I just watched a segment on Fox and Friends with Steve Doocy, one of the Baldwins, Robin Givens and some comedian dude. They were supposed to be discussing Matthis’ flag burning theater and why the media isn’t covering it. Doocy said something to the effect that none of the media are covering it, that there’s just one blog out there saying anything. Um, Steve, the name is “This Ain’t Hell”.
Of course, Givens sucked all of the oxygen out of the room with her answer that all of the media only covers what they want. So it wasn’t really a discussion, it was Givens attempt to cover for the media and the White House with the “everyone does it” excuse.
Apparently they’re not putting the video up because they just posted the following segment while I was typing this.
One Iraq Veterans Against the War member of whom I’ve never heard until today is Joyce Wagner. She’s one of those actual Iraq veterans whose number is dwindling at IVAW these days. She pens an opinion on the IVAW website today – probably the first hing I’ve seen written there with which I agree;
So when Matthis took an action, whether right or wrong, without considering this community it became incredibly offensive. As Matthis continues to boast his righteousness, even having the audacity to compare himself to Martin Luther King, it becomes more offensive.
Members from the Pittsburgh chapter composed a letter to the board of directors, which several other individual members signed onto in agreement. This letter was not asking for reprimand or punishment. It was simply asking for dialog, something that has thus been refused. We also suggested that if Matthis wants to perform renegade actions without care for the others in his community (including those who were present in DC on that same day who were performing their own action TOGETHER) he should voluntarily remove himself from the board in order to accomplish his own agenda, whatever that maybe.
At least some members of IVAW see the act for what it was – a selfish plea for attention.
Wagner writes that IVAW provides an opportunity for some members to express a unique shared viewpoint, But is that really the case these days, Joyce? The support that she claimed she got from IVAW membership has been co-opted by a far Left minority who only wants people in :Iraq veteran” T-shirts to prop up in front of their rallies. Matthis’ actions on March 20th prove this. He had no illusions that he was pissing on the more conservative, more “pro-America” membership of IVAW, but because he’s been able to twist the real message of IVAW, and bend the Board to his will with his idit antics, he knew that spinless Jose Vasquez and the other non-Iraq War veterans on the board would capitulate to him.
Now your choice is whether you want to remain with the sinking ship of the IVAW or whether you want to seek the camaraderie of REAL Iraq veterans, or whether you want to wallow in theatrics of the porcine Left. The Board has left you no choice, except confronting Matthis yourself, with their decision to let Matthis continue unabated and to embrace the profane message of Elaine Brower “This is what we think of this country”. As well as, Matthis’ “This is not my country”.
From this point forward, every IVAW T-shirt will be conflated with those messages of Matthis Chiroux and Elaine Brower.
This picture is of Dahr Jamail (center of the picture in black glasses and dark hair), eminent journalist for Truthout.org. He seems to be leading some IVAW protesters in their march on the National Archives in March, 2008, doesn’t he? Well, this photo probably represents that truth better than any Jamail himself could pen.
Jamail has made it his life’s work to besmirch the reputation of the American soldier. We’ve compiled a fairly large number of posts about Jamail, a search on his name will demonstrate how he’s attached himself to James Branum, the IVAW and Under the Hood Cafe. Apparently, he took volumes of notes during the Winter Soldier hearing in March 2008, because he drags them out at every opportunity and repeats quotes from them like a trained bird. (more…)
Jason Hurd was at Winter Soldier II in Silver Spring, MD and testified that he ALMOST shot an Iraqi who wouldn’t stop when she approached his checkpoint. He ALMOST shot her, but then he didn’t – that was reason enough for him to sling snot all over the assembled hippies as he wept. TSO and I were barely able to contain our laughter.
Nice. I guess I deserve the disease because I spoke my mind and my words struck a nerve. I wonder how Jason comes down on the flag burning issue? I wish Jason a long and fruitful life and I hope ALMOST shooting an 80-year-old woman is the worst thing that ever happens to him…after he grows up.
According to my mole in IVAW, this is how the voting went among the board on the issue; Since Millard brought the complaint to the board and the complaint was against Matthis, they didn’t have a vote. Cameron White voted to censure Matthis and Wes Davies hasn’t voted yet. Bryan Reinholdt, the public school teacher, claims he may change his vote later…I guess depending on which way the wind blows…but right now, he supports flag burning. Seth Manzell, who counts Noam Chomsky as one of his influences, Adrianne Kinne and Victor Agosto are solid supporters of Matthis.
IVAW's Matthis Chiroux, Robyn Murray and MFSO's Elaine Brower burn the US flag "This is not my country!"
In the above depicted incident, IVAW board member Matthis Chiroux, while garbed in his IVAW T-shirt took it upon himself to speak for the entire organization and burn a flag at a rally organized and paid for by the Maoist ANSWER organization. The IVAW organization has had several opportunities to separate themselves from the incident.
Jose Vasquez, the Executive Director of IVAW could have asserted some authority and come out firmly against Matthis Chiroux’ actions. Instead he prattled on about his Puerto Rican ancestry as if that had something to do with issue.
So the Board had a meeting over the incident. On Facebook I found this response from the Board to one of their members who inquired about their final decision;
Thank you for your input on this subject. After much debate the board agreed, with one exception, not to censure Matthis for his actions. However, this does not mean that the board supports his actions. Rather, it is an expression of the belief that, while Board Members do represent the membership in some capacities, participation on the board should not stifle individual expression.
The matter is left to Matthis to engage with the people he has angered by his actions.
Have you ever read such a pussy response in your life? “We won’t censure Matthis, but that doesn’t mean we support his actions”. That rates right up there with “near hit” and “almost pregnant”.
So what does it mean to my readers who are still IVAW members? You burned the flag, too. He was wearing the shirt, he’s a board member, you burned the flag, too, because your board decided that, unless you confront Matthis yourself, you’re giving your tacit approval to his theater.
Many of you have defended to me your membership in the IVAW after the Jesse MacBeth fiasco by declaring that Jesse MacBeth happened before you joined. Did Matthis Chiroux happen before you joined? Did Matthis Chiroux write about how much he’s like Martin Luther King, Jr. before you joined? Was he walking around declaring that he’s an Afghanistan veteran before you joined? Did he declare that there’s no honor in your service and sacrifice to the country before you joined? Did he apologize to an Afghan parliamentarian for his occupation of her country before you joined? Did he claim to have PTSD from listening to barracks talk before you joined?
Was he elected to the Board after you joined? Did he and his ISO insurgents hijack the organization before you joined?
What exactly are you doing these days belonging to an organization led by mostly non-combat veterans (wearing the same “Iraq Veterans” emblazoned on their chests as you have) who don’t even understand you and do their level best to marginalize your concerns and silence you?
And, oh, the word is that anyone who wants to confront Matthis, he’ll be at the East Gate of Fort Hood burning another flag on Saturday afternoon after a march from Under the Hood Cafe – that innocuous little coffee shop.
I wasn’t there, I didn’t see what happened before Wikileaks decided where we could begin seeing the video, but based on what I’m seeing, a bunch of friends with AK47s and at least one RPG are crowded on the corner, while one guy sets up security on another corner. Its obvious that they’re up to no good and need to get ventilated before the dismounted US infantry gets in trouble. Simple.
This is how little the Left knows about what they’re watching. In the narrative, Wikileaks calls Bradleys tanks (that REALLY pisses me off). Then the idiot at Huffington Post describes a Bradley running over a body, but in the video, it’s clearly a HUMV. I guess there isn’t much difference between a hummer and a Brad, huh?
I’m guessing the anti-war crowd couldn’t watch the video past the title pages.
Apparently, I have spies inside Oathkeepers about which I know nothing. One of them sent me this missive from Stuart Rhodes, the founder of Oathkeepers and a former Ron Paul stafferl
[S]elf identified IVAW members are NOT allowed to post on our forums, period. I simply don’t want them in this org. That is why Eric [Orseske] has been given the boot. They are just too divisive, and also have too many links to radical leftists and outright Marxists. Marxists are just as much enemies of our Constitution as Fascists. I’m not saying ALL IVAW are Marxists, because I know for a fact not all are. But they have some among them, and I just don’t have time to try to separate them out. And they have certainly gotten into bed with some high profile, self-identified far leftists who I consider Marxists. And, as Eric shows, they tend to be one issue people who can’t resist getting in the face of active duty with their opposition to the war. So, until a person resigns from and renounces membership in IVAW, I don’t want them here.
Oath Keepers is neutral on the issues of the constitutionality of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars because we are focused on what is happening here at home. Yes, the constitutionality of a war certainly matters, but this org is focused on the rapid destruction of our Republic here at home. I want to reach ALL current serving, whatever their opinion of the war. I want to reach the ones in the sandbox as well as those who are here at home, most of whom support the war and are obviously emotionally invested in it. Whatever your opinion on it, how will it help to beat them over the head on it? The main point of Oath Keepers is to keep them from being used as tools of force and oppression against our people, not to debate foreign policy. So, it is counterproductive to have people here who don’t know how to leave those topics alone
That’s 180 degrees from last September when I first posted about Oathkeepers. After that post, Rhodes and other Oathkeepers not only defended IVAW, they quoted Ron Paul’s endorsement of Adam Kokesh as justification for allowing IVAW members to broadcast their propaganda on Oathkeepers’ website. From some of the comments left here at TAH, it appears that Oathkeepers has been hemorrhaging membership as a result of their brief foray into the Left side of the political spectrum.
It also appears that when their true thoughts about US foreign policy is known, it hurts their organization, why else would they forbid discussion of the subject? In fact, I’m sure the more we discover about the oathkeepers the less we’ll like them. Not at level of the SPLC or Mark Potok, though.
