriotism
Over the course of several months I have received a large number of emails concerning the group called Oath Keepers. I have been asked to join; asked why I don’t mention them in my articles; and some emails in which the claim is made that Oath Keepers are our only remaining chance to protect ourselves from tyrannical government. Upon first being informed of the group, my inclination was to sit back and watch and see how the group addressed certain issues and exactly who would become active in the organization.
Fully understanding if a majority of military and law enforcement personnel in this country were to honor their oaths to the U.S. Constitution and the Constitutions of the individual states, real advancement towards individual freedom and liberty could be accomplished. I also understood those involved would have to uphold and defend all parts of the Constitution and not just the parts they liked or those which required nothing but lip service. I have always been suspect of those of whom I refer to as “comfortable patriots.” Those who believe all it takes to be a patriot is to join some group, send in annual dues, perhaps attend a meeting or two and then sit on their six watching sports or American Idol on TV as the world goes to hell.
Among others I consider to be members of the “comfortable patriots” are those who believe career criminals, masquerading as public servants, will actually pay attention to a multitude of letters, phone calls, faxes, or emails requesting they follow the mandates of the Constitution. One would probably be more successful sending correspondence asking a child molester to voluntarily cease his/her actions against children. How easily forgotten was the admission by those in congress that constituent correspondence concerning the illegal bailouts ran over 99% against that legislation. Did they or did they not authorize those bailouts contrary to the overwhelming wishes of their constituency?
At first blush, I was very encouraged when Oath Keepers came under attack from the Southern Poverty Law Center, (SPLC) for it had been my experience SPLC exists to attack any who would oppose a nose dive into complete Socialism by the US government.
Another concern I had was the inevitable infiltration of the group by various government alphabet agencies. History has shown anytime the government sees an organization gaining influence among the people concerning the government’s socialist and criminal agendas, infiltrators and government snitches suddenly appear by the busload. They use these agents and snitches to demonize the targeted group and if that does not seem to work, they buy off the leadership of the organization with money, power and sex. If an “anti-government” group is in existence for more than a few months and is not infiltrated by alphabet agencies and snitches, they must themselves be a government run operation.
My primary concern with the Oath Keepers is their propensity to support only favored parts of the Constitution. I have read their listed “Orders We Will Not Obey” found here at their website. While the member’s list of orders they will not obey is most commendable, glaringly absent is any reference to participation by their members in the undeclared, unconstitutional wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the current secret war in Pakistan being led by the CIA. They find it easy to believe their government would move against US citizens, pledge they will not participate in any criminal activities by that government against their fellow citizens, but refuse to believe the same government, under two different administrations, for eight plus years, has lied this country into wars that have taken the lives of a large number of US personnel and larger numbers of Iraqi and Afghan non-combatants: all this for a government that seized firearms from honest citizens and relocated many against their will in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Does this government actually see any difference in the citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan and the citizens of this country? Have we not been treated the same? New Orleans, Ruby Ridge and Waco certainly come to mind.
Call me an idealist, but I would hope those who are willing to pledge an oath not to obey orders that are contrary to the Constitution would also have a problem tolerating illegal activities by their associates who wear the same uniform. This could be especially beneficial among those in law enforcement who have signed on with the Oath Keepers. Such officers would gain much more respect and admiration from those whom they have sworn to “protect and serve” if they would come out publicly against those in their agencies who fail to live up to their oaths, rather than support them and their continued enforcement of unconstitutional laws and criminal acts against citizens who ignorantly believe they are being protected.
There has been an abundance of writings concerning what many see as coming civil unrest in this country. All it would take to stop that from happening would be for elected politicians to follow the dictates of the Constitution they swore to “uphold and defend.” They will not stop; we know that, for the crimes they commit are the source of untold wealth and power, far too much for people of shallow morals and no integrity to resist. Knowing such actions by our elected criminals will not occur, what is our second hope? That would be for the military and law enforcement to uphold the oaths they have taken to the letter, no exceptions. The military and police are the enforcement arm for the criminal cabal. Should they suddenly refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws and prosecute unconstitutional wars, the nation we thought we were would reappear. Short of that, civil unrest is inevitable.
Contrary to what many in the Tea Parties, 912 Movement, Oath Keepers, We The People and other groups believe, this country cannot be turned around and follow the rule of law until a large number of people are willing to follow the whole of the Constitution, not just the parts they find comfortable or accommodating. Acknowledgement must be made that a domestic enemy to the Constitution is just as, if not more dangerous to our liberty than any foreign enemy, especially those created by criminals in our government. Understanding must also exist in these groups to what constitutes a domestic enemy. They must be able to make the uncomfortable realization that anyone who commands others to follow unconstitutional orders, whether it be in the military or in the form of the police enforcing unconstitutional laws enacted by federal, state or local governments, is a domestic enemy to the Constitution. Also, they must accept the fact that anyone who follows those unconstitutional orders becomes a domestic enemy by doing so. The old “we were just following orders” has been tried before and rejected by an International Military Tribunal, common law and decency.
Supporting the troops who are waging an unconstitutional war, supporting police who are enforcing unconstitutional laws, and at the same time condemning other criminal acts committed by government is hypocritical to say the least and counterproductive to any effort whose ultimate goal is individual liberty. One cannot be just a little bit pregnant. If individual liberty and freedom are to ever prevail, a large number of people in this country will be required to become uncomfortable Patriots. This is going to require courage; does any still exist among our people?
When history closes its final chapter on this once great experiment in liberty, who will be given the bulk of responsibility for its demise; the criminals in government who only honored the parts of the Constitution that did not interfere with their criminality, or the people, who honored only the parts of the Constitution that were comfortable?
Suicide Squad Leader: We are the Judean People's Front crack suicide squad! Suicide squad, attack!
[They all stab themselves]
Suicide Squad Leader: That showed 'em, huh? (Dies.)
It would seem that Gaddy is fine with Oath Keepers' purpose, but it is its failure to adopt his libertarian allergy to foreign wars as an organizational plank which bothers him. Well, hell, it would bother me too if I didn't understand a couple of real-world things about practical politics and Oath Keepers that Gaddy, living in his splendid isolation, seemingly does not.
1. First and foremost, Oath Keepers is the principal vehicle by which strategic uncertainty can be (and is being) introduced into the minds of the current regime. If the Obamanoids doubt that their orders will be obeyed, even in significant part, their tyrannical hand will be stayed. If they cannot count upon which way the muzzles will be turned -- at us, at them or even merely harmlessly left in the racks in the armories -- then they will not try. Oath Keepers, AND ONLY OATH KEEPERS, (or a broad-based group like it, of which currently there are none other) is the vehicle by which this may be accomplished. Does Gaddy have enough followers to accomplish that task in Oath Keepers absence?
2. The men and women currently serving in the military, and the veterans recently returned, did not choose to start these wars, any more than the Founders, before they were founders, started the French and Indian War. Yet without their experiences in the French and Indian War, without the experience gained thereby, the Revolution would never have succeeded. (Suggested reading, The Minutemen by General John Galvin.) Whatever you think of the Southwest Asia wars, it is undoubted that they are producing hundreds of thousands of experienced, capable veterans who have heard rounds coming up-range as well as going downrange, and they are replenishing the pool of experienced armed citizens when they return. This is, to quote John Ringo, "a goodness thing."
3. The Founders were also wise enough, those who did not participate in that imperialist war, to refrain from labeling the veterans who did as "imperialist tools," or some such twaddle. They did not insist that anyone who was willing to fight for liberty not be "tainted" by ideological impurity. They were happy enough to count such experienced men as allies in a common cause. Wars, especially civil wars, are won by determined minorities which perforce are "coalitions of the willing," acting in their own self-interest even if they do not entirely agree with the opinions of their fellow soldiers. There are Three Percenters who represent a broad spectrum of political opinion, yet I would be willing to tie my flank to them for they believe in THE ESSENTIAL THING. Gaddy may indeed be correct in his entire political analysis, BUT HIS IDEOLOGICAL PURITY DEMANDS WILL NOT WIN A WAR. It will, indeed, drive off many potential allies, weakening the overall effort.
4. In some perverse life imitation of ridiculous art, Gaddy's attack on Oath Keepers resembles nothing so much as Monty Python's send-up of the factionalism of anti-Roman resistance groups in The Life of Bryan. Even if he disagrees with Oath Keepers on some points, why is it that he chooses to attack them politically and publicly, when he concedes that their overall mission is a valid and useful one? What is the compulsion to denigrate Oath Keepers to the degradation of their ability to accomplish the mission of introducing strategic uncertainty in the minds of our "domestic enemies", the would-be tyrants?
Thus, as committed as Gaddy is to liberty, and with more than a nod of respect and admiration to his position as a leader and his analysis of the problems we face -- especially his insistence upon realistic training of the armed citizenry -- his attack upon Oath Keepers is incomprehensible to me, and frankly contains to my mind more than a modicum of self-defeatism.
Gaddy is worried about "comfortable patriotism." He ought to be more worried about smug, ideologically-pure isolation. For if we are defeated, it will be a defeat in detail, because we could not find it within our ability to "unite, or die," as the old flag said.
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters.
Maybe Gaddy has recieved some type of "gain" for his diatribe against O.K..
At the very least he is a downer and III's of every stripe are better off without his kind.
WLM; OK and III in waiting.
Good to see the movement is big enough already that we can start pissin' on each other's legs, huh Mike.
"They use these agents and snitches to demonize the targeted group and if that does not seem to work, they buy off the leadership of the organization with money, power and sex. If an “anti-government” group is in existence for more than a few months and is not infiltrated by alphabet agencies and snitches, they must themselves be a government run operation."
I would assume Mr. Gaddy has been around more than a few months,does this mean that he is a government run operation? Does this mean that I am a government run operation,since I've been around more than a few months?
If so,my government paycheck,power and sex is overdue and I am pissed.
Sir: with all due respect[and admiration for your efforts] I note that you percieve Michael Gaddy is "attacking" you.
I heartily disagree. M.G. is merely pointing out the gaps in the mostly sheeple mentality of our exalted enforcers. As easily accessed as our constitution and bill of rights are, few read them, but mumble the 'I do' which is essentially a lie if one looks in the mirror.
M.G. did you no disservice nor did he disrespect you an any shape or form, only pointing out that we should back our founding documents in their full splendor ---yes, even their hard parts.....like dismantlement of a standing army after 2 years of the conclusion of a DECLARED war, not a conflict via presidential decree as have the blood letting fiascos for corporate interests[as the capital letters UNITED STATES which, since being incorporated in the early 1880s has no resemblance to the several states as in the small letter, united states of america]
ALL or none is what M.G. is pointing out, no federal agents, ridding our selves of federal juristiction, on and on and on.
Lets get with it, not just highlighting the parts we 'like' or becoming active after our federal pensions kick in.... hurt needs to be shouldered by all. Now. Get of the smooooth 4-lane and start driving the ruts in the dirt road.... respectfully, from a outpost on the prarie
Gaddy's attitude is common among those who wish others to support their views ONLY. He forgets that the enemy of his enemy just might be his friend, and so he trashes the good that they do because it is not good enough for him. "If only they would do it my way." he complains, "Then they would be legitimate." How arrogant! Who does he think he is, the mighty O? Is he attempting to fight narcissism with narcissism?
Gaddy has more than an allergy to foreign wars, he wants a re-write of Viet-Nam, and he doesn't blush when it comes to condemning Viet-Nam vets and their service. I don't think he really likes America, and I don't think he has ever found anything good in it. And with him, foreign wars are all about racism. Leads me to believe he is a leftist plant, masquerading as a libertarian.
The Continental Army really is the best example. Having fought for the British Army was not some sort of disqualifier; it was, in fact, a bonus that caused you to enter the Continental Army at your British rank.
He does make a few good points we should learn from.
I however will take your advice ideologically-pure isolation is a loser of a strategy. I will work with anyone as long as they are headed in the right direction. I do not care if they will only go part of the way.
Like hitch hiking you get were you want to go a bit at a time.
Help half way is better than no help at all.
My captcha code is it? is hangue.
I think this is a tap on the shoulder to remind us that we must hang together or we shall be well hanged separately.
Gaddy's problem is that of many "libertarians," in that they have no understanding of or answer to Islam. I struggle with this myself, as one might have to throw the whole "if they can do it to them they can do it to me" baseline ideology out the window to be successful in this war. Charles Krauthammer had an interesting thought on that mentality, when he noted that it brings a whole new meaning to the term "asymmetric warfare" in a recent piece. He, of course, was talking about the current administration's unwillingness to call a spade a spade when dealing with Muslims, but the parrallel is amazing.
Striving for philosophical purity is often admirable, but one must be grounded in reality for any of it to mean anything to anybody.
Keep it up, Mike, I enjoy reading your material, and look forward to Absolved.
Mike, good piece and there is so much I agree with on so many levels. I agree with oathkeepers and their goals and I agree it is good to see criticisms being written.
I agree with Gaddy on many points to include “Comfortable Patriotism”, there are many sunshine patriots around the Oathkeepers forums. To be fair to the Oathkeepers organization, I shall state that I am a member of Oathkeepers and have been “Booted” from the forums for a repeated lack of political correctness that a very few felt it was more important to consider tarnishing the Oathkeeper image than was the importance of the first amendment to the Constitution. A possible Constitutional exclusionism as Gaddy speaks of.
I also believe the Oathkeepers need to be flexible to changes in their purposes of the organization as their impact grows. There are a few opportunities for Oathkeepers to address areas needing immediate critical review. I am certain from first hand comments that these changes will greatly increase the Oathkeeper mission effectivity and membership numbers. If, and when, these Oathkeepers issues get addressed, the Oathkeepers will grow to be a true deterrent capable of keeping the lid on this powder keg until 2012, enabling one of the more peaceful forms of voting to correct this living anomoly.
I wish to see Oathkeepers join up with Thomas Moore law center for representing any LEO or Military person who will not accept an unconstitutional order or an Executive Order that is legal (but unConstitutional) until adjudicated. This will let the LEO people who get fired or military thrown in jail that the Oathkeepers are there for them.
Loss of income insurance for members fired or jailed due to “Not Obeying” orders as advocated on Oathkeepers. Piece of mind comes from knowing that Oathkeepers will financially take care of the families of these brave warriors who stand down in a critical time of Constitutional revolt and social turmoil will remove a major impediment to membership and compliance.
The membership list of the Oathkeepers is a treasure trove of information for the progressives opposed to the Constitution. The current patriot act has turned ALL membership lists into the equivalent of gun registrations; gubmint data mining is rampant as Gaddy says. If the seams of the Republic come undone these listings and databases will be effective in suppression, a BATF dream come true. What is being done to insure the data is failsafe destructed and not data mined? This issue of data security needs to be addressed beyond the Patriot act.
I, as a veteran, and not a LEO, or active duty military, and an Oathkeeper, would be glad to pay higher Oathkeepers membership fees to offer these benefits for our active duty and Law Enforcement personnel Oathkeepers (and their families) at the tip of the spear in the front of the Phalanx. That is what I call supporting the Oathkeepers and these benefits will take some of the most important the weight off of shoulders of our law enforcement and military members the Oathkeepers consequences for refusing orders.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
-- Thomas Jefferson
The Allegory III
no, i really don't think this has anything to do with islam. all wars are of the same basic fabric: either catastrophic failure or "catastrophic success," but always under the auspices of a command economy (socialism). it either is about the principle of non-aggression, or not a point of libertarianism at all, just one man's opinion.
gaddy is at minimum correct to point out that O.K. does not officially address the current wars. however, he jumps to conclusions about O.K. members by nature of what is not even there.
the fact that O.K. has no official position about iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, and probably won't have an official position about yemen when it happens (it is coming) does not on its own support the conclusion that O.K. members are just hunky-dory with illegal warfare.
this is the very same logic that neocon warmongers use to blame allegedly silent islamic masses of pacifists for not sufficiently protesting al qaeda.
in both cases, it is not their job and need not be their concern.
to the contrary, the justness of combat with al qaeda rests on positive identification of their personnel and activity and has absolutely nothing to do with the greater groups they claim to represent or identify with, national or religious.
further, rhodes himself has already (at least informally) made his position on the bush administration clear, and gaddy did not cite it whatsoever, not even to pick it apart.
nonetheless if you belong to O.K. and what gaddy says sticks in your craw, then consider this.
the channels of civil society are open to you: the militia. take your honorable discharge and never look back.
you will have done the cause of defending the country no harm by failing to participate in the system that did not protect us on 9/11 (and did not even protect us last month from a pair of underwear). private citizens, members of the militia by definition, defended the white house from a plane strike on 9/11.
and, for bonus points, gaddy will probably trust you.
Spot-on, as usual.
I think Gaddy is RIGHT about the War. Our Government has been using FEAR and WAR to gain Un- Constitutional powers over us for years. However, In the world of our reality, Gaddy was wrong for attacking the Oath Keepers in the way he did. I think you summed up the reason with your last statement.
"...He ought to be more worried about smug, ideologically-pure isolation. For if we are defeated, it will be a defeat in detail, because we could not find it within our ability to "unite, or die," as the old flag said."
"[T]hose involved would have to uphold and defend all parts of the Constitution and not just the parts they liked..."
Which means I would have to defend the income tax amendment? Defending a plank from the Communist Manifesto is patriotic?!
"Among others I consider to be members of the 'comfortable patriots' are those who believe career criminals, masquerading as public servants, will actually pay attention to a multitude of letters, phone calls, faxes, or emails requesting they follow the mandates of the Constitution."
Gaddy expects Oath Keepers to "uphold and defend all parts of the Constitution" but it is unreasonable to expect their elected officials will do the same. Well then, instead of berating Oath Keepers, maybe he should recruit congress critters into the OKs. At least he would be assured of Congress' support for the income tax amendment.
"If an 'anti-government' group is in existence for more than a few months and is not infiltrated by alphabet agencies and snitches, they must themselves be a government run operation."
By what mysterious alchemy did Oath Keepers become anarchists? Gaddy insists that Oath Keepers "uphold and defend all parts of the Constitution". How is this being "anti-goverment"?
"Does this government actually see any difference in the citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan and the citizens of this country?"
Yeah, they don't tax the foreigners. ;^)
"Call me an idealist,.."
May I call you an idiot instead for playing to the Lew Rockwell fringe of politics?
"[A]nyone who commands others to follow unconstitutional orders, whether it be in the military or in the form of the police enforcing unconstitutional laws enacted by federal, state or local governments, is a domestic enemy to the Constitution."
Well, that casts a wide net. Instead of enlisting Oath Keepers, maybe we can get everyone in a command position to become a constitutional lawyer. Let's just hope they are all strict constructionists because otherwise military units will degenerate into debating societies. That will surely scare our nation's enemies. Maybe this is where Obama got his inspiration to treat counterterrorism as a law enforcement problem.
Sheesh! Gaddy is a particularly bright fellow. What prompted him to disseminate this drivel?
I smile when I see a John Ringo quote. He's a character. Met him in Florida some years back. He used to date my wife's sister when we were all younger. I'm happily amused by his success.
The core philosophy of the Oath Keepers is great, and they can have a significant impact on educating serving military and police personnel.
However, like all things connected with Ron Paul, whom I do admire, there is a certain disconnect associated with them, much like a veteran finds on returning home and trying to talk about the war to his nice somewhat innocent uncle - or auntie.
I have a very serious problem with Oath Keepers taking an official position to not mention Col. Allen West's political speech given a month or so ago which was the most moving summation of what Oath Keepers claim is their philosophical foundation I've seen yet. The reason given for not making even a note of this officially on their web site: they are bipartisan and West is running for office as a Republican... lord love a duck...
How stupid can they get, for supporting a person does not translate into support for a party. Officially refusing to acknowledge, much less support, a candidate for the House who espouses the very beliefs they claim to hold dear is simply self-emasculating, and is an indication that their leadership is not overly astute.
[T]he channels of civil society are open to you: the militia. [T]ake your honorable discharge and never look back.--Jon
This is exactly right. The more intermediary institutions existing between anarchistic man and the total state, the less likely it is that civil war will erupt so as to determine which of those two unruly factions is to be our ultimate authority.
Anon @8.11 pins it. HappyD seems to second-the-motion. Good on you.
I am a libertarian. I am a radical Rothbardian libertarian. You don't get there in a "Eureka!" moment. You get there by a long, often arduous journey, during which people you care about will shun you for suggesting that things are not truly what they seem on the surface. Because I have made that painful journey, I understand that there are others ahead of me and (too many) others behind me on the path. I try not to denigrate those who haven't made it as far as I have.
Let's chalk this up to "Gaddy is somewhere back in the pack", and rather than piss on his legs, maybe offer him some encouragement. Certainly all of us were there once upon a time, whether we were on a 'libertarian path' or something quite similar that runs roughly parallel to it. We need to keep in mind how long it took us.
This concept of "All or Nothing" always seems to end up being an excuse to do nothing at all.. like doublespeak.
Since you cannot have "All" until after you begin and succeed then "Beginning" would be the key to "All" rather than making it a prerequisite to "Beginning".
Gaddy's own interpretation of libertarianism appears to be his own "comfortable patriotism" to hide from doing anything because "All" isn't fulfilled prematurely.
Kind of like condemning the patriot for speaking out against the oppressor because he didn't himself start the revolution.
One thing I have learned over and over and over is that lots of folks in the "freedom movement" are so caught up in their own psycho dramas of being super self-reliant rugged uber Randian individualists that the only thing they really take pleasure in is showing how pure and uncompromising they are, and how everybody else is a bunch of idiots.
Everybody else is deluded, or impure, or sheeple or idiots, or whatever other nasty little tag these uber individualists come up with.
But that's all they are good for.
Bitching and whining about how nobdy else "gets it" and nobody else is as pure, and with-it, committed as they are.
Which is why so many in the "freedom community" will never be any good for anything other than writing snarky rants on internet sites.
As I read your point #2, part of your support for the war in Afghanistan is because it makes a good training exercise. Of course, you are right... sick, but right. Any war gives us that benefit so the term "war-monger" would seem to fit. The fact that our trained soldiers are now returning and using their "skills" as police, (with preferential hiring practices in place), to execute the war on drugs/guns/whatever doesn't even register, does it? From the evidence to date, it also seems pretty clear you have no problem supporting a war of aggression. The evidence against Al Qaeda attacks against the US has been present for decades now. But the Taliban in Afghanistan are not Al Qaeda. Nor did the Taliban even rule in Afghanistan. Numerous "warlords" fought amongst themselves in that land. How many of those war-lords do you imagine had anything to do with the support or planning of 9/11? No evidence even exists that the Taliban had advanced knowledge of this attack or any previous attacks against the United States, (not until we choose to start a war of aggression against them). Yet you happily send a rain of fire down on their heads in your support of this war. And worse yet, we threaten to leave them as we are doing in Iraq with the corrupt puppet government we have propped up to rule over them all -- and with even less respect for human rights and less of a Constitution to protect them against their own now-centralized corrupt government, (such as -- no right to bear arms.
Unless we print their history books, we will be dealing with the next half a dozen generations in Afghanistan because of what we have done to them. At least in Iraq we can claim we freed them from some tyrannical ruler, (we can tell the men in Iraq that, we left woman as cattle). Mark it down as another reason to not participate in nation building, no matter how good the resulting training is.
Now follow with some bitchy comment about remaining anonymous.
O.K. guys, I think I get it. If you're in the three percent, and you piss off the 97 percent, you're dead.
The trick is to say: I spent a bit of time in the 'Nam, took my soldier's oath, and looking back on it, I think I followed LBJ's orders into an unconstitutional war that killed more than 60 thousand Americans, and maybe a couple million Vietnamese--and for what?
Don't do as I did. Do as I say.
I didn't see Gaddy's message as an attack at all, simply his opinion of the situation. Gee whiz Mike, you're sure easy to take umbrage. "Let's chalk this up to "Gaddy is somewhere back in the pack", and rather than piss on his legs, maybe offer him some encouragement." Good idea. "Contraversy(sp)is the servant of truth." That's why I usually get more out of the comments section than I do out of the posting. Throw a bunch of ideas out and somewhere in the middle is probably the best reality.
In terms of Constitutional Law, a "resolution regarding the use of force" and a "declaration of war" are the same thing. However, actually calling it a "declaration of war" triggers a whole slew of laws and executive orders which collectively make the Patriot Act look like the Libertarian party platform.
The debate between pragmatists and the principled (ideologically pure, internally consistent, logically coherent, color it as you will) goes on in all political camps when it comes to putting theory into practice. I expect and do see these spats among the keyboard warriors of all stripes. People on the march with skin in the game had better get thicker skin, better boots, or a more comfortable path. Most importantly, know who shares the rope with you when your butt is hanging out exposed, because that matters more than what your favorite cheer leader is hawking.
The best summary of these arguments that I've found is "You can't be a Republic at home, and an Empire abroad." or "The welfare state and the warfare state are two sides of the same coin." Or as an old friend once remarked, "You can't fight collectivism by building up a bigger team". Ideas and principles do matter, as the fight is largely a spiritual one.
The best answer to Islam is to breed more of those who historically have stood against the Jihadis. Birth rates in the western world are the weak chink in our armor.
Call it anyway you want RLJ, you weren't there. And I'm willing to bet, you never put a uniform on yourself. Try not to go on about the Constitutionality of things when you've never been in harms way and actually had to make a decision. And by the by, this world gets a little better every time a communist bites the dust, so a million VN commies less is a GOOD THING. And no, I do not give a damn.
But in this information war Gaddy serves a useful purpose. The idiots in Washington need to know that a Republican resurgence will not quell all the dissent.
If the two-headed, one-party system bosses think they can just switch to the McCain/Graham/Lieberman/Guiliani head to 'fix' things, that's exactly what they'll do.
These Yankee Repubs need to know that down south and out west we don't just put up with their micromanaging ways.
They also need to know there will come a point where good families will refuse to offer their sons as a sacrifice on the altar of the state.
"I have a very serious problem with Oath Keepers taking an official position to not mention Col. Allen West's political speech given a month or so ago which was the most moving summation of what Oath Keepers claim is their philosophical foundation I've seen yet. The reason given for not making even a note of this officially on their web site: they are bipartisan and West is running for office as a Republican... lord love a duck...
How stupid can they get, for supporting a person does not translate into support for a party. Officially refusing to acknowledge, much less support, a candidate for the House who espouses the very beliefs they claim to hold dear is simply self-emasculating, and is an indication that their leadership is not overly astute.
Official position? I doubt it. Unless Stewart Rhodes says it, it's not official. Was probably one of the overzealous and often times block headed moderators on their forum. I'll pass the message up the chain of command and I'll bet you see that video on the front page muy pronto.
Oath Keeper Grunt
Personally, I think Gaddy's right. So is Baugh.
Towards the end of the 'police action' in Vietnam, our enlisted men coined a new verb borrowed from an adjective describing a hand-thrown explosive device. Guess they couldn't decide who was worse, the communists, or their officers.
Cybrludite said that a "resolution regarding the use of force" may be considered the same as a declaration of war. Anybody know where we can find the words in the US Constitution bestowing that right upon Congress? I can't find them. Absent the words, we may not.
Hey Bacsi, Col. West's video is on the Oath Keepers site.
See, I told ya.
Forgive me for being late to the party, but I have a copy of Mr. Gaddy's DD214.I am unable to post a picture as a comment, but if the mod is interested in publishing his record, I can email it. Some of you may find it revealing, in regards to Mr. Gaddy's qualifications and character.
Post a Comment