This video couldn't be made today. The nudity and non-PC jokes would result in court-martial if not a firing squad. But back in 2003 when we made it, it was actually used as an SOS recruiting video for years after we all left.
Our flight instructor was cool with our class agreeing we didn't want to play flight games and instead just wanted to enjoy ourselves. His only request was that we call the baby ugly. Which we did.
And we had a great time doing it.
To be fair, the High Court didn't say Texas can't defend itself. It just wrongly allowed the federal government to use its Border Patrol to, you know, take down border protection measures placed there by Texas. There has been some discussion of what Texas can legally do when the federal government shirks its responsibility to defend States or, as is the case, aids in the invasion of those States.
And the Constitution itself has made it clear that Texas has every right to repel invaders.
Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States reads:
No State shall...engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Heartened to see the Governor of Texas just explained this fact correctly citing our Supreme Law of the land. I hope to see Texas live up to its reputation against the lawless thugs currently occupying federal office.
I know you won't mind since you won't consider that an invasion of your home or property.
For those who are not idiots, who remember 9/11, who have recently been groped by TSA thugs while a Chinese spy balloon flew overhead, we understand what an invasion is. As do these FBI agents.
Regardless of your take on the level of threat presented by this invasion, the Constitutional authority of Texas to repel it is not in question.
But of course there will always be morons like Sua Sponte, who says he's not the person charged to interpret the Constitution, but when his partisan political hack bat signal is turned on and he has a chance to once again fail to protect the nation and disgrace his uniform, quickly posts that the Supremacy Clause is somehow implicated here.
News flash, it's not.
But Sua Stupidity has done his actual job well as even those who "disagree" with him have swallowed his utterly incorrect premise that States don't have a constitutional right to defend themselves. He is one god awful lawyer (as most of them are), but he's a great propagandist. Especially when talking with military officers who merely mouthed their oaths to the Constitution and stand ready to violate the rights of Americans because they have a credit card bill.
Just got notified that a post I made on the Air Force Amn/NCO/SNCO Facebook Group page got approved. Today. And the rocket scientists that frequent that page made comments like indicating they don't understand the legal argument (that government officials should not use their official positions to censor others so long as they're doing it on Facebook).
So I edited my post to clue these folks in. Which then resulted in the post being relegated back to the bin of "safety" and again requiring admin approval. The only thing that page is safe from is common sense. At least the admins were quicker about approving the edit though.
That's good. Now un-American nutters that frequent that Facebook page (like Jason Burns) can save their un-American comments where they cheer on government censorship of the speech of citizens it disagrees with. Or, in Jason's case, keep on making it clear why our military is so spectacularly failing the American people.
To support and defend, the oath you took, meant demanding yourself, your peers, your superiors and others in the government you held office in, meet the higher standard of public service. It's not an either or thing, that would have been you meeting the standard you agreed to when you entered federal public office.
Getting good OPRs and pleasing your boss wasn't enough. Flying a tight ILS approach wasn't enough.
You are correct that it's too late and that ship has sailed. That has been obvious for some time now. When the digital water cooler you moderated saw our rights as an annoyance and evidence of tin foil thinking and when your peers celebrated their tools of the trade being used to murder Americans in violation of the Fifth Amendment, it should have been clear. So also when they joked about fuse settings for munitions to drop on Occupy protestors or when they lashed out at Edward Snowden for trying to get the government to meet standards. Your peers have long demonstrated that they were unfit for public office and that was the culture that was accepted and celebrated.
And now we are seeing the results of that lack of character combined with a massive disparity in technology between those inside the walls, and the peasants outside them. Almost comically, some of your peers don't yet realize which side of the wall they're actually on. Supporting our Constitution, bearing true faith and allegiance to it, is a selfish act as much as the mark of a professional public servant. A DD214 makes poor body armor when a tyrannical government, filled with the current crop of fascist thugs disgracing their uniforms, is given an order by the degenerate culture you've identified as operating the levers of power. The Green Beret from Idaho could have told you that, so could any number of J6 protestors currently rotting in prison cells for exercising their First Amendment rights.
It is too late. It will get so much worse. And so it goes.
The ironically named Lawman never fails to spread neo-con talking points in his quest to continue the damage to America brought about by the military industrial complex. Reading his tripe for years, I'm almost convinced "he" is actually Liz Cheney in drag behind a keyboard. Clever lady.
But not clever enough (despite taking an oath to support and defend the Constitution) to realize that Americans already elected representatives who already passed a law way back in 1865 (the highest law that can be passed, ie a constitutional amendment) which already makes the draft illegal. That Thirteenth Amendment to our Constitution clearly states with unambiguous text:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
But people like Lawman don't care about that. They'll even try to "law" their way out of it with "interpretation" and appeals to government authority (by which they mean power). For example, pointing to lesser and lower laws which clearly are null and void as they contradict the clear supreme law that is our Thirteenth Amendment. Lawman says, "See, our government ignores our supreme law and does it anyway, so that means that's the path forward and consensus and get your ass on the train..." Any restrictions on a "free" country conscripting young adults and throwing them into a thresher to defend some foreign "free" country, must be ignored. The war machine must be fed while it destroys our economy, makes us less safe, and replaces able bodied men with double amputees and wreaths.
Liz Lawman, please move to the foreign country of your choice if America and its laws and the will of its people are not to your liking. Please stop damaging our nation from the inside by cloaking yourself in a uniform that you disgrace. Thanks lady.
Oh, and say hi to your boyfriend, Adam Kinzinger, for me. If you can pry him away from ClearedHot of course.
Imagine a huge apple orchard with a couple dozen people in it. Millions of apples and only a few stomachs to feed. The people in the orchard are fond of saying "no place on earth has as much freedom to eat apples as our orchard."
A few people in the group set up guard towers around the orchard with machine guns. They say it's to protect the orchard. They then mandate the population wear bio-metric devices that can temporarily paralyze their bodies if the devices sense that a person is about to fall out of a tree while collecting apples, and sending out an alert for others to rescue the individual.
Now a couple people in the group point out that this is a very dangerous development and cite historical examples of other orchard communities throughout history that have had a rough go from similar measures. The others in the group, however, call these people "conspiracy theorists" and point out that everybody is going about their business eating as many apples as they want.
"Just look around, it might not be perfect here but there is no place better!"
This simple little analogy pales in comparison to what has happened in the United States of America. In our nation, the vast majority of our communications are surveilled, analyzed, and saved. The weapons of warfare are far beyond machine guns with cheap drones, satellites, and other robotic devices obliterating any chance of an American population defending itself from a tyrannical government. Appeals to the Second Amendment right to own AR-15s are even less useful than had the Incans demanded the Spaniards respect their right to own spears.
And now, the United States government has passed a law requiring private auto industries install technology in newly made vehicles that will allow the government to surveil a vehicle's location and movements so that it can detect if an individual is driving under the influence and then disable their vehicle. One representative offered an amendment to strip this dystopian power from the bill, but it was defeated. In a House of Representatives where the Republican party has the majority. People must be safe from falling out of trees while picking apples!
Since September 11th, 2001 this nation has become an undeniable overt tyranny. Absolutely undeniably. No hyperbole.
Americans have been murdered without charge or trial by the federal government. All Americans are spied on in their communications. The government decides who can say what and when in their communications online. The media is almost entirely owned (both "sides") and is the number one purveyor of falsehoods to the American people while protecting the dishonest in power. Alternative media is also not immune to nefarious forces and if your journalism reports truthful things the tyrants want hidden, you might find the same fate as Julian Assange. Every citizen is a journalist when they speak to an audience, and even if your comment is humorous and not particularly noteworthy, if it angers the wrong tyrant you may find yourself sentenced to a decade in a cage as Douglas Mackey recently discovered. If you protest your government on public property you may be put in prison after a kangaroo court proceeding by a government that has labeled you an enemy of the state for your political views. If you try to exercise your right to vote, you may find the government intelligence community launches an unprecedented lie campaign while a water main breaks in the middle of the night followed by a shocking last minute political victory, or you may not experience such if your candidate is arrested and taken off the ballot after a political prosecution.
If you refuse an injection into your body your government may require you to stay in your home; a mandate more easily enforced when your vehicle refuses to start.
An American citizen in the 1940s living in Manzanar, California could have stayed in the rustic barracks set up for them, played cards, and convinced themselves that they were free people doing as they pleased. So long as they didn't look outside and see the guard towers and the machine guns pointed inward at them.
All these steps are purposeful and have nothing to do with safety while picking apples. They are evidence that the end state will not simply be more status quo of politicians being liars and thieves that we are used to and which we delude ourselves won't affect us, but rather it will be a nightmare that cannot be measured by other examples from history because no other nation has ever had a population more surveilled and more easily controlled than the American populace of today. Unable to defend itself even close to adequately against an increasingly militarized and technologically unstoppable government, unable to communicate with other citizens, and even unable to travel. These steps are not being taken by the Devil we know for the Devil we know.
The shaping operations that are taking place in our nation today indicate the physical fall of the Unites States after those, paid off inside the castle walls, open the doors to the enemy outside which employs them.
The nightmare coming to our nation will be unprecedented, just as the steps taken to bring about our nation's destruction have been. It is accelerating. This is not something far off in the distance. It's happening now.
God help us all.
The judiciary has been steadfast in knocking down this fascist talking point that somehow free speech is limited when dealing with "hate speech." So called hate speech is, of course, any speech that somebody doesn't like. Too bad, lump it, avert your eyes, people have a right to express views that you might idiotically label "hate speech" even though that makes you angry that you can't muzzle your neighbors you disagree with.
Perhaps before you run your yap online in the future, you'll do a little research into the topic. That may have led you to a great many Supreme Court rulings that have all made clear that there is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment. For example, Matal v. Tam might be worth a gander:
[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
As somebody who has taken an oath to support the Constitution, you might want to stop lying to denigrate the rights enshrined in it. Technique only.
P.S. The fact that you edited your post but still left in "ethnical standards" along with your false factual claims, might be reason for you to stop internetting. You're not very good at it.
Standard-issue idiot thinks that his oath to support and defend the Constitution does not mean understanding and interpreting the Constitution. Perhaps he is unaware of how language works and how one must interpret words in order to support and defend written words.
Of course this absolute mouth-breather is referring to the idiotic viewpoint that our Supreme Court interprets the Constitution for us. That view requires one ignore Article Six of our Constitution which requires all officers of the United States, to include Supreme Court justices, take the same oath to support the Constitution (which would be a silly requirement if the Supreme Court justices were interpreting the Constitution for everybody and therefore writing the Constitution themselves with every opinion).
Even if this dingus thought that was how it works (he doesn't), certainly Sua Stupidity here doesn't get an order from his boss and then tell his boss to "standby one" while he hits up West Law in order to research case law to make sure that he's acting in accordance with the Supreme Court's case law. He doesn't do that.
What he does, however, is spread anti-American unconstitutional horseshit on social media along with his comrades.
And in case anybody is keeping score, Sua and his un-American friends are winning. Mightily.
As he navigates what opinions are popular, he has apparently stumbled upon the opinion that it is a good thing that a government employed public servant has refused to carry out the orders of a sitting governor with respect to violating the Second Amendment. That's a good thing. Lt Col Williams chose his salad wisely this go around.
Government refusing to unlawfully take the liberty and property of American gun owners is good. Government refusing to unlawfully take the lives of Americans is bad. And since Lt Col Williams isn't a sheriff, but rather a B-1 weapons officer in the Air Force, he can sing the praises of a sheriff with spine, but he can't be bothered to question unlawful orders that might come down to him and he doesn't appreciate those who do question such orders. They're almost as bad as those military folks who refused to get the shot that he would have punished were he a commander rather than a back seater former ROTC instructor.
Good to see he's now advocating for "lawyering" unlawful orders from higher authority and crediting such action with having a spine. It only took twenty years of uniformed "service" to get there. I look forward to his new found principled view changing next week though.
Posts
All Comments
