ANOTHER COMBAT VET TAKES A POLITICIAN TO TASK FOR VIOLATING THE OATH
Folks, below is yet another veteran taking his “congresscritter” to task for violating the oath. This combat vet’s name is Paul Curtman, and in the below video, he is giving US Senator Claire McCakill (MO) a piece of his mind about her violation of the oath. Thought you would enjoy this one too. The meme of keeping the oath is spreading, and it is good to see. Sure, we Oath Keepers would love to take credit, but it is probably more a case of like minds thinking alike. It should be obvious, and plain as the noses on all of our faces, that those who take an oath should keep it, and if they don’t, they should be called on it. About time that began to happen. I’ll have more to say on the other side. -- Stewart
And here are Paul’s own comments from his blog page:
You may have seen this video of me (Paul Curtman) taking Senator Claire McCaskill’s (MO) office to school on the Constitution.
Since then I have been on national television and radio programs to talk about my statements on the Constitution. The point I was trying to get across is that if members of the armed forces take an oath to the Constituiton and are then given body armor and sent to battle to fulfill that oath, then our leaders in government should be held true to their oath to to at least the same degree; operating ONLY within the confines that the Constitution sets for them. I made clear that since this legislation IS outside the confines of her powers, I need not hear an explanation, but rather an apology.
I think Thomas Jefferson might say that I was attempting to bind down the Senator from her mischief by the chains of the Constitution.
Please tell me what you think about this. Your response would be greatly appreciated.
MORE FROM STEWART RHODES:
You can read the responses from others by going here and if you are registered at Campaign for Liberty, you can leave a comment there. If you do, be sure to sign off as an Oath Keeper so he knows where you came from. But if you don’t have an account there, no worries. I will give Paul a heads up so he can come here and read your responses.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Southern Poverty Law Center puts Campaign for Liberty on its list of “hate” orgs because Paul Curtman dared to mention his oath to the Constitution on his Campaign for Liberty blog. A veteran speaking in public about his oath? Calling on others who took the oath to keep it? The horrors! Must be an extremist! Or a racist! The more shrill the screechers at SPLC get, the more people realize the importance of that oath, and the more they realize just how much the enemies of the Constitution loath that oath, and why.
They want to chill your speech, to demonize you for daring to open your mouth, and to make you afraid to speak out about your oath. That is their goal. And that tells you what your proper course of action should be -- to redouble your efforts to reach out to your brothers and sisters who have taken that same oath, and to attend public town hall meetings and if your representatives, of either party, have violated their oaths, call them on it. The Founders, in their wisdom, wrote the oath requirement right into the Constitution, in Article Six. They knew what they were doing, and they put it there for a very good reason. We are now putting that very good reason to very good use.
The more we are attacked for simply coming together to reaffirm our oaths, or speaking out when others violate their oaths, the more we know we are on the right track. Guardians of the Republic, honor your oaths! Speak out!
For the Republic,
Stewart Rhodes
AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and…
……………THANK YOU!!!…………
Brilliant!! Thank you!!!
Standing ovation!!!!!!!
Truly a proud moment for all patriots.
I vote for an apology, and, a resignation.
Thank you Paul Curtman.
True to your Oath, in word and deed. Thanks, Paul. It isn’t easy to stand up and speak out. You set a great example for us!
Stepping up and setting the example. Thank you for doing so. We are all in this together. It is an honor to stand with you.
Not On Our Watch!
God Bless You !!! Speak boldly my brother and keep it up !
WOW!! This is awesom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I stand proud
Kathy
Thank You Mr. Curtmen I am once again proud to be a retired member of our armed services THANKS
I am so proud of this young man. This is what we need to bring our congress under control. God bless him and others willing to defend our Constitution and our Great country.
Could not have said it better myself!!!
God Bless You & the Republic!!!
C. Schade
“I wouldn’t be surprised if the Southern Poverty Law Center puts Campaign for Liberty on its list of “hate” orgs……”
That should be worn as a Badge of Honour. They are pathetic souls. I’ve written them many times stating that since they would not longer authorize a red star on their map over a locale for a “hate” group, I would be happy to have another member of my family join the LoS, but wanted them to promise that they would in fact place one of their itty, bitty stars over my town, and,just imagine, they never had the courtesy to reply……:)
Paul Curtman, thank you for your service and thank you for your courage and clairity in addressing this meeting. I am so happy that we still have clear thinking young patriots in America. I think I can still feel the shock waves your comments made in the district of criminals.
I like many others have had my head in the sand, polically, until most recently. I thank Almighty God for the Oathkeepers. I believe in our rights as Americans, have been loyal to our (all Americans) beautiful country. I have been allowed to exercise all freedoms paid for by our vigilant miliary. Both parents born in 1913 are now deceased, however, many of my family members and friends have given their life (for many years) for mine and my children’s safety. I now have grandchildren who I hope can also live in freedom. I give honer to Great Men & Women who have literally laid down their lives and security of home, family and friends, to fight for Our (US) freedom. I stand firmly with you with all my heart, soul and spirit. Right now I am bankrupt, however, I will support you in word, action and prayers. There are no words to express how much I appreciate you and your voice of reason.
Paul is an awesome patriot and I have had the pleasure of hearing him speak a couple of times on the oath and what it means. I am including a link to a video of Paul at our recent Show Me Patriots meeting here in Missouri. He was awesome. We are hoping he will decide to run for office in Mo. If anyone wants to know what the Oath they take means, they need to see this video from our meeting.
Enjoy and pass along. Paul is a Patriot and an Oath Keeper!
Cindy McGee
http://www.conservativetvonline.com go down and Click on the Paul Curtman video on the left hand side. It is really good.
Thank you! For the service you gave to the American people over seas and for standing up upon our own soil to defend the Constitution for us all! Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, from the bottome of my and my family’s hearts!
What was the Senator’s response? The video and your message are not complete without having a chance to view her reply. One can only infer that she agreed with you, and was “on your side” and thus her response was not “shocking” enough to publish.
Don’t get me wrong, I totally 100% agree with what you are saying. There is nothing in the constitution about healthcare.
I just think that if you truly want to show how corrupt the politicians in office are, then we need to have the whole story.
http://supremecourtpetition.us/Petition.html This is a really awesome petition! It will be sent to the Supreme Court of The United States until “We The People” get an answer! It is VERY well done and many, many people have already signed it! The comment section is an amazing read, people are really standing up and demanding that the Constitution be honored! Please check it out and if you agree please get the word out to as many as you can. Thank you so much, I am so proud to be an American and your fellow patriot!
when this long and hard path that you have taken is won again and you have your country in the hands of the people once again. and you have made the men responsible for all the corruption answer.
PLEASE do not forget to follow up on 9-11! There is seemingly an awakening all over the coutnry in various forms, this being one of them. do not forget your brothers and sisters of other organisations who are seeking to make the same people answer for DIFFERENT CRIMES !
There is nothing in the constitution about traffic regulations; so does it makes sense not to have traffic regulations? There is nothing in the constitution about having a national highway system. There is nothing in the constitution about computers, the internet, federal deposit insurance, banking regulations, federal drug administration, center for disease control, the agriculture department which is responsible for our nation’s food safety, consumer product safety commission, etc, etc, etc.
Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. You cannot have life, liberty and pursuit of happiness without health. Health is a basic human need and an inalienable right.
I served 22 years (so far) for these rights. As part of my keeping the oath is to ensure everyone has the same rights that congressmen do and I do.
The Patriot
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.
“Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual’s have unalienable rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
I stand corrected. The final version of the Declaration of Independence says unalienable.
Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights. You cannot have life, liberty and pursuit of happiness without health. Health is a basic human need and an unalienable right.
Here is a historian perspective of this subject;
“The question is often asked, “Is the word in the Declaration of Independence unalienable or is it inalienable?”
The final version of the Declaration uses the word “unalienable.” Some earlier drafts used the word “inalienable,” which is the term our modern dictionaries prefer. The two words mean precisely the same thing.”
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/unalienable.htm
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights
A young man with a level head, lets send him to washington to represent the people, PLEASE! Its good to know Im not the only one who sees that the federal mafia is stealing every thing we have. Their going to tax air!!!!!! What next?
Well Done.
Always Vigilant
Always Faithful
Patriot,
If a power is not delegated to the US by the Constitution, then the power is reserved to the States, respectively, or to the People. (see 10th Amendment) Health care is not Federal business. That belongs to the States and the People.
Nowhere, do our Founding Documents mandate that the Federal government is charged with granting wishes. Rights are only mentioned with regards to RESTRICTING the Federal government from infringing upon those Rights, collectively referred to as FREEDOM. From a purely academic perspective, pointing to unconstitutional usurpations as justification for bigger unconstitutional government is a losing arguement.
I am curious as to what you consider service. 22 years is a long time. Did you swear to support and defend the Constitution as part of that service?
What does the Boston Tea Party have in common with national healthcare?
Here is the answer: In the 1700’s (and right up to the 20th century) no one knew how disease was transmitted. All the colonists knew was that drinking plain water was very unhealthy. So, everyone drank tea. The colonists didn’t know that the boiling of water in the tea-making process was killing deadly bacteria. That made tea a very important commodity.
When they dumped that tea into Boston Harbor they were making a statement that they would rather die of some dread disease than pay a tax on a commodity that they believed kept them healthy.
National Death Care should suffer the same fate!
Patriot,
A human need does not equate to a right. Healthcare as we know it today has only been around for the last 80 years or so. It is certainly not a Federal power.
The Federal Government has been out of Constitutional bounds since the New Deal and probably longer. The President has commented at length about his problems with the Constitution. I did not swear an oath to his problems with it and he has no right to act outside of its bounds. Whatever happened to the Rule of Law?
Patriot,
As per your comment/correction.
historian perspective?
modern dictionaries?
question?
“The two words mean precisely the same thing.”?
The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style?
opinions of the American Heritage Usage Panel
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/unalienable.htm,
operated by IHA, a 501 (c) (3) government corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights,
a constantly manipulated joke
The final version of the Declaration uses the word “unalienable.”
final: leaving no further chance for action, discussion, or change; deciding; conclusive
Persons have inalienable rights.
Individuals have unalienable rights.
CorbinKale – United States Army Regular Army Officer. I support and defend the constitution every day. But I support a living document not a dead document.
The Reader — You don’t have an counter argument so you attack the creditability of the source. That is an obvious and cheap approach. While you are busy dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s you completely miss the argument: thousand of American citizens die each year because they have no access to healtcare.
David Satterfield – I have a human need for food. A plentiful, safe and affordable access to food is a necessary but not sufficient condition to my right to life. I have a human need for water. A plentiful, safe, and affordable access to water is a necessary and but not sufficient condition to my right to life. The list of preconditions is pretty long so I will stop with one more. Health is a necessary and but not sufficient condition for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
If the Constitution is to be supported and defended, then the changes to the Constitution have to be achieved through the Constitutional amendment process. Do you mean to say that the Constitution is a living document in the sense that it can mean one thing when you go to bed one night, then mean something else when you get up the next morning?
If that is the case, why have a written Constitution, at all? Just make it up as you go, each day. I am holding fire, on the chance that I have misread your reasoning. I look forward to your reply, sir.
The constitution has set up a process for changing it. That is the only way it can be changed. But this is the 21st century not the 18th. Don’t hold your fire on my account.
PS: Our founding fathers’ wisdom proved to be very prescient. Thus our constitution has withstood the test of time. But our laws do change. Do we believe the Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) supreme court decision was correct? Did we wake up one day in 1920 and decide to give women the right to vote? Did we really need the 19th Amendment for that? Didn’t the constitution already preserve the rights of all men and women of all color when it was written? Apparently, it didn’t mean that at the time as was reinforced by the Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 (despite the 13th, 14th 15th amendments). So we did need the civil rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s even though our constitution already granted all men equal rights. Unless of course one interprets men to mean male and not human beings and meant only to include white males. So apparently we did decide the constitution meant one thing one day and it means something else in 1857, 1896, 1920, 1954, 1964, and 1965.
So you are aware that your support of changing the Constitution, by means other than the amendment process, makes you a traitor, by your own Oath?
Also, the Constitution does not grant Rights. It restricts the government from infringing upon the Rights of the People, and enumerates specific powers that we lend to the government in Article I, Section 8. Health care for all is not in those enumerated powers, so that is reserved to the States and the People, according to the 10th Amendment. I hope to God you are not in charge of any soldiers.
We can’t call them on the carpet holding them to the Constitution if we don’t know it. Paul Curtman obiously does. If just one of us will do what he did at each public meeting, what an effect we would have! Semper Fi, Paul!.
CorbinKale:
I wrote – “The constitution has set up a process for changing it.”
This statement is exactly the constitutional amendment process you mentioned. So what are you talking about – when you call me a traitor?
In my post script, I was just pointing out the historical fact that the original interpretation of the meaning of the constitution changed via Supreme Court rulings over the last 2 previous centuries. The constitution was amended via the constitutional amendment process several times; but what the original constitution and those amendments meant has changed over time as reflected in federal and state laws. As I pointed out previously, the constitution is no longer interpreted to mean slavery and segregation are OK as I pointed out in those Supreme Court decisions.
I have served 22 years in the Army defending this nation, do not call me a traitor ever again.
You, also, called it a living document and stated that you wanted to impose your desire of healthcare for all, skipping the amendment process, even saying how the Constitution was centuries out of date, pointing at the Declaration of Independence’s unalienable Rights, as your justification. Health Care is not Federal business and your imposition of such on the nation, outside of the amendment process is a violation of your Oath to support and defend the Constitution. You posted several amendments only AFTER you listed things that are NOT in the Constitution, as a way to get around the Constitution.
You told me not to hold my fire, now you want me to ceasefire? LOL
Why don’t you state it plainly, and stop the politician officer crap. Do you think the Federal government, currently, has Constitutional authority to institute national healthcare?
You said,”I served 22 years (so far) for these rights. As part of my keeping the oath is to ensure everyone has the same rights that congressmen do and I do.” You didn’t mention any proposed amendment, did you? Did you forget, or did you have something else in mind? Speak plainly, sir.
CorbinKale: I argued that health is a necessary condition for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Can you point to a previous post where I said the federal government should impose a healthcare program on this nation? You just pulled that out of thin air. This nation needs a health care solution not the current system of health care exploitation. I hope that can be a market based solution; but if it cannot be so; then I clearly support a federal public option. I hope that option isn’t necessary; but I am not for letting the status quo remain in place. The federal government already has the power to provide for the general welfare of the nation.
Now if this in a non-partisan site but by non-partisan you only mean the libertarian point of view, then just say so and I will withdraw my support.
Now since I have full time job, I will let you have the last word.
Yes, post #19, where you said, “Health is a basic human need and an inalienable right. I served 22 years (so far) for these rights. As part of my keeping the oath is to ensure everyone has the same rights that congressmen do and I do.”
Since you are employed by the Federal government, how did I pull anything out of the air? It was all out of your posts.
If you think that the ‘general welfare’ clause means that our Founders went to all the trouble to make such a restrictive Constitution with specifically enumerated powers, and an amendment that says powers not enumerated here are reserved to the States or the People, then, in their infinite wisdom, said,”Oh, and if you think something else might be a good idea, go for it!”, then you never did support the Constitution.
We are non partisan. We support the Constitution by teaching and reaching out to those who swore an Oath. Sometimes we teach by pointing out flawed reasoning of those who have not really looked into the issue. In that, you have been of service.
Inalienable Rights are not guarantees. If your idea of protecting our freedom is to endorse unconstitutional usurpations resulting in stealing from some to give to others, then I will fight you every time, sir.
If eight words are too many to comprehend, I’m obviously wasting my time here.
CorbinKale:
Oh, I cannot resist.
How does post #19 translate into the federal government providing health care? Talk about usurpations. If you can’t even get this right you shouldn’t be teaching anything. By the way, I haven’t seen one congressman or senator make a constitutional argument. They are claiming death panels, illegal immigrants will get health care, Medicare will be depleted to pay for this program, and reform will lead to government run healthcare. Why don’t they make the constitutional argument?
The difference between you and me is I care about people and you care about yourself and the welfare of insurance corporations. If that is the fight you want, I will kick your ass every time.
Well said, it is so wonderful to see our fine men and women who have served in a position that requires taking an oath, stand up and demand, congress obey their oath also.
Keep up the fight!
Patriot,
I am not trying to convince you of anything. My posts are mainly to counter your misunderstanding of our supreme law for the benefit of those who might have accepted your reasoning, unchallenged. You have made up your mind, and neither of us are going to budge. I am content to let those who read our exchange make up their own minds. If we continue this, we have nowhere to go but name calling. Good day, sir.
good job!Proud to stand with you!
and as far as the active duty ‘politician’ Capt. is concerned, wow how brainwashed!
The only job of the federal government is to pay our bills and provide for the common defense.
Not to be a nanny state.
Anyone who does not see that has neither read the entire document, nor studied our history, but instead repeats the talking points of media propaganda.
What a shame!
A government big enough to give you everything is also big enough to TAKE away everything!
^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^
Typical ‘ends,’
predicted by a Scottish history Professor of Civilizations at graduation in 1787:
“A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money
form the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always Collapses over
Loose Fiscal Policy, always Followed by Dictatorship.”
Thomas MaCaulay stated it differently:
“Your Republic will be fearfully plundered and laid waste by Barbarians in the twentieth (21st) century,
with this difference:
The Huns and Vandals who ransacked Rome were from without,
and your Huns and Vandals will come from within your Own Country,
and be Engendered from Within by Your Own Institutions.”
Here are the types of philosophies in interpreting the constitution:
Originalism or Original Intent
Modernism/Instrumentation
Literalism – historical
Literalism – contemporary
Democratic/normative reinforcement
See http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html for simple, quick definitions
See http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth–730-Interpreting_Constitution_Contextually.aspx for a details analysis of By David Mayer which compares and contrasts the limitations of both the loose constructionist view and the strict constructionist view. If you have an open mind and a curious intellect you will read this.
Gee! I guess I wasn’t spitting out media propaganda. Instead I have informed opinion and recognize there are many philosophies for approaching the interpretation of the constitution. Plus, I don’t think you are a traitor just because you don’t agree with me.
First, the Southern Poverty Law Centre is kith and kin to the ADL, in other words, basically takes its orders from B’nai B’rith which is given its orders by the Scottish Freemasons who are, of course, primarily NWO promoters for the Rothschild cabal.
OF COURSE they do not want free speech.
You were magnificent in your demeanor and the context of what you were saying. What pleased me most was the way people recognized your common sense and rallied around you.
People must begin to realize the truth and I do believe more eyes are opening up but they do not know where to turn to find strength and support and leadership that might seem too far out for them.
You could do it! Well done.
Paul Curtman represents what is “Right” about our country’s patriotic citizens who come to “answer the call” when others are either afraid to serve, think that joining the military “is for suckers”, or do NOT care about serving their nation because they are cowards themselves!
I hope someday that I will be able to meet this “honorable” young man and to look him in the eye and say to him, “I hope to have a son like you one day. Thank you for serving our country. God Bless you!”
Most Respectfully,
Robert Ruppert
(A Disabled Veteran)
Paul Curtman represents what is “Right” about our country’s patriotic citizens who come to “answer the call” when others are either afraid to serve, think that joining the military “is for suckers”, or do NOT care about serving their nation because they are cowards themselves!
I hope someday that I will be able to meet this “honorable” young man and to look him directly in his eyes and say to him, “I hope to have a son like you one day. Thank you for serving our country. God Bless you!”
Most Respectfully,
Robert Ruppert
(A Disabled Veteran)
the armed service is not big on teaching civics
this young trooper is not an average service man by any means, he has not taken the military propaganda at face value, wish this kind of outstanding conduct would go viral among the young service members.
I had just seen this now and had to comment by saying Thank You so much for that. I am very grateful to you and those who know the Constitution and WILL defend it. That made tears of joy start flowing a bit seeing that, that is just beautiful.
I do wish there were more like you who will stand up for what is right. Certainly we see so many violating OUR Constitution and need to be called on it. They need that education and i am praying that these elected officials will never again violate their oaths to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution they took that oath for, the whole purpose of their job.
Again i Thank You so much for that and all you have done and do.
I Am very proud to say that Paul is my younger brother. We are both proud to say that we are Oath Keepers!