A murderous parasitic puppet of The State, who enjoyed murdering people and profited from his offenses, has paid the piper. Unfortunately, others were also also destroyed simply by associating with him too closely. That is the tragedy. The lesson is to shun murderers.
And I notice his death shines a light on the "liberty" movement that exposes a huge rift.
Those who love liberty, yet find it comforting to worship liberty's greatest enemy- the government's military- are upset that those who don't maintain that particular inconsistency are not mourning the death of Kyle.
What this supposed "man" did was wrong on every level. He was an invader, murdering legitimate defenders in defense of his "brother" invaders. He wasn't "fighting for freedom"- not for you and not for me. He was only fighting to advance the goals of an illegitimate Empire on the other side of the planet. He was an enemy of liberty and ALL that is decent. He was not "brave". He deserved no thanks or admiration. He was a compliant and enthusiastic hired murderer.
I'm sorry if you are a military worshiper who is uncomfortable with the truth, but the truth is if Kyle were fighting for freedom, he would have turned his skills against the real threats to America, almost all of whom operate out of Washington DC or other "capitols", and governmental buildings all across America.
Without its armed goons- military and police- to carry out its wishes and edicts, government would be as dangerous as a 2 year-old throwing a temper tantrum. It is those willing to carry out the tantrum that cause the tyranny.
Good riddance, Chris Kyle. One less monster in the world.
-
PS: Someone was telling me there is something about this death that makes him very sad.
I responded:
Would I have shot Kyle at that moment? No. At that particular moment he wasn't doing anything that deserved being shot. That time was back when he was murdering defenders from himself and his fellow invaders.
However, he reaped the seeds he had sown. He was trying to help a fellow broken soldier, broken by the system he supported and was part of, who just happened to snap and result in his death. None of it would have ever happened had he stayed home and gotten an honest job. Sure, he might have died for some other reason by now, but this death is directly traceable to the life he had led up to that moment.
Several years ago a fellow libertarian cut off contact with me because I was glad Ted Kennedy was dying. I just thought of all the potential harm that was prevented by his death, and I couldn't feel bad.
I saw someone this morning saying that the "rule of civilized people" is that "you don't talk bad about the deceased". Really? I haven't noticed that rule being followed over the deaths of Bin Laden, Hitler, Mao, Timothy McVeigh, Stalin, or anyone else that the "majority" says it is OK to speak ill of.
PSS: It keeps bringing them out of the woodwork. I'll have more to say about those who honor a "person" for following orders.
.
i'm kinda having a hard time disagreeing with you. I don't feel good about any of this.
ReplyDeleteYou're pathetic. Who are you to judge this man? He was a respected military man who did nothing more than follow orders and was skilled at what he did.
ReplyDeleteWhat's your contribution to this country? Chris Kyle served his country whether you believe in the military or not. I'm sure the only thing you've accomplished is vomiting up verbal abuse against a country you obviously have no respect for yet are too comfortable with the luxuries and freedom it affords its citizens.
If you're disgusted by this "illegitimate empire" then leave. See how much better it is elsewhere. Trust me, you and your idiotic, judgmental rambling wont be missed.
His contribution to "this country", KB Blas, is that he *didn't* follow the trend of traveling thousands of miles away to kill the defenders of THEIR land against YOU - the foreign invader. "Leave"? Many did, do and will go on until all that's left of "this country" is a bunch of fools on a mission of a chest thumping bravura as the only excuse for living. Chris Kyle doesn't deserve any respect. He was a fool and a murderer. Good riddance.
DeleteKB Blas- A better example of echolalia is rarely seen.
ReplyDelete"...a respected military man..."
Respected by whom? By those who are a threat to America by defending the US.
"who did nothing more than follow orders and was skilled at what he did"
The "Nuremberg defense": "I was only following orders". And I'm sure many of them were/are skilled at what they do, but being skilled at committing willful wrong acts is not something to be proud of.
"What's your contribution to this country?"
Well, let's see- I didn't invade a foreign country to create a new generation of "terrorists" who hate the US so much that they are willing to come here and kill Americans in a misguided attempt to hurt that government. I have actively advocated a return to the principles and the liberty the best of the founders advocated, not some watered-down poisonous "freedom" that the military worshipers claim is being "fought for" by destroying real freedom and liberty at home and around the world. And there's more, but that right there is more than Chris Kyle could have ever done.
"Chris Kyle served his country..."
No. He served his government at the expense of "his country". He was a tool, and was fooled into believing that what he did wasn't wrong. But it was. Unequivocally.
"...whether you believe in the military or not."
Oh, I believe it exists, just as I believe Ebola exists.
"...verbal abuse against a country you obviously have no respect for"
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. I have great respect for America, and that is why I know it needs to be defended from the US and the US's government forces.
"...yet are too comfortable with the luxuries and freedom it affords its citizens"
Ya think? You haven't got a clue. About anything. And are so completely brainwashed you still believe America is "free". How free are you to keep all your own property? How free are you to own and to carry any kind of weapon you wish, openly or concealed, everywhere you go, without ever asking permission from anyone? How free are you to travel without being molested, either by highway thugs or by TSA goons, or by "border patrol"? How free... well, if you haven't gotten the picture by now you never will.
"If you're disgusted by this 'illegitimate empire' then leave."
Why? You are the one rejecting America for a North Korea-style police state. If the good people left, and left all our property to collectivists like you, no one would be better off. After all, the world is covered with your kind of oppressive regimes and their tax farms. Why not go to one of those where you'd be more comfortable and let those of us who value liberty try to get back on track?
"Trust me, you and your idiotic, judgmental rambling wont be missed."
Well, you are probably right about that. Your loss.
Love the assumptions you continue to throw at complete strangers. It only cements the pathetic, judgmental viewpoint you hide behind.
ReplyDeleteWhat "assumptions"? I am taking your word for it.
ReplyDeleteas an institution the military is based on the unquestioning obediance and loyalty to the government.
ReplyDeletethe ideal soldier is a cold-blooded, mechanical, obedient tool of his military superiors and this position cannot be harmonized with individual liberty.
can there be anything more destructive of the true genius of liberty than the spirit of unquestioning obedience?
Thanks for your analysis of this incident; it was spot on accurate and needs to be said and repeated often. Especially true was your reply to the commenter who is clearly living in his "fantasy" amerika not the real imperial fascist police state that it has been debased into. The military worship attitude that indistinguishably served Hitler in Germany and countless other instances in history now defends the same evil; in this country This sordidness needs to be seen for the poisonous taint on civilized society that it is.
ReplyDeleteWell said Anonymous. A military is the consumate, ultimate authoritarian system, which is, of course, incompatible with liberty. Saying that liberty only exists because of authority is like saying individuals only exist because of collectives. This is the opposite of the truth. Legitimate authority can only be given voluntarily, that is it comes out of liberty; just as a legitimate collective can only be formed voluntarily by individuals. Statists like to put the wagon before the cart.
ReplyDeleteDoh! ...before the horse.
ReplyDeleteChris Kyle was a pussy as a sniper. Simo Hayha killed at least 505 Russians who invaded Finland. That's confirmed. He may have killed about 700 in less that 100 days. That's about five to seven a day.
ReplyDeleteNow of course if Iraq invaded the U.S...oh, I forgot, we invaded Iraq. That's gives them the right to kill those who invaded them, just as Hayha had the right to kill those who invaded his country.
I can believe that one reason some Iraqis fought US Soldiers was because the US had supported and used Saddam as a proxy to attack Iran, then subsequently imposed sanctions that did nothing to Saddam but brought great suffering to the people. Any reasonable person living under that regime could only ponder the next genocidal maniac the invading nation would choose to install as "leader."
ReplyDeleteAs a thought experiment, let's consider the following: President Barack Obama is figuratively torching the Bill of Rights along with the rest of the Constitution. People are being indefinitely detained. There are massive riots as a result of Obama's fiscal policies causing an economic crash that makes the stock market fall of '29 appear timid. In the middle of all this, as much as you neo-cons want to see Obama out on his ass, how would you feel if another nation successfully invaded, "removed" Obama, then started the process of restructuring our form of government in order to ensure no more Obama shenanigans could occur again. Would you applaud them for getting rid of O-dumbass? Or would you fight them for ruining your beloved government?
ReplyDeleteSpot on Kent
ReplyDeleteMr. Davis,
ReplyDeleteIndeed sir. Thanks for the kind comment and incredibly well said response. Always looking for more decent reads,any other blogs you care to recommend?
Disagree with only one point. It is in error to assume that since a person does not believe in freedom that they are not brave. Bravery exist in criminals as well as free people.
ReplyDeleteOK, this "hero" kyle mudered over 200 people, then came home to teach the DHS FBI BATFE and USSS how to hunt and kill US! He was a ruthless attention whore, whos books NEVER made half the money he spent. For most people thats called "money laundering" Lets face it "patriots" Kyle was a RUTHLESS ASSASIN. A seriel killer with goverment sanction. A paid killer. His job was killing, and he loved his job. Do any of you NOT liveing in fantisy land think he would ever have stoped? Like Ron Paul said this was KARMA.
ReplyDeletePhony libertarian. How can you advance liberty while criticising Kyle's? Who are you to judge?
ReplyDeleteAs you can see, phony libertarians are stealing the centralized mantra from Democrats.
Phony libertarians.
FYI:
ReplyDelete1. Liberty does not equal anarchy. You can't be libertarian AND an anarchist.
2. Use spell checker and proper English-you'll appear brighter than what you actually are.
3. The U.S. military allegiance is to the constitution, not the government.
For most of you offering comments, I recommend you indulge in the excessive consumption of barbiturates-we'll all be happier for it.
Finally, if you really believed in big government tyranny and conspiracies, why are you commenting on an open forum? Wouldn't "they" be able to track you down? Food for thought, right?
Anon: Criticizing Kyle's what? His "liberty" to murder? Liberty is the freedom to do that which doesn't violate anyone else's equal and identical rights. His actions did violate those he killed.
ReplyDelete"Centralized mantra"? LOL. Who is the hive insect spouting the echolalia of the collective here? Not me.
I already explained "liberty" to you. And, yes, if you are a consistent libertarian, you are an anarchist.
I'm not trying to "appear brighter than [I actually am]". Disappointed?
"The U.S. military allegiance is to the constitution, not the government."
So when will they stop violating that oath of allegiance? The Constitution does not allow anything that Kyle did in service of the government.
Ah, well. I hope you feel better, anyway. I know your comments made me laugh.
You keep saying this word liberty, I don't think it means what you think it means. America needs warriors, and humans need war. Patton said it best; "Men, all this stuff you hear about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of bullshit. Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big-league ball players and the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. That's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. The very thought of losing is hateful to Americans. Battle is the most significant competitions in which a man can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base."
ReplyDeleteYou would do well to read the whole thing. You're no better than "The bilious bastards who write that stuff for the Saturday Evening Post [who] don't know any more about real battle than they do about fucking."
Far better to live as a warrior and die at the hands of a coward than to live and die a pube-faced coward out in the deserts of a country founded and made great by war.
"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."
You speak with high mindedness and self-righteousness about liberty and "anarchism," but you're just an anti-social coward like all the other "libertarians" and "anarchists" I have had to deal with in my life. People who don't like being told what to do because they don't have the gumption to stand up to or for anything. Hypocrites who decry the government, then send their kids to public school, mealy-mouthed wimps who think that standing for nothing is some noble cause. Disgusting.
Well Mr. Kent, you are true to your word when you said "I'm not trying to "appear brighter than [I actually am]"."
ReplyDeleteI guess your brilliance precluded you from realizing that more than one person could use the Anonymous posting feature of your blog. There are at least two different Anons who have posted on this thread. So good on you! You've at least doubled the anonymous readership!
I will have to respectfully disagree with your "consistent libertarian=anarchist" point. I view an anarchist who calls himself libertarian in the same way I view a Marxist who calls himself "progressive." It just seems to be a way of gussying up your appearance so you seem more moderate and less fringe in your pontifications.
Anyway, on to other issues. Could you please tell me what part of the oath of allegiance the members of the U.S. military are violating? And to which oath are you referring, officer or enlisted?
If your answer references violations of the Constitution of the United States, would you specifically cite the relevant part(s)? I'm intrigued that millions of Americans could serve in the U.S. military and not feel the way about their service the way you and your ilk feel about their service.
I'm glad you got a chuckle out of some of my comments today. Making people laugh is a good thing.
Chambers-
ReplyDelete"You keep saying this word liberty, I don't think it means what you think it means.
I have told you exactly what liberty means to me, but follow that link again if you need to.
"America needs warriors, and humans need war."
America DOES need warriors- no one has claimed differently. But as for "needing" war... I suppose you "need" cancer, too. Just because it gives weak people a "cause" to rally around, and makes them feel "special" doesn't mean it is needed. That is just pathetic.
"That's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war."
You can't tell me you don't know of all the wars the US (not America, by the way) has lost since WWII. Or, do you not call them a "war" is the US loses? Like in Viet Nam.
"...a country founded and made great by war"
Wars do not make anyone or anything "great". They are a sign of weakness and failure. Especially when you are fighting thousands of miles from any territory that you can legitimately call your own.
"...but you're just an anti-social coward."
Call me what you will, as far as cowardice goes. It doesn't bother me in the least because your definition of "coward" doesn't impress me in the slightest. Only those who know me in person can judge me on that, and their judgement is all I would care about. But, as for "anti-social", sorry but once again you are so far wrong. I really enjoy hanging out with people and (until I moved away) had a great deal of fun at karaoke at little bars all over the place- mixing, mingling, and having a complete blast. I will admit I was anti-social when I was young. I don't wish to go back to that.
"... like all the other "libertarians" and 'anarchists' I have had to deal with in my life"
Which I'm guessing is zero, or fewer. Based upon your wildly inaccurate assessment.
"...they don't have the gumption to stand up to or for anything"
Like facing down crowds of pro-government extremists, like you portray yourself to be? Like standing up for the liberty of people I don't like, who are doing things I would never do, in spite of popular opinion, somply because I know what they do is harming no other person and I have no right or authority to control their consensual actions? Yeah, that takes no gumption at all. LOL.
"Hypocrites who decry the government, then send their kids to public school."
I sent my daughter to a government school this year because it was her choice, and although I would have never made that choice for her, I will not force her to not go. I think she is realizing it was a mistake now. Maybe she'll opt out before her intelligence is damaged.
"...wimps who think that standing for nothing..."
So that's what you think of freedom and liberty and inalienable rights- they are "nothing" to you. No wonder you are defending the position you are.
Truthfully, I have about decided you are probably not serious, but are just playing Devil's Advocate. I don't believe anyone could seriously believe what you are claiming to believe.
Anonymous 05:48 pm (is that clear enough for you?)
ReplyDelete"...more than one person could use the Anonymous posting feature of your blog"
You knew who I was talking to.
"I view an anarchist who calls himself libertarian in the same way I view a Marxist who calls himself 'progressive.'"
I'm not responsible for your mistaken impressions. You have probably bought in to the "mainstream" confusion of "anarchists" with communists. Lots of people do- that confusion has been carefully orchestrated for generations. But now that you realize where your mistaken impression comes from, you can either glory in it or fix it.
"If your answer references violations of the Constitution of the United States, would you specifically cite the relevant part(s)?"
Nope. Because the Constitution didn't work that way. They swore to defend it. When they do things that are not specifically authorized- in writing- in the Constitution, they are not "defending" the Constitution, but violating it. That is a violation of what they swore to do. And any "superior officers" who order them to do the things not specifically authorized by the Constitution are the "domestic enemies" they swore to defend the Constitution from. By not doing anything, they are breaking their oath a second time.
"I'm intrigued that millions of Americans could serve in the U.S. military and not feel the way about their service the way you and your ilk feel about their service."
Why? Look at all the people who voted for one of the Obamney clones or the other and thought there was an ounce of difference between "them". Obviously "millions" doesn't preclude being wrong.
Am I afraid of the .GOV?..
ReplyDeleteYes.
Why?..
Because they .GOV can send to my home people who are better trained and better equipped than I am, and who would not hesitate to kill me and my family.
As we all (well... those of us with half a brain or more) know, the .GOV is frantically preparing to kill us: almost 2 Billion hollow-point bullets purchased recently by DHS, 30,000 drones in our sky coming soon, armored vehicles for police depts all over country, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam...
3 people I know something about:
- this Kyle guy,
- Jesse Ventura,
- Matt Braken.
What's common between them?..
All three were Navy SEALs.
What's different?..
The 1st one is (was...) PRO government, the other 2 are against it, and are undoubtedly in the "red list".
There are also 1,100 Special Forces soldiers who recently signed a letter... Those guys ARE my heroes, because they basically said (looking at it from my own perspective) that neither my wife nor my kids (nor myself, for that matter) need to fear THESE guys.
I thank them, and I will support them in any way I can, even at a risk for my own life, if it comes to that.
In other words, not all U.S. Navy SEALs are created equal, and not all police and military are the same.
But this Kyle is one of the reasons why I live in fear and why I have been busting my ass trying to get into shape, learn to fight with and without weapons, and spend a very large portion of my family's income on military-related supplies.
If there were fewer kyles, my life would be better.
I do not salute a murder, but I am not going to mourn this one, either.
Kent, the constitution establishes the framework for the American government. It doesn't prescribe or proscribe what an individual soldier may do or not do in the course of his military service. The constitution doesn't say a soldier can breathe, so is breathing a violation Kent?
ReplyDeleteThe authority to raise, support and command the armed forces of the United States is split between the legislative and executive branches. Those branches, with the oversight of the judicial branch, enact the legislation which governs our country and the U.S. military.
The current oath of enlistment states: "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
The constitution has no laws. It is our code of U.S. laws which establishes what is allowed and/or proscribed and those laws have their authority as provided and limited by the constitution.
So I ask again, how are members of the military violating their oaths, when they obey the lawful orders of their superior officers, who in turn derive their lawful authority from the constitution as well?
Anon 11:36 (or is quoting you enough that you know I am addressing you?)-
ReplyDelete"...the constitution establishes the framework for the American government. It doesn't prescribe or proscribe what an individual soldier may do or not do in the course of his military service."
The government operates almost entirely outside that framework today. When the individual soldier is doing something "governmental" (not "breathing", obviously) he is bound by the Constitution and is NOT permitted to do things that violate the Constitution- such as invading a foreign country. Any orders he receives that violate what the government is permitted to do, he is obligated to disobey- "according to regulations", the primary regulation being the Constitution.
The Constitution "has" no laws- it IS The Law that the US government operates under. Any of the orders the enlisted men (or the officers) receive that go against the Constitution are illegal. The Supreme Court has ruled that any "law" that goes against what the Constitution allows is not a law and no one is obligated to obey it.
"Lawful orders" can't include going to war (which is what you are doing if you take up arms and go to another country) unless the president declares war. It doesn't matter if the president has allowed congress to send troops- the "power" to let congress do his job is not granted to him by the Constitution so he can't legally exercise it. It is not his to give away.
So, if members of the military are actually obeying orders that were "lawful", then they are not violating their oaths, but no one "serving" in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or anywhere else on the planet besides US military bases on US soil (whatever that might be) is there lawfully. They are violating their oaths, and worse, are violating Natural Law (but that's a separate issue entirely).
I see what you are doing here. You are excusing anything the current crop of puppeticians and their military tools do. Won't work, because it is still wrong. It is exactly what the anti-liberty bigots in DC and Chicago (among other places) do when they claim that their "reasonable restrictions" don't violate the Second Amendment, when anyone who is honest can see that they clearly do.
Here's another take on it GUILT, NOT PTSD, IS WHAT AFFLICTS IRAQ WAR VETERANS
ReplyDeleteAnd there are those who are saying I "called" it over a year ago. I wouldn't go that far.
Some funny mentality some people have, kind of circular thinking I guess, how can you exercise "lawful orders", lol, in an unconstitutional "wars", lol, do you know what it takes for the war to be constitutional(question to the warmongers)? Didn't Nazis receive "lawful orders" to kill civilians and pows?
ReplyDeleteThank you for answering my question Kent. I think you have confused what is lawful with what you believe to be lawful. Let me explain.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I want to correct a factual error you have made. The authority to formally declare war rests with the Congress and not the President as you have erroneously stated above. The President has limited authority to order the use of U.S. military force. The War Powers act addresses those issues, but interpretation of the act still causes friction between the executive and legislative branches of our government.
Second, Congress passed two joint resolutions which authorized the use of force which are the legal bases for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These resolutions are public law and have NOT been overturned by the Supreme Court. Thus U.S. military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan are there under lawful authority, within the framework established by the Constitution.
Third, your statement "...but no one "serving" in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or anywhere else on the planet besides US military bases on US soil (whatever that might be) is there lawfully" is thus factually and legally wrong. U.S. military personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan were ordered into service, by competent legal authority, under the chain of command established by United States Code, and within the limitations established by the Constitution.
Fourth, U.S. military members may personally disagree with the decision to go to war, but they commit a crime against the United States and the Constitution when they refuse to obey lawful orders in support of that war. The Uniform Code of Military Justice establishes what is illegal and personal opinions of what is "legal" (as you tend to use the term) when it comes to the use of force are not sufficient grounds for a military member to disobey orders with which he or she personally disagrees. The principle of civilian control of the armed forces is enshrined in our constitution.
I'm not excusing "the current crop of puppeticians and their military tools do[sic]." I often disagree with things our government does, and sometimes doesn't do. I'm also a retired military "tool" who faithfully served my country to the best of my abilities and who, on one or two occasions, refused to obey an order because it was unlawful. All I was doing was following the oath I swore. The ballot box, soap box and jury box are the ways to correct errors in our constitutional system. As a last resort I would also add ammo box-this is the principle from Natural Law which is the basis for our Declaration of Independence. As I believe in the ammo box as a defense against tyranny, I support the Second Amendment to the Constitution as it is written. Naturally, I am making use of the soap box to ensure that unreasonable restrictions (with the definition of reasonable from my belief system) are not enacted which violate this element of the constitution. Liberty and Security are inversely related. I want as much liberty as I can have, consistent with some modicum of collective security.
Anon 10:48-
ReplyDelete"The authority to formally declare war rests with the Congress and not the President as you have erroneously stated above."
Yes, I switched that around by mistake. Good thing I don't have the power to send people to their deaths and order them to murder.
"The War Powers act" is unconstitutional. Any acts taken according to it are unconstitutional. They are also wrong.
"Second, Congress passed two joint resolutions which authorized the use of force which are the legal bases for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These resolutions are public law and have NOT been overturned by the Supreme Court."
Not a declaration of war, so sending "troops" was illegal. The Supreme Court was never authorized to be the final word on whether something was constitutional or not; they stole that "authority" early in the 19th century. They have allowed all sorts of unconstitutional laws to stand, so looking to them to be the litmus test is misguided.
"Thus U.S. military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan are there under lawful authority"
Nope. Not even close.
"U.S. military personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan were ordered into service, by competent legal authority, under the chain of command established by United States Code, and within the limitations established by the Constitution."
Nope. But we are going in circles.
"U.S. military members may personally disagree with the decision to go to war, but they commit a crime against the United States and the Constitution when they refuse to obey lawful orders in support of that war"
They are obligated to disobey unlawful orders, as all their current orders are, your beliefs to the contrary. The Nuremberg Defense still doesn't wash.
"The Uniform Code of Military Justice establishes what is illegal and personal opinions of what is "legal" (as you tend to use the term) when it comes to the use of force are not sufficient grounds for a military member to disobey orders with which he or she personally disagrees."
Of course the US government will claim that. It doesn't make it right.
"Liberty and Security are inversely related. I want as much liberty as I can have, consistent with some modicum of collective security."
You believe in "collective security"? Then you believe in fiction.
Kent, constitutional or unconstitutional doesn't rest on your say-so any more than it does on President Obama's mutterings. Ironic that both of you are so full of yourselves that you believe that you are the arbiters of the questions of constitutionality which doesn't rely on fact, reason or law.
ReplyDeleteIt's sad that when you are presented with an opposing argument you dismiss the points outright, or unleash a slew of logical fallacies to buttress your point.
I only stayed in the conversation this long out of idle curiosity; I couldn't tell at first if you were a true anarchist, an extreme libertarian, or the run-of-the-mill, bat-shit crazy, conspiracy-theory believing, narcissist with delusions of his own self-importance and massive intellect.
My first instincts were correct.
P.S. True anarchists probably wouldn't do their blegging with big, corporatist PayPal as their bag man-just saying.
"constitutional or unconstitutional doesn't rest on your say-so any more than it does on President Obama's mutterings."
ReplyDeleteActually, it does. The final say rests with "the people", not anyone the Constitution was written to bind and control. At least, that was the original intent that the Supreme Court violated by setting themselves up as the "final say"- illegally and unconstitutionally.
"It's sad that when you are presented with an opposing argument..."
I haven't seen one yet. All I have seen is a parroting of the exact same old government-extremist points I have seen for years.
"True anarchists probably wouldn't do their blegging with big, corporatist PayPal as their bag man-just saying."
You have fallen for the misdirection that calls communist agitators "anarchists". Anarchists are individuals and make their own decisions about who they will or will not deal with. I don't really care for Paypal, and how that have been force by The State to operate, but the majority of people use it. I also accept donations in other forms, and really appreciate anything. I'm not going to criticize someone for using Paypal- it is voluntary- consensual- no one is forced to participate against their will. Are there preferable ways to trade online? Yes, but there is nothing inherently wrong with using Paypal- and if anyone disagrees I will not force them to use it, nor to send me money in any form by any method. Anarchy means "no king", not what you seem to believe it means.
"constitutional or unconstitutional doesn't rest on your say-so any more than it does on President Obama's mutterings."
ReplyDeleteI keep being amazed you actually believe this. No one working for the government (Supreme Court?) can legitimately have the authority to decide "constitutionality", and for the same exact reason rapists don't get to decide what laws against rape "really mean". The rules were established to prevent them from doing what they are inclined to do- rape, or become a tyranny.
Kent - Reading your blog certainly is an education!!
ReplyDeleteWhen this realization hits us that "we - the USA" are the aggressive invading enemy, I think that we just need to temper the harshness of expressing that reality, so as not to alienate those who now have to face that reality themselves, but who initially oppose our point of view out of the emotion that human nature reacts to finding that a core belief is flat out baseless.
I certainly am pleased that you broached this issue as we are not going to right this nation as a whole until we understand what you have expressed. I just hope that this reality doesn't create enemies of those we should have as our friends.
Just a hint of caution. I believe you are right in that we must be bold in speaking reality, but tactfulness and respect need to rule the day.
Thanks Kent!!! bob from indiana
CPT Chambers sed: "Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle." and "When you were kids, you all admired the ...the big-league ball players ."
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be great if baseball was played to the death?
I might actually watch it!
"3. The U.S. military allegiance is to the constitution, not the government."
ReplyDeleteThen either a) there have been instances where the US military refused to follow the orders of the President and/or Congress OR b) past and present Presidents and Congresses have never asked the US military to do anything unconstitutional.
So which is it?