Re: Traitor: U.S. "ROYAL" Marine sells republic for medal
- First off, I owe an apology to Eric for prioritising debating this on other forums. It is a tough debate to have and I thought I would make any waves first in general political forums before taking the debate into the calmer waters of Rice for President.Eric has plainly disagreed with me if you remember his post, and so other Condistas must feel free to hit back hard if they feel the honour of the USMC is being brought into question.I absolutely insist on an open debate on this, with no special protections for myself because I am the group owner.OK here's what I've said on the Political Crossfire forum. One of the moderators (himself a Marine, I think) there is getting a bit fed up and may soon lock or delete that forum thread, so I want to put my posts on the record here first.
SkonesMickLoud wrote: The US Military, and especially the USMC, has a long history of accepting and wearing honors from other countries.
The USMC officer's sword was presented by a foreign government. The Croix De Guerre is a foreign medal. The 5th and 6th Marine Regiments still wear the French Fourragere for their service in WW1. There are many many more, but I'm not going to waste more of my time.
Well accepting a medal from republican France, or accepting a statue, like the Statue of Liberty from republican France, does not compromise America's republican principles. So no problem with France.
Accepting a medal from royalist United Kingdom does compromise your republicanism, and in fact amounts to self-ridicule, playing the royalist fool, on the part of this particular US marine.
An honour from Britain, which wasn't royalist - say a certificate of praise from the British Labour Party, Tony Blair's party, which is a democratic socialist party in its constitution, however royalist its elected Labour politicians happen to be, would also be good and wouldn't betray one's American republican principles.
red dragon wrote: I say that man is a hero and a fantastic ambassador for America, well done to him and the Queen for recognising his outstanding bravery and dedication to his fellow soldier. I for one being ex military salute him.
No. He WAS a fantastic ambassador for America, right up until the point when he blew his credibility by accepting the royalist medal.
If he hadn't betrayed republican principles, I would have been all in favour of this US marine receiving a British honour, so long as that so-called "honour" was not royalist in nature.
Because republicans do not consider royalist "honours" to be true honours - republicans view those more as a kind of a badge of shame - proof that you have simply disgraced yourself by surrendering undeserved authority to some royal or another.
(I should point out by "republicans" here I mean those who understand the principles of republicanism, and I am not referring there to those who vote for the American Republican Party, the GOP, though of course a real "republican" in the US might vote for the GOP, he or she might not. Also an American royalist who wanted a Queen instead of the US President might vote GOP because of their tax or conservative policies)
If the US marine returns the royalist medal, I would be all in favour of him receiving genuine British and American honours, but not while he still courts royalist favour. As of now, he looks to me more like a traitor than a hero, despite his brave and worthy actions.
Spider wrote: Burn.
Violation of republican principals my ass. Subjugation my ass.
This is just one more in a long list of honors for the marine corps, and symbolic and complimentary of our nations' status as allies.
And out of curiosity...are you the real Peter Dow?
Well I was anticipating someone might not understand what I meant by "republican principles" so I edited in this note which you may have missed.
Peter Dow wrote: (I should point out by "republicans" here I mean those who understand the principles of republicanism, and I am not referring there to those who vote for the American Republican Party, the GOP, though of course a real "republican" in the US might vote for the GOP, he or she might not. Also an American royalist who wanted a Queen instead of the US President might vote GOP because of their tax or conservative policies)
As real a "Peter Dow" as I know how.
Not "subjugated"? So you are telling me then are you, if the US President were to order that US marine, with his medal from the Queen, to assassinate that self-same Queen, as an enemy of the United States of America, that marine would then obey that lawful order without question or hesitation?
Non-subjugated Marine wrote: Thanks for the medal Ma'am. Sorry, I've been ordered by my president to kill you.
BANG! (and the Queen is dead)
SkonesMickLoud wrote: Peter Dow wrote: So you are telling me then are you, if the US President were to order that US marine, with his medal from the Queen, to assassinate that self-same Queen, as an enemy of the United States of America, that marine would then obey that lawful order without question or hesitation?
No, he wouldn't, as that's not a lawful order.
Well the law follows where the politics leads.
When the politics demands the assassination or execution of a monarch like the Queen then it IS legal. One of the Queen's predecessors King Charles I was executed by having his head chopped off. That was legal.
The Queen is actually on the side of our enemy in the war on terror - monarchs are on a different side, the terrorist side, against the people, and when people realise that the Queen is one of our terrorist enemies, then the politics will demand that she is defeated, maybe by assassination or execution.
However, if instead today the American people support the unwise politics of American marines accepting medals from the Queen, as you SkonesMickLoud seem to, then such unwise politics would say, as you do, that it should not be a lawful order to assassinate the Queen. That will hand victory in the war on terror to the terrorists.
Beware because the bad politics of subjecting some prominent Americans to humiliating themselves before the Queen could lead to the bad law of subjugation of all Americans to the Queen and to the end of American independence - the end of the free republic of the United States of America - a perverse reversal of the glorious history of the American revolution.
I presume that American republicans won't stand idly by while they are re-enslaved by the Windsor realm after winning the War of American Independence from the Hanover realm of George III, 1775-1783?
I guess that if that fate were threatened that sooner or later, Americans are going to want to put their right to bear arms to good use, and take the Queen and/or Prince Charles out?
Although rifle shots to the head are so passé these days.
President Putin of Russia recommends Polonium-210 poison in the tea as a covert way to remove your political enemies. Perhaps that could be on the menu for Prince Charles at the next White House dinner?
I liked the way the Irish Republican Army assassinated Lord Mountbatten, the former Viceroy of the British Empire in India, who was a great-grandson of Queen Victoria. The IRA blew him up in a fishing boat! Nice! One less royalist terrorist to worry about.
Whatever the military means employed, it is better by far that Americans assassinate the royals than that you should suffer the shame of reverting to being a mere American colony of this rotten UK regime.
--------------------------------------------------- Thrilla wrote: traitor?... have you gone and lost your mind son?
No. Have Americans lost their independence? Not yet but there is a danger of losing it.
Thrilla wrote: if you are going to charge a brother Marine of mine with treason.. you had better come in here with more ammo than " OMG he got a medal from the queen!!!!"
got is right. As in got shot, got cancer, got divorced. Got something nasty pinned to his jacket - a badge of shame, disgraced himself and his proud Marine corps by selling out the republican principles of his country to a worthless monarch.
Thrilla wrote: medals from foeign countries must be authorized by our commander in chief
Of course this marine, in deciding to accept this medal from the Queen has been badly led by the chain of command and we all know where the buck stops.
It is a failure by the President to defend the American republican constitution he swore to defend when he took his oath of office as President.
It is a serious error, but President Bush was not the first U.S. President to make this or worse errors. Eisenhower and Reagan took honorary knighthoods from the Queen at some point, after their term in office, I guess, though Ive not researched the exact details of that.
Now although it is a failure of American leadership and command, which amounts to treason against the U.S. constitution in my view, it is not a decision for me as to how Americans deal with the president's failure.
Americans will deal with this matter themselves and I have complete confidence in people like Condoleezza Rice to respond in an appropriate way to this and other political questions.
I dont think Condi would be for impeaching the President over this. She is known as a loyal advisor of the President and I think that is how she would deal with this too - by giving the President good advice.
Thrilla wrote: ... we dont simply go around collecting medals... we by-god earn them.I would know.. i wear several medals awarded to me by foreign allies
if you had taken the time to learn about his medal.. you would know that the Major is a helicopter pilot that saved a british Marines life...US Marines and British Royal Marines share a kinship that you would know absolutely nothing about...while serving together.. we are all Marines... and Marines stand by Marines.. simple as that
if you consider saving the life of an allied military member "treason".. then i must deduce that, in fact, you lost your goddamn mind.
if you are going to attack Marines on this site.. you will deal with me... so you had better have your ducks in a row or i will hand you your ass..... are we clear?
next time you want to bash on Marines.. go earn the title or shut your soup cooler.
This American marine deserved and earned a GOOD medal, no doubt, but not a WORTHLESS medal from the Queen, because for an American marine such a royalist medal should be seen as worthless as a stain on his uniform, nothing more.
Worthless to any republican that is. Royalists love royalist medals and risk everything for them. Republicans shouldnt want royalist medals and should decline them if offered.
This marine was entitled to the thanks of the British people, for his brave actions in saving a British marine. Of course he was - right up until the point when he disgraced himself by standing next to the Queen, allowing her to pin a worthless royalist medal on him.
But now this American marine has put British republicans in a quandary - we want to thank the American for his brave actions - but we can't support him standing with the Queen and accepting her medal. He has done us a service and then a disservice.
If this marine returns the royalist medal to the Queen, or destroys it and lets us know, then once more he will be entitled to the unqualified respect and all due honours from the British people.
For Americans, the worry is who are your marines going to be loyal to in the future - America and the American people, or are they going to betray you like traitors just to please the Queen?
David wrote: He calls the Marine a traitor like he himself is an American.Funny how his IP shows him in Aberdeen College.
I don't need to be an American to know that the man who assassinated President Lincoln was a traitor to America. Neither do I need to be an American to spot that this marine looks loyal to Queen Elizabeth and therefore disloyal to America.
Even a Scot can spot a traitor to America.
As the forum administrator David you have confirmed what I am saying in the author column of my posts is true - that I am indeed posting from Aberdeen, Scotland.
But the American people and the British and the Scottish people are all on the same side in the war on terror - FOR freedom and democracy and AGAINST the rule of terrorists - be they jihadist terrorists or royalist terrorists.
I am with the people. That particular American marine looks like he is with the Queen and therefore against the people - and that makes him traitor to us all in the war on terror.
Clarino wrote: Peter, the only traitor here is you.
As a Scottish and a British republican, as a democrat and as a socialist, I cannot possibly be a traitor to the Queen or to her United Kingdom, as Ive never expressed any loyalty to her in the first place.
Unless of course, you count that time, when I was a young boy, as a new member of the Cub Scouts, I was misled into stating a promise to do my duty to God and to the Queen. I was too young then to know any better.
My duty to my conscience has been clear to me all my adult life - to oppose the Queen and the death, destruction and missed opportunities she and her royalist supporters impose upon this land.
Clarino wrote: You are defaming a brave and loyal Marine Officer who risked his life to safe the life of a fellow Marine, your fellow Brit.
Hold your horses Tory Boy. Youve founded that one sentence on your life-time of acquired prejudices.
Clarino wrote: You are defaming
The defamation laws, denying freedom of expression, enforced by the royalist courts are one of the malign mechanisms used by the UK royalist, fascist police state in order to perpetuate the rotten, incompetent and undemocratic tyranny under which the people of this island suffer so much.
By giving royal assent to the UK defamation laws, by not ordering in the British army (or I suppose the British marines) to arrest judges enforcing such defamation laws, the Queen has proved herself unfit to be a head of state of any British state, even a kingdom - unfit and an oppressor of the freedoms of the people of this land.
Clarino wrote: a brave and loyal Marine Officer
Brave - yes he is, as I have already said.
Clarino wrote: a brave and loyal Marine Officer
Loyal - maybe but to whom? That is what I am questioning. As an American Marine, he OUGHT to be loyal to the people of America and the republican constitution of the United States of America.
However, in accepting a medal from the Queen, this particular American Marine appears to have switched his loyalty to the Queen and betrayed the republic of the USA.
Clarino wrote: In case you hadn't noticed Britain is one of America's allies, and therefore we work together, indeed Maj. Chesarek was servind with the Royal Navy when he earned his medal.
Not only did I notice that but actually I AM working with our American allies, not only in forums like this, but also in my Rice for President Yahoo Group and I have written all about British-American co-operation in the war on terrorism in my Scottish National Standard Bearer website , both mentioned in my signature, but perhaps YOU didnt notice that Tory Boy?
Clarino wrote: Would a Brit be betraying his oath of loyalty to the Crown if he were awarded the US Silver Star?
Well every British patriot has a duty to the people of Britain and therefore ideally he or she should not be made to give an oath of loyalty to the Queen and her brats.
As I have written on my website, one can be loyal to the Queen or one can be loyal to the country - one cannot be loyal to both. Republicans understand this, royalists do not.
As for the US Silver Star, I do not know if the Americans award that to British nationals, but since the American people and the British people are very much together, I see no conflict of loyalties in a British patriot accepting such an award from the Americans.
Clarino wrote: By the way, you harp on against the Monarchy constantly, but your little repubilcan movement (which seems to consist of you, and you alone)
You seem to be confusing me, my photograph or my website with something it doesnt claim to be.
I am a republican. I am not a little republican movement. My avatar is a photograph of me, it is not a photograph of a little republican movement. I am the author of my Scottish National Standard Bearer website. My website is not authored by a little republican movement.
You seem to have a curious way with language. Presumably with regard to Albert Einsteins famous theory of relatively, you would try to belittle that because, according to you, Einsteins scientific papers were written by a little physics movement which seemed to consist of Einstein and Einstein alone?
I can only assume that you are resentful of authors because of your inferiority complex of some kind - maybe because you have never authored anything to which you would dare to put your own name to?
Clarino wrote: uses the Royal Standard of Scotland for its symbol. A flag which is incorporated in the Royal Standard of Great Britain.
Well a modern name for the Royal Standard of Scotland, is the National Standard of Scotland.
Clarino wrote: wikipedia wrote: The Royal Standard of Scotland, also known as the Lion Rampant is a flag used historically by the Kings of Scotland. It is a banner of the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland. The Lion is commonly thought to have been adopted in the early 12th century by King William I of Scotland (known as "William the Lion"), but there is no evidence of its use as "the Arms of Dominion of Scotland" before 1222, when it appeared in the seal of his son, Alexander II. The flag is a lion rampant within a double tressure flory counter-flory on a yellow field
Following the Union of the Crowns in 1603, the flag became incorporated into the Royal Standard of Great Britain. Today the flag is still used officially by the British monarch and it flies over the Scottish Royal residencies at Holyrood Palace and Balmoral Castle when the Queen is not in residence. The flag may also be used by representatives of the crown, including the First Minister, Lord Lieutenants in their Lieutenancies, the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and the Lord Lyon King of Arms.
Unofficially, the flag is used as a second national flag for Scotland, particularly at football matches. Technically this usage is illegal, although no one has ever been prosecuted for flying the Standard unofficially.
The flag also features in the Standard of the Duke of Rothesay, the title used by the eldest son of the monarch in Scotland
Youve quoted an inadequate Wikipedia article but as a proud author I would claim that the definitive political explanation of the Lion Rampant flag in its modern context is given in my Scottish National Standard Bearer website. This page states the Scottish republican claim to our national standard -
Scottish National Standard Bearer website wrote: The functions and duties of a Scottish National Standard Bearer
The primary duty is to bear, to carry or to display the Scottish National Standard, the Lion Rampant, prominently so that the people of Scotland may easily identify those who would lead them to success in all matters of government policy and service delivery - from health care to defending freedom.
A bearer can always lead by advising and educating Scots, even if not in command or giving orders.
Therefore, I, Peter Dow, should quite rightly bear the standard, by virtue of my leadership abilities. Luckily, Scotland has been blessed with many fine leaders now (but not the Queen) and in the past (like William Wallace).
If a person is not fit or competent for a Scottish leadership role then that person has no business bearing the Scottish National Standard, at least in a political or military leadership role.
Therefore Queen Elizabeth, with her limited abilities and tendency to betray any trust in her, has no business misusing the Lion Rampant by incorporating it as part of her royal standard.
Scots should not accept this misuse of our standard.
Instead, we should endeavour to reclaim the Lion Rampant for use by the nation's true leaders.
Nowadays, Scottish republicans have a better claim to the Lion Rampant than any royalist.
Admittedly, in ancient times, Scotland's actual leaders may well have been the Scottish Kings and Queens. However, times have changed, and for the better.
Nowadays, the Scottish nation's true leaders are the best politicians and campaigners whose democratic principles and intelligence lead them to demand the election of a President as the head of state for Scotland.
Now, Scotland's best leaders are REPUBLICANS, NOT ROYALISTS!
If the Lion Rampant is to be a Scottish national leadership symbol - and I believe that it should - then Scottish Republicans should claim ownership of this flag.
In non-political and non-military circumstances, such as at sporting events, fans bearing the Lion Rampant should merely be of exemplary behaviour, so as not to disgrace the Scottish nation.
The Lion Rampant truly belongs to those leaders who can really defend the interests of the Scottish people.
The Lion Rampant, in a modern political context, is NOT, repeat NOT, for those who merely claim, as Elizabeth does, "I am Queen of Scots" or, as Charles wants to, "I am King of Scots".
None of the Windsors have the leadership abilities that would entitle them to use the Lion Rampant.
Additionally, it would be an error and an omission on the part of a novice Scottish republican who allowed the royalists unchallenged use of an important national symbol like the Lion Rampant flag.
True Scottish republicans, like myself, are the true Scottish patriots, after all. Therefore, it is we Scottish republicans who are entitled to use all Scottish patriotic symbols.
(Robert Burns was no doubt correct when he said that "A man's a man, for a' that".
Even more to the point, Peter Dow says that "Today, a Queen is NOT a good national leader, for a' that!")
On the other hand, royalists now seem doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past and so forever to betray Scotland. Therefore it is time for these modern-day traitors to Scotland to relinquish the Lion Rampant to their political betters.
Clarino wrote: Also in your avatar, you are pictured carrying this flag, wearing a ritish Army uniform.
I presume you meant British Army uniform?
Wrong Tory Boy - take a closer look. It is not a uniform because you will see, although in the military style, my clothing is a design of my own - my own standard-bearer outfit, worn by no other. It is unique and not in the least uniformly the same as anything worn by anyone else.
Clarino wrote: Did you ever serve in the Army? If so, then you served the Queen, and are a hypocrite. If not, then you are commiting a crime, by impersonating a soldier.
My website and before that my political leaflets and other poltical contributions amount to a greater service to the British Army and to Britain than all the activities of the royal family put together.
One intelligent author (me) is of more use than a family of idiots (the Windsors).
But did I ever enlist? No. I got as far as potential recruit, when at age 33, I went for the medical prior to joining the army. I had no intention of making any oath to the Queen or giving her any service but since I did not get through the medical, the anticipated disagreement as regards my republican politics did not come to light.OK Condistas, feel free to speak your truth on this. And sorry Eric if you think I should have replied to your points first.Also if you are interested there is also another thread on Debate Politics, which isn't under immediate threat of deletion, I don't think, so I'll just give the link here -http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/19083-queen-elizabeth-honors-u-s-marine-helicopter-pilot.html- Peter Dow,Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group
Peter Dow <peterdow@...> wrote:Traitor: U.S. "ROYAL" Marine sells republic for medal
Americans broadcast US royal marine surrendering republican principles to terror Queen.
TRAITOR! TRAITOR! TRAITOR!
Queen Elizabeth II presents her new subject U.S. Marine Maj. William D. Chesarek Jr. with the worthless royalist medal.
Stars and Stripes reports this treachery with its own treacherous glee. The Stars and Stripes is the newspaper published for the United States Armed Forces overseas and must now be seen to be the fatal weakness in the coalition effort to win Iraq to freedom and democracy and away from the influence of terrorists, royalist or jihadist. Further, if this medal is received with the agreement of new U.S. Secretary of State Robert Gates and the President of the U.S. then the war on terror is fatally compromised from within the heart of republican USA. I believe that Condoleezza Rice is the only person in the current U.S. administration with the intelligence to understand the folly of royalty and therefore until she speaks out against accepting medals from the Queen, the U.S. led coalition is doomed to failure in Iraq.
This war on terror received another set back last night when American TV network ABC World News with Charles Gibson broadcast the story of a US marine accepting a royalist medal from Queen Elizabeth. (And CBS too it seems.)
Gibson told it as a "good" news story. But it was not good news. Only a royalist idiot would believe it to be good news. A republican intellectual would recognise it immediately as very bad news indeed.
A US marine, supposed to be serving the republic of the USA, seen throughout the world now to be betraying his nation's republican principles for a humiliating medal of subjugation to a monarch.
What a shame and what an insult to the US constitution and to the US flag. The Stars and Stripes - old glory - new royalist shame.
This US marine was employed and paid to defend the republican freedoms of Americans but now we've seem him begging praise from his new mistress - a US marine descended into the depravity of a mere lap dog for a UK monarch. TRAITOR!
So now there seems to be a new category of marine - a US ROYAL MARINE! What is the danger?
Under the UK terror regime, we have royal marines - plenty of them - and they are good fighters. They can win a battle, they can kill the enemy, but no intelligent person would suggest that royal marines could ever win a war which needs to be won politically, not just on the battlefield.
When a royal marine grows up and learns to abandon his (or her) royalist views and starts to think about republican principles such as democracy, freedom, accountability, the rule of law, elections and so on - that is when a marine becomes a politician too and can start to win the hearts and minds necessary to win a war.
The war in Iraq has not gone well because the coalition has too often thought like royal marines do rather than as republican marines should.
Royal marines could easily take Baghdad in the major combat operations at the start of the Iraq war 4 years ago. A royal marine could NEVER, EVER IN ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SURGING AGAIN AND AGAIN INTO BAGHDAD earn the love and respect of the Iraqi people.
Why? Well, what do you imagine Iraqis think of Queen Elizabeth? Not much and they are certainly not willing to die for her, even if royal marines are.
Any self-respecting Iraqi who considers that an invading army has come to subjugate all Iraqis to the rule of Queen Elizabeth would certainly join the insurgency, and who could blame them?
So the US Marines, by becoming US ROYAL marines and being cheered on in that by US broadcasters like ABC and Charlie Gibson have set the dangerous course for further slaughter and an eventual win for Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The royalists cannot defeat the jihadists.
With royalists running the war in Iraq, it is like being on the Titanic, with a royalist captain at the helm going full-speed ahead in the dark into a colossal iceberg and disaster.
The US royal marine with his royalist medal should return that medal to the Queen or destroy it and let the broadcasters know that so America and all who love American freedoms can feel we have a winning strategy in the war on terror.Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, March 21, 2007, before the House State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs subcommittee hearing on State DepartmentCONDI! Save the free world from these royalist idiots!Peter Dow,Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group
Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail.Hi Peter,
You do not owe me an apology, you owe a certain US Marine Corps Major an apology. Accepting a military award for valor from the internationally accepted head of state of an allied nation is not treason by any definition of the word.
You already have this topic stirred up at UNA http://unitednorthamerica.org/subject4407.html and that is about as good a place to slug this out as any other. However, you may need a thick skin. There be Canadian Loyalists there.
Peter Dow wrote:First off, I owe an apology to Eric for prioritising debating this on other forums. It is a tough debate to have and I thought I would make any waves first in general political forums before taking the debate into the calmer waters of Rice for President.Eric has plainly disagreed with me if you remember his post, and so other Condistas must feel free to hit back hard if they feel the honour of the USMC is being brought into question.I absolutely insist on an open debate on this, with no special protections for myself because I am the group owner.