Vets remember WWII

There are 20 comments on the Nov 10, 2010, Brattleboro Reformer story titled Vets remember WWII. In it, Brattleboro Reformer reports that:

Bill Uptegrove still thinks about D-Day every day. Uptegrove, now 90, received the Bronze Star for his actions during the allies invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Brattleboro Reformer.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Deployed in Afghanistan

Columbus, OH

#1 Nov 10, 2010
I hope that you live out the rest of your life in peace.
Thank you very much.

I salute to you Lt. Uptegrove
jway

Florence, AL

#2 Nov 10, 2010
Thanks for your service man.
Local Yokel

Brooklyn, NY

#3 Nov 10, 2010
He is a true American Hero. God Bless him!
Scott

Newton Center, MA

#4 Nov 10, 2010
The Reformer said "Vets" (plural) Remember WWII" which obviously wasn't proofread cuz the article was only about the one vet.
Unlike all military servicemen including the "National Guard" (unconstitutionally turned into a full military unit) that have fought in all of the (undeclared by Congress)'wars' waged since WWII, THIS man can proudly hold his head up as having served his country righteously and according to the Constitution he took an oath to.
Congress did declare war in 1941- the last time that ever happened! That's the main reason why no one in the service today can truthfully claim to be 'fighting for our freedoms' as the BIG Lie goes, they don't read the Constitution they took an oath to nor care what it says.

The G** damn Skull & Bones and Freemason scum didn't start up their murdering coup operation running & drug running CIA until after WWII. But Freemason FDR enticed the japanese to attack us so as to get us into the war after he pretended to be against the U.S. getting into it, and then they knew the jap planes were coming and let it happen.
Read 'Day of Deceit'- written by another WWII vet and true hero. 1,500+ Navy guys dead in the harbor so the power elite/banksters etc. could have another of their wars for control. It was THE top grand poobah of the Masons, Albert Pike, who in the late 1800's predicted that they would have THREE World Wars.(google it) Number 3 may be right around the corner since the zionists are itchin to bomb Iran and just as we had the 'Axis' powers alligned against the 'Allies' in WWII, other countries will join the fight against the zionist imperialist bankster's (those who run our govt.) scheme and unlike Iran which we're supposed to believe has a nuke, they do. The powers that be don't want any 'First World' arab country to exist and so we hear demonization of Iran and Ahmadinijad. He pointed out at that UN council how many world leaders and experts agree that 9/11 was an inside job. I wonder if he's been to www.PatriotsQuestion911.com and seen how many of our own top military other experts and VIP's etc. have said they also don't buy the official story of 9/11.
Aaron Kent

Hampton, VA

#5 Nov 12, 2010
Scott wrote:
Congress did declare war in 1941- the last time that ever happened! That's the main reason why no one in the service today can truthfully claim to be 'fighting for our freedoms' as the BIG Lie goes, they don't read the Constitution they took an oath to nor care what it says.
"September 25, 2001

MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

You have asked for our opinion as to the scope of the President's authority to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. We conclude that the President has broad constitutional power to use military force. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C.§§ 1541-1548 (the "WPR"), and in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). Further, the President has the constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11."
Source link= http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

Somebody needs to do more research before telling todays military men and women that their service to this country is unconstitutional and can not claim Veteran status.

I'm going to remain calm in my reply and not type the words I truly want to say to you, I'm better then that and I'm better then you because I choose to refrain from using particular angry words. I will say that you could not ever be so wrong my friend.
jway

Florence, AL

#6 Nov 12, 2010
Kent. I will tell the SOB. Scott you are an ungrateful low life trying to suck the life out of this great nation. You and Jessey probably are in Soros pocket doing his dirty work.All the wacko sites you visit are sponsored or funded by Soros or his type, tide foundation or the worlds workers party.I would like for some to castrate you be fore ya produce any of ya kind. This is good in a way to show what a scu- sucker you are Scott.
Deployed in Afghanistan

Columbus, OH

#7 Nov 13, 2010
Aaron Kent wrote:
<quoted text>
"September 25, 2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
You have asked for our opinion as to the scope of the President's authority to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. We conclude that the President has broad constitutional power to use military force. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C.§§ 1541-1548 (the "WPR"), and in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). Further, the President has the constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11."
Source link= http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm
Somebody needs to do more research before telling todays military men and women that their service to this country is unconstitutional and can not claim Veteran status.
I'm going to remain calm in my reply and not type the words I truly want to say to you, I'm better then that and I'm better then you because I choose to refrain from using particular angry words. I will say that you could not ever be so wrong my friend.
Thank you, thank you very much.
Deployed in Afghanistan

Columbus, OH

#8 Nov 13, 2010
jway wrote:
Kent. I will tell the SOB. Scott you are an ungrateful low life trying to suck the life out of this great nation. You and Jessey probably are in Soros pocket doing his dirty work.All the wacko sites you visit are sponsored or funded by Soros or his type, tide foundation or the worlds workers party.I would like for some to castrate you be fore ya produce any of ya kind. This is good in a way to show what a scu- sucker you are Scott.
Good back-up supporting Mr Kent.
Aaron Kent

Yorktown, VA

#9 Nov 13, 2010
Deployed in Afghanistan wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, thank you very much.
Thank you too, stay safe over there. I hit 12 years total next March, member of our famed State Militia but anyone from Vermont serving is a true Green Mountain Boy.
Scott

Newton Center, MA

#10 Nov 14, 2010
"We conclude..." ha ha- who is the 'we' in that supposedly 'legal' document?
"We conclude that the Constitution vests the President with the plenary authority, as Commander in Chief and the sole organ of the Nation in its foreign relations,"
-The Constitution says thre OPPOSITE, it only allows the CONGRESS to declare war in Article 1 section 8, and article 10 says the govt. cannot assume any powers unto itself that are not specifically delegated to it in the Constitution, it only has the specific powers granted to it by WE THE PEOPLE in the Constitution and no more-- No matter what some treasonous neocon scum said on September 25th 2001! Congress cannot delegate powers to the president that the Constitution says the president cannot have! It doesn't matter even if Congress votes in agreement to something that the Constitution says is unlawful-- if it's unlawful it's unlawful!! Marbury v Madison and other cass said so- a law passed that is unconstitutional is null & void at its inception.
What you quote there is not even a law, cannot be a law anyhow as it would be against what the 'Supreme Law of the Land'(the Constitution) basically says- that is a 'MEMORANDUM OPINION'- note the lack of power in those words--HELLO!
An opinion and $2 will get you a cup of coffee and that's it chumps! Try Again!

"Somebody needs to do more research ..."
-you got that right
I don't visit 'Soros sites' jway,
and Arron Kent you don't know what the heck you're talking about either- Neither Vermont nor any state has had a state militia in a looong time, and that's the problem!
Deployed in Afghanistan

Columbus, OH

#11 Nov 15, 2010
Scott wrote:
"We conclude..." ha ha- who is the 'we' in that supposedly 'legal' document?
"We conclude that the Constitution vests the President with the plenary authority, as Commander in Chief and the sole organ of the Nation in its foreign relations,"
-The Constitution says thre OPPOSITE, it only allows the CONGRESS to declare war in Article 1 section 8, and article 10 says the govt. cannot assume any powers unto itself that are not specifically delegated to it in the Constitution, it only has the specific powers granted to it by WE THE PEOPLE in the Constitution and no more-- No matter what some treasonous neocon scum said on September 25th 2001! Congress cannot delegate powers to the president that the Constitution says the president cannot have! It doesn't matter even if Congress votes in agreement to something that the Constitution says is unlawful-- if it's unlawful it's unlawful!! Marbury v Madison and other cass said so- a law passed that is unconstitutional is null & void at its inception.
What you quote there is not even a law, cannot be a law anyhow as it would be against what the 'Supreme Law of the Land'(the Constitution) basically says- that is a 'MEMORANDUM OPINION'- note the lack of power in those words--HELLO!
An opinion and $2 will get you a cup of coffee and that's it chumps! Try Again!
"Somebody needs to do more research ..."
-you got that right
I don't visit 'Soros sites' jway,
and Arron Kent you don't know what the heck you're talking about either- Neither Vermont nor any state has had a state militia in a looong time, and that's the problem!
STOP! Get your breath back before you pass out. Your fingers must be worn down to stubs from all the typing you do. Scott, who is the commander of a state militia? Any state? And who exactly is the militia?
You as a citizen make up the militia by volunteering.
And if no state has had a militia in a long time, then step up to the plate and start your own rather than piss and moan all the time. Now have some respect and stop posting crap on these veterans’ stories. It’s their parade, not yours.
Aaron Kent

Yorktown, VA

#12 Nov 15, 2010
I'm not going to argue with an obvious idiot, it's a waste of my time. It's clear you have no knowledge of the real world.
Scott

Brattleboro, VT

#13 Nov 16, 2010
Deployed in Afghanistan wrote:
<quoted text>
STOP! Get your breath back before you pass out. Your fingers must be worn down to stubs from all the typing you do. Scott, who is the commander of a state militia? Any state? And who exactly is the militia?
You as a citizen make up the militia by volunteering.
And if no state has had a militia in a long time, then step up to the plate and start your own rather than **** and moan all the time. Now have some respect and stop posting crap on these veterans’ stories. It’s their parade, not yours.
"You as a citizen make up the militia by volunteering."
-Wrong, the law says I automatically BECAME a member of what the law calls the "unorganized militia" when I turned 17. That law is USC Title 10 section 311.'Volunteering' is what can do with the "organized militia" as that same law calls it which is now called the 'National Guard'- which is NOT the militia sanctioned by the founders in the Constitution!

"And if no state has had a militia in a long time, then step up to the plate and start your own rather than **** and moan all the time."
-Uh no, patiotic Americans don't "moan" about the Supreme Law being violated, nor do they say "My country right or wrong" like you but rather we support the use of lawful means to correct the problem and get our govt. back under the Constitution where it's supposed to be.
I don't post 'crap', I just point out the actual law, which you can't deal with and the fact that your being at 'war' in Afghanistan is unlawful and so you support BS like that 'Memorandum' as if it's law!
jway

Florence, AL

#14 Nov 16, 2010
Scott wrote:
<quoted text>
"You as a citizen make up the militia by volunteering."
-Wrong, the law says I automatically BECAME a member of what the law calls the "unorganized militia" when I turned 17. That law is USC Title 10 section 311.'Volunteering' is what can do with the "organized militia" as that same law calls it which is now called the 'National Guard'- which is NOT the militia sanctioned by the founders in the Constitution!
"And if no state has had a militia in a long time, then step up to the plate and start your own rather than **** and moan all the time."
-Uh no, patiotic Americans don't "moan" about the Supreme Law being violated, nor do they say "My country right or wrong" like you but rather we support the use of lawful means to correct the problem and get our govt. back under the Constitution where it's supposed to be. I don't post 'crap', I just point out the actual law, which you can't deal with and the fact that your being at 'war' in Afghanistan is unlawful and so you support BS like that 'Memorandum' as if it's law!
Scott you got to be a half as- lawyer . Go to bed. There are good militias other than the Guard.
Aaron Kent

Yorktown, VA

#15 Nov 16, 2010
Scott wrote:
<quoted text>
"You as a citizen make up the militia by volunteering."
-Wrong, the law says I automatically BECAME a member of what the law calls the "unorganized militia" when I turned 17. That law is USC Title 10 section 311.'Volunteering' is what can do with the "organized militia" as that same law calls it which is now called the 'National Guard'- which is NOT the militia sanctioned by the founders in the Constitution!
"And if no state has had a militia in a long time, then step up to the plate and start your own rather than **** and moan all the time."
-Uh no, patiotic Americans don't "moan" about the Supreme Law being violated, nor do they say "My country right or wrong" like you but rather we support the use of lawful means to correct the problem and get our govt. back under the Constitution where it's supposed to be.
I don't post 'crap', I just point out the actual law, which you can't deal with and the fact that your being at 'war' in Afghanistan is unlawful and so you support BS like that 'Memorandum' as if it's law!
Prove it big shot! Prove me wrong pleeaaassee!! With actually references other then the bullshit that comes out of your mouth.
Aaron Kent

Yorktown, VA

#16 Nov 16, 2010
If you actually read the link I posted before it referenced many different laws that had been passed that proved you dead wrong.
Deployed in Afghanistan

Columbus, OH

#17 Nov 17, 2010
Scott wrote:
<quoted text>
"You as a citizen make up the militia by volunteering."
-Wrong, the law says I automatically BECAME a member of what the law calls the "unorganized militia" when I turned 17. That law is USC Title 10 section 311.'Volunteering' is what can do with the "organized militia" as that same law calls it which is now called the 'National Guard'- which is NOT the militia sanctioned by the founders in the Constitution!
"And if no state has had a militia in a long time, then step up to the plate and start your own rather than **** and moan all the time."
-Uh no, patiotic Americans don't "moan" about the Supreme Law being violated, nor do they say "My country right or wrong" like you but rather we support the use of lawful means to correct the problem and get our govt. back under the Constitution where it's supposed to be.
I don't post 'crap', I just point out the actual law, which you can't deal with and the fact that your being at 'war' in Afghanistan is unlawful and so you support BS like that 'Memorandum' as if it's law!
Scott, you are really funny. You are killing me with your clown acts. The sec .311 that you are confused about is called “selective service”. You of course would be medically exempt because of mental health issues. Now stop disrespecting these old war Veterans by posting your freak show smack on their story
Scott

Newton Center, MA

#18 Nov 17, 2010
Deployed in Afghanistan wrote:
<quoted text>
Scott, you are really funny. You are killing me with your clown acts. The sec .311 that you are confused about is called “selective service”. You of course would be medically exempt because of mental health issues. Now stop disrespecting these old war Veterans by posting your freak show smack on their story
No you're the one with the smack on my truth since you can't deny the facts I bring up and so you can only try to besmirch the messenger.
read it again, this time with COMPREHENSION- yes of course federal law 10§311 ties in with Selective Service, but if you READ it do not see there how that law is where the term 'militia' itself is DEFINED?!? That is what you asked me Deployed (unconstitutionally) in Afghanistan, remember?-
"And who exactly is the militia?"
So I'm telling you...
The first part of the Book of Numbers in the Bible is about forming a militia. This country began with that small percentage of the population who had the balz AND brians AND a heart to care (and they hadn't seen the Wizard of Oz!) They were extremist militia guys with guns and they would be arrested today and called terrorists-as the Brit king called them, and they vice-versa in the 1776 Dec. of Ind.)
anyway, heres some more info I threw down here for the enlightenment of others who need it (since you obviously don't really care about the truth)-->
*Basically the militia that is sanctioned in in the Constitution is exactly the same as the WE THE PEOPLE in the preamble, those who hold the ultimate power over the govt. and created it with limited powers that it's not supposed to overstep. since it has been, you've seen a patriot/'militia' movement that sprang up after the vicious murders of innocents at Waco and Ruby Ridge etc. Sheeple were made to believe by the controlled media that militia is some kind of dirty word, even potential terrorists! I suppose kids in England are taught that it was righteous for their forefathers to attack and slaughter the Colonists, just as sheeple here today see govt. agents as like gods (like their messiah Oba-aa-aa-ma) and anyone protesting govt. tyranny as 'crazies','extremists' potential terroists cuz they've been well propagandized and conditioned to think that way, that govt. will protest us from the bad guys if we just give up more of our liberties. Remember what Franklin said- "He who would give up liberty for safety deserves neither."
Some awoken person who cares (as opposed to sheeple) wrote an open letter to Ron Paul pointing this out and how we need to repeal the 1903 Dick Act-> http://www.dailypaul.com/node/113961
Of course, anyone with a brain ought to know that if you want the real skinny on things related to LAW, especially in this country which started with sovereign States and their Constitutions you go not to what some scummy corrupt unpatriotic legislature or court did a century ago but back to what the framers of the whole govt. themselves said over 2 centuries ago!
Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.-George Washington
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
Scott

Newton Center, MA

#19 Nov 17, 2010
Deployed in Afghanistan wrote:
<quoted text>
Scott, you are really funny. You are killing me with your clown acts. The sec .311 that you are confused about is called “selective service”. You of course would be medically exempt because of mental health issues. Now stop disrespecting these old war Veterans by posting your freak show smack on their story
No you're the one with the smack on my truth since you can't deny the facts I bring up and so you can only try to besmirch the messenger.
read it again, this time with COMPREHENSION- yes of course federal law 10§311 ties in with Selective Service, but if you READ it do not see there how that law is where the term 'militia' itself is DEFINED?!? That is what you asked me Deployed (unconstitutionally) in Afghanistan, remember?-
"And who exactly is the militia?"
So I'm telling you...
The first part of the Book of Numbers in the Bible is about forming a militia. This country began with that small percentage of the population who had the balz AND brians AND a heart to care (and they hadn't seen the Wizard of Oz!) They were extremist militia guys with guns and they would be arrested today and called terrorists-as the Brit king called them, and they vice-versa in the 1776 Dec. of Ind.)
anyway, heres some more info I threw down here for the enlightenment of others who need it (since you obviously don't really care about the truth)-->
*Basically the militia that is sanctioned in in the Constitution is exactly the same as the WE THE PEOPLE in the preamble, those who hold the ultimate power over the govt. and created it with limited powers that it's not supposed to overstep. since it has been, you've seen a patriot/'militia' movement that sprang up after the vicious murders of innocents at Waco and Ruby Ridge etc. Sheeple were made to believe by the controlled media that militia is some kind of dirty word, even potential terrorists! I suppose kids in England are taught that it was righteous for their forefathers to attack and slaughter the Colonists, just as sheeple here today see govt. agents as like gods (like their messiah Oba-aa-aa-ma) and anyone protesting govt. tyranny as 'crazies','extremists' potential terroists cuz they've been well propagandized and conditioned to think that way, that govt. will protest us from the bad guys if we just give up more of our liberties. Remember what Franklin said- "He who would give up liberty for safety deserves neither."
Scott

Newton Center, MA

#20 Nov 17, 2010
continued-
Some awoken person who cares (as opposed to sheeple) wrote an open letter to Ron Paul pointing this out and how we need to repeal the 1903 Dick Act-> http://www.dailypaul.com/node/113961
Of course, anyone with a brain ought to know that if you want the real skinny on things related to LAW, especially in this country which started with sovereign States and their Constitutions you go not to what some scummy corrupt unpatriotic legislature or court did a century ago but back to what the framers of the whole govt. themselves said over 2 centuries ago!
Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.-George Washington
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment
-and that's why the federal law which I cited (*hey Kent- here's another 'reference' as you asked for even after I gave it!)
-> *USC Title 10 section 311 says that I became a militia member just by becoming an adult here. So did you guys assuming you were each citizens of the united States of America when you became adults.
continued-
Most of yas still can't/won't comprehend the Constitution and why the founding fathers would be agreeing with me if here right now and berating you and a large percentage of modern Americans for being such dumbed down worthless sheeple and allowing the trashing of the Supreme Law of the Land! They'd be puking their guts out over the fact that their worst fears came true and WE THE PEOPLE of the land of the Free and Home of the Brave became we the sheeple in the land of the fee and home of the slave.
Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Putney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Police Log (Jan '09) Apr 13 shelby 80
News Gentlewolf released on bail (Jun '07) Apr 10 Shocked with pain... 2
News UHSD 27 budget to go up less than 1 percent des... Mar '15 Andrew Andrews 1
News Kindle Farm teacher awarded $25,000 (Oct '08) Mar '15 Toni 18
News Man accuses judge of extortion, theft (Apr '09) Jan '15 AdamChandler 29
News Business Buzz (Sep '14) Sep '14 Autumn Is Best 1
Naulakha (Aug '14) Aug '14 Brian Harris 1
More from around the web

Putney People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]