Here's a comment below on the Gaddy piece:
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.
Here's my reply:
I do not perceive Gaddy's essay as an attack on me, I DO perceive it as an attack on Oath Keepers, and the Tea Parties and the 9/12ers and others less "enlightened" than him. I thought my response was measured and reasoned. If anybody whipped his rhetorical dick out to piss on anybody else's legs it was Gaddy. My defense is and was a defense primarily of Oath Keepers, the idea, the men and women and the promise. I think I made clear my respect for Gaddy in the piece. That is not "pissing on somebody's legs."
Mike
III
Note: The image above is proof positive that you can find literally anything on the Internet. Sheesh!
5 comments:
Have to agree with the comment, I don't think it was an attack on oathkeepers(may their numbers increase) either, just an assessment of reality.
Oath Keepers is at the far "back of the pack" in my humble opinion. Oath Keepers and its leadership is stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the 12,000 pound elephant in its political room, an elephant so large it is an unavoidable and critical conflict of interest with its own Oath that it so proudly showcases for the world to see.
That conflict of interest is law enforcement officers and in some case military members in its ranks who publicly take the Oath Keepers pledge and then place their loyalty with their law enforcement or military chain of command ranks and stand deafenly SILENT when they witness fellow law enforcement officers and military terrorizing, abusing, and stripping the natural born & Constitutional liberties and rights of honest, hard working, taxpaying American citizens, veterans, and other military members.
This in my opinion makes them as bad as the individuals who abuse their authority, position, and oath under color of authority.
The Oath Keepers leadership must stand up and stand behind their oath as well as conduct their actions as such. This clearly means speaking out against abuses.
David Codrea has put his rhetorical finger on the pulse of this issue in his "ONLY ONES" blog posts.
If this is "Pissing on Legs" so be it. I don't see it that way. In my opinion, I think "WE" as Americans who love our country and its Constitution/Supreme Law of the Land must ALL take a good long look in the mirror, get on the same sheet of music, and make our actions stand in concert with our words as well as our oaths.
The IS no room in our ranks for corrupt, unprofessional cops, police terrorism, or the same in the military ranks, not to mention all of us as American citizens.
Now Anon, keeping with the metaphor, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Calling Oath Keepers "comfortable patriots" and later asking the rhetorical question of who shall be most to blame for the fall of the Republic, the vile politicians or the "comfortable patriots," sure sounds like an attack to me.
He made it clear he will not even mention Oath Keepers in his articles about what will the police and military do (don't mention the big elephant in the room, the huge and growing org that is designed to address just that question!) but he will write an entire article calling them "comfortable patriots" and blaming them, and others he considers insufficiently pure, for the fall of our nation.
That's an attack. It is no mere assessment. And what is the supposed reality?
The founder of Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, used to work for Ron Paul. He is himself a libertarian. Gee, I wonder what he thinks of unconstitutional wars? He has made it clear many times, including on radio interviews, that it is a matter of strategy for him and his org to focus on what is being done here, at home, rather than overseas. He does not endorse the wars, he just doesn't focus on it. He wants to reach all who are current serving, including those deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of their opinions on those wars.
On the Alex Jones show, he even said that there are people for and against the wars within his org., but they stay officially neutral on that issue so they can reach ALL current serving, many of whom have a very emotional attachment to what they are doing, just did, or will do in the sandbox.
Now, how many current serving will even listen to someone who declares them to be in an illegal war, as Gaddy wants to do. Gaddy wants to beat them over the head with it. Rhodes prefers to bring them into the fold and get them thinking about the Constitution and their oath to defend it, and then let them do their own thinking about the full spectrum of illegal orders, rather than spoon feeding them.
Proud Oath Keeper and three percenter
Hey Anon, if the shoe fits.....
At what point in the violations of law do you draw the line? Do you allow 1% sewage in the drinking water or 10% or what? Compromise means you lose. Most of the public has no concept of liberty or responsibility of the individual. Government schools don't teach it and the military doesn't either. How many, military and leo's included, especially them, have actually read the Constitution?? How many oathkeepers will stand firm when the time comes? If they are allowed to stand. I hope its all and I hope they grow but history isn't on our side. Read the Constitution, it is an illegal and unconstitutional war(s), like it or not, facts are stubborn things and Gaddy simply points out uncomfortable facts.
Note: The image above is proof positive that you can find literally anything on the Internet. Sheesh!
You didn't know this? You ARE old, sir :)
Post a Comment