Kisha Mathews wrote on November 07, 2009 07:30 PM: Can we talk about the unfair treatment and abuse of authority in the Navy? Is there anyone who wants to know or cares about how troops are being treated by their superiors and how they're black- balled if they bring it to the attention of the appropriate authorites. It's being taught that honesty is not the best policy and if you want to get by or get along just lie, lie, lie. Whatever happened to Honor, Courage and Commitment. It doesn't exist in the Navy, at least not where I'm at HSC-2 in Norfolk, VA . There it's the breathing ground for unprofessionlism, poor leadership and instituionalized racism. You won't believe the crap that goes on at this place. Starting with CO on down leadership is terrible and the morale of the junior troops is low. I've been the victim of abuse/retaliation and witnessed abuse to other troops every form. When I enlisted into the Navy, I wore my uniform with pride and had planned on doing 20 + years now I count the days when my enlistment will end. I've been told don't judge the Navy off of one bad command but what do you do when you have been subjected to such behavior. Taxpayers need to know what is going on and why so many troops and soilders are losing their lives and/ or leaving the military with such a bad taste in their mouths. There's too many issues that won't be addressed because their scared and fear retaliation. This is what you're being taught keep your mouth shut, suck it up and deal with it. Wrong answer!!!!

Red Dawn wrote on October 31, 2009 11:24 AM: Mr. Phillips - You sir, make a very valid point. (Our) gov't. is A) only going to disclose to the American public what (they) deem necessary; B) Anything (they) want to cover up or "gloss" over will be done thru the media, because too many people believe what is handed them via the various media, without question. To me it is unimaginable NOT to question certain things that go on, and thank God there are those that have the gumption and wherewithall to do so, and have no fear of retribution.

DAVE PHILLIPS wrote on October 31, 2009 06:35 AM: SOME MONTHS AGO, the head of our(!) US Homeland Security considered any returning Iraq or Afghanistan war veteran from those cobat zones to be considered as "potential terrorists" [sic.]! SHE WAS FORCED TO "apologize" to the National Commander of the American Legion. DESPITE MY REQUESTS to (a) the American Legion's National Commander himself; and (b) "The Washington Post" newspaper - to simply investigate, in the traditions of that paper's former Woodward - Bernstein investigation of the Richard M. Nixon Administration: NO EVIDENCE COULD BE FOUND that her policy against veterans [by Homeland Security] HAD BEEN EVEN RESCINDED. [That policy made public was based on a study she commissioned and then signed-off]! So her "public apology" media event/photo-op was merely a cheap and inept "show 'n' tell" without implenting any policy changes! THAT's CALLED A LIE, FOLKS! SHAME on these elected administration officials and those who have been already confirmed by the U. S. Senate!

Red Dawn wrote on October 31, 2009 02:33 AM: 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Note: "probable cause", and "WARRANT describing the place, person or thing to be seized" Not to be confused with just charging into one's home unannounced and without cause to perform search and seizure.
2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Shall NOT be infringed..... but the GCA of 1968 was the beginning of that infringement.....

Red Dawn wrote on October 31, 2009 02:18 AM: Here is a little reading from the Constitution and subsequent material......
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
After World War I, several cases involving laws limiting speech came before the Supreme Court. The Espionage Act of 1917 imposed a maximum sentence of twenty years for anyone who caused or attempted to cause "insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces of the United States." Under the Act, there were over two thousand prosecutions. For instance, one filmmaker was sentenced to ten years imprisonment because his portrayal of British soldiers in a movie about the American Revolution impugned the good faith of an American ally, the United Kingdom. The Sedition Act of 1918 went even further, criminalizing "disloyal," "scurrilous" or "abusive" language against the government.
Dennis v. United States has never been explicitly overruled by the Court, but subsequent decisions have greatly narrowed its place within First Amendment jurisprudence. In 1957, the Court changed its interpretation of the Smith Act in deciding Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957). The Supreme Court ruled that the Act was aimed at "the advocacy of action, not ideas". Thus, the advocacy of abstract doctrine remains protected under the First Amendment. Only speech explicitly inciting the forcible overthrow of the government remains punishable under the Smith Act.

Red Dawn wrote on October 31, 2009 01:42 AM: In continuation Sir or Madame, in response to your last question, re: will my "guns" keep me out of an interment camp? NO, it is not weapons or violence, it will be staying alert to what is going on around me and not burying my head in the sand, and falling for all the media hype and infighting that is being promoted by people trying to instill racism and religious hate into something that has no basis on religion or race. It is based solely on the belief of our God given rights as citizens of this country. I personally am tired of people trying to turn every issue into a "race" or "religion" controversy. IMHO, I think it just an attempt to breed disruption and distract from the real issues at hand. BTW, in re: 9-11, there are many conflicting reports between what the "gov't" said occured for example in conversations between the folks who decided to fight against the terrorists, and their spouses, co-workers on the ground, etc., and there is "supposedly" evidence that the government knew in advance that an attack was imminent. That sir is MY opinion, not that of Oath Keepers or anyone else, and gee, golly, I am entitled to MY opinion, thanks to guess what, The Constitution of The United States of America. It's called Freedom of Speech. Oh, and I almost forgot Van Jones was just another victim of the "fall guy" syndrome. Doesn't necessarily make him good or bad, just another victim of the bureaucratic fallout. I am not a half witted right or left wing anything, I am an educated person who has seen too much in my life and I'm weary of the way it is going, that is it in a nutshell. Oath Keepers are not promoting vigilantyism.

Red Dawn wrote on October 31, 2009 01:25 AM: Sir, or Madame; in response to your query re: 9-11.... there are many reasons I believe (and it is MHO) that it could have been prevented, too numerous to go into on this forum, my contention in my statement was "what better reason for the gov't. to start up Homeland Security" than to let 9-11 occur.
In regards to the non partisan portion... if you read through the ENTIRE site, and not just some (and I agree there are some who get rather hot headed about the way our country is going) you will take note the the site DOES NOT CONDONE racism, religious slurs, or otherwise, and also does encourage it's members from posting racist comments, but people are seeking an outlet for their anger and mistrust, and that is not the forum for it. Oath Keepers does not promote violence, it only promotes an OATH to uphold the Constitution and asks that members of law enforcement and military LAY DOWN ARMS rather that abuse the Constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States, and NOT obey unlawful orders against such citizens.
Sir you wrote: "all the non oath keepers as you drive by our prison camps. You say oath keepers are NON-violent so what make you think you won't be in one if thats whats coming for Americans? Is it your guns that will save you?" I would thank you not to twist words that I have written, because I never once said anything about all the "non Oath Keepers being in prison camps"... I SAID, and I REquote... "when you are all led into pens like the American-Japanese were by GOOD OLE UNCLE SAM and the Jewish people were by Hitler, then I have NO PITY for you." End quote.

to Red Dawn wrote on October 31, 2009 12:37 AM: Red Dawn, here's a question, if you're suggesting 911 could have been stopped the Bush administration and was not, how does that square with Van Jones being fired because he signed a petition asking for an inquiry into 911? Does this make him a good guy?

You say oath keepers is non-partisan but if you go to the website and read the members posting there, you get specific anti-Obama talk in almost every post. Why is that?

You stress the right to bear arms and to free speech which are both guaranteed by the Constitution but then you, like just nearly every other oath keeper whose been writing here refer to others as >uninformed mouths<, >ignorant or blind<, >sheep< and say you'll see all the non oath keepers as you drive by our prison camps. You say oath keepers are NON-violent so what make you think you won't be in one if thats whats coming for Americans? Is it your guns that will save you?

I would apreciate your answering these questions, they are serious.

Red Dawn wrote on October 30, 2009 01:33 PM: To: "The truth" you posted:
Oh, and any police officer who chooses to uphold the rules of this group over the Constitution had better be warned-you'll be prosecuted faster than the guns taken from the citizens of Louisiana.
The "rules of this group" that you refer to, if you would crawl out of your hole and take the time to be informed... are to UPHOLD the constitution, which gives us the right to bear arms, and the right to freedom of speech... what an oxymoron, from yet another uninformed mouth. Don't be so quick to judge before you become INFORMED!

Red Dawn wrote on October 30, 2009 01:04 PM: ADDENDUM: If you don't believe that the Government has a lot more going "covertly" then you are either ignorant or blind. You put the slam dunk on a group of people who like our ancestors are willing to stand up for what is right, that being the Constitution, our right to BEAR ARMS, our right to FREEDOM OF SPEECH, our right TO ASSEMBLE PEACEFULLY, our right TO DISAGREE without being persecuted for it, but obviously some of you don't see those freedoms slipping slowly away. Check out coverage of the aftermath of Katrina, where police went into people's PRIVATE homes, confiscating their weapons, without due cause. Will come by and wave hello when you are in YOUR "interment" camp for being liberal, anti-government, black, yellow, Asian, Middle-Eastern, Native American, dissident, war protester, or whatever other excuse they come up with to "inter" you.

Read All Comments