Thanks for your reply. Let me clarify. I, as a caller to the show, brought up the H.R. 1388 for discussion just because it was currently being revised in the Senate that morning. The positive point of the show was the reaction of listeners in contacting their representatives to get more information about this resolution. My intention in calling the show yesterday was to point out the inclusion of mandatory language in the resolution for volunteerism. My hope was that others would call Washington, and they did
In terms of the host becoming emotional during the show -- the general tone of the discussion about tyranny in government was upsetting. Many callers were offering different points of view about this, the Patriot Act, all sorts of things beyond talk of the resolution. The discussion shifted to talk of general tyranny when I made a comment that this is not an issue between conservatives vs. liberals, democrats vs. republicans, but rather liberty vs. tyranny. And also, nobody said that H.R. 1388 contained language to change the oath.
I brought up the information I'd read in the prison planet article about the possible communication between Gen. Cartwright's office and the white house during the discussion on tyranny. After further checking I concur with you that it is not factual information. But, the buck stops here. I'm the one who brought it up as others were talking about examples of tyranny from history. As far as a retraction from the station, it was a caller who brought it up (me), not the station or it's host. I hope this misstep did not cause problems or confusion and I have learned an important lesson. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, trust but verify. I have relayed this information to the host as well and offered my apology there. I got caught up in my passion for the issue that morning and should have stuck with my original intention for calling, which was to talk about H.R. 1388.
Thank you for an excellent reply. I really appreciate your taking time to do that for me. My apologies for jumping into a show on which I'd missed the opening moments.
I think you're right about everything but one thing - "the buck" doesn't really stop with you. I do not recall you making any statement which I could not already validate, but for some reason I was unclear about that bit on the oath being changed (or attempted to be changed by the bill, HR-1388, and wondered where that came from. But that aside, and speaking now only about the buck not stopping with you, here is why I can say that.
I called KMMS yesterday morning and spoke directly with the lady host, the one who had been hosting when you, self, and Vinny were on the show with her. I asked her where she got that info about the oath possibly being changed, and she held me on the line while she called her local source on that.... and guess what? Her source gave the section number and details, so she looked it up while I was still on the phone with her, and lo and behold that passage is no longer in the bill.
So what was happening? The local source's wife said she saw it when she first read that bill. But she's been mointoring that bill for a while, and she says that parts of the bill are, day by day, being removed or altered. Well, it seems that somebody continues to delete things out of the bill as it is/was being discussed (I presume by Committee), so that the bill right now is not the same bill it was just a few days ago, and certainly not the same as the bill was three, four, five days, even a week ago. As the discussion on the bill continued, more and more sections of the bill have been removed.
So. That means one of two things, imo. Either it was
in the bill and has been removed, or it was never actually
in the bill, but some other passage or section may
have alluded to something very close to that oath-change, and that section/part has since been removed anyway.
So as far as I'm concerned right now, especially with full knowledge that many people in seats of government power would dearly love to change that oath for obvious reasons, that treacherous business may
have actually been worded into the bill, but then removed owing to too many objections. Maybe we'll never know, but we can know that the overall consciousness in Washington D.C. right now would for the most part support such a change in the oath.
As far as the balance of material discussed on that show a couple of days ago, I thought it was all quite on the mark. And you're right, it's downright scary. One thing I love about Bozeman's KMMS talk-radio shows is that there are so many people in the listening audience who're monitoring every move Fedgov makes right now, and many of them are not bashful about calling in to discuss the latest round or horrors issuing forth from our berserk government. And btw, don't you think that dude named "Vinny" is one good caller? I really like the concise way he speaks. You do a good job with that too. The three of us together, all on different phones but asked to stay on the line by the host, gave some sobering consciousness to listeners far and wide.
On another aside note - Henry Kriegel, on yesterday's Open Range show, played about an hour's worth of his interview with G. Edward Griffin. I thought Griffin did a great job, and I applaud Henry for broadcasting that interview. I hope you were able to catch it. Boze-Angeles seems to be getting peppered with truth-movement liberty consciousness lately, and I'm delighted.
Thanks again for taking time to give me a good, complete answer. That helped a lot.