PDA

View Full Version : Oath Keepers!!



road kill
10-20-2009, 10:34 AM
Count me in:

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

road kill
10-20-2009, 05:47 PM
WOW!!

I really thought this would catch some attention.
It's about YOUR rights, especially 2nd amendment which is under assault!!

I guess I whiffed on this one.

dnf777
10-20-2009, 06:00 PM
While founded by a constitutional lawyer who know just what not to say to avoid getting in trouble, this is sedition at the least, and treason at the worst. Do you really want our armed forces to decide on an individual basis what order they choose to follow, and which ones they don't? What calls police will respond to and which ones to ignore? Members of the armed forces already take an oath to support the Constitution, as do most civil servants.

We had a Korean/Vietnam vet detained by police in Pittsburgh for not staying in the "free speech zone" at a Bush speech. His crime and threat to national security was wearing an anti-war t-shirt. NOTHING threatening or even mentioning Bush per se. According to rule #10:

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Should the police disobeyed their sergeant or the secret service?
What about warrant-less wiretaps that were part of the "Patriot Act"? That's #2:

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects -- such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons. (notice they did NOT mention electronic searches or wiretaps???)

I find #5 the most concerning however:

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

This sounds like carefully veiled secessionist talk. What exactly does "assert its soverignty" mean?

While nothing as worded is illegal, this type of talk is leading to a clear threat to the existence of the US. I suspect there were similar soundings prior to the Civil War. I cannot and will not support anything that threatens to dissolve the United States. I suspect if any soldier acts upon this "oath" and fails to report or disobeys orders, the UCMJ will have something to say about it. I can understand being sore about losing so many recent elections, but the way to vent that frustration is through the next elections...to win back seats....not to say "if I can't have it my way, I'll destroy the country!"

road kill
10-20-2009, 06:03 PM
"if I can't have it my way, I'll destroy the country!"

Some might say that is happening now.
It is truly amazing how it all goes back to Bush.

It's just a matter of time until YOUR party comes for your weapons!!

dnf777
10-20-2009, 06:12 PM
Not my party RK. Neither was Bush.
Life member NRA.
Can't support veiled seditionists.
I already took one oath to support and defend the Constitution when commissioned, and that's good enough for me.

I do think our projected deficit budget is the biggest existential threat we face. Maybe these oathkeepers should show their passion by all refusing to pay federal taxes? If their founder and board members would all withhold their tax payments, I might be inclined to send them the $30 they want for a sticker and wallet card. ;)

(and I'm not taking it all back to Bush, its just that their resolve was already tested, and that was the only example thus far I could think of. I don't know of any teabaggers being arrested for peaceful demonstration. Hell, they had guys show up with guns that weren't arrested or put into "second amendment areas"! Why was it ok the last 8 years, but not now? All I'm askin')

TXduckdog
10-20-2009, 06:40 PM
Sedition...treason....geez louise, how about worried about our civil liberties and constitutional rights?

dnf777
10-20-2009, 06:51 PM
Sedition...treason....geez louise, how about worried about our civil liberties and constitutional rights?

I assume your talking about the suspension of habeus corpus, warrantless wiretaps, seizure of library records, detaining people without legal representation or denial of a fair and speedy trial, or the ability to peacefully assemble and address grievances against the gov't without being detained into a "free speech zone"?

I agree 100%.

Nor_Cal_Angler
10-20-2009, 07:31 PM
RoadKill...

When the Sheeple lock you up....

I'll BREAK YOU OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I got your back BROTHER!!!!!

NCA

road kill
10-20-2009, 07:33 PM
RoadKill...

When the Sheeple lock you up....

I'll BREAK YOU OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I got your back BROTHER!!!!!

NCA
Let's just say that I can't stop them here, but I am pretty sure we could slow them down for a while!!;)

TXduckdog
10-21-2009, 09:57 AM
I assume your talking about the suspension of habeus corpus, warrantless wiretaps, seizure of library records, detaining people without legal representation or denial of a fair and speedy trial, or the ability to peacefully assemble and address grievances against the gov't without being detained into a "free speech zone"?

I agree 100%.


You know, folks always lump all this stuff together without ever breaking down the reason and background for such actions. Most of which are restricted for use in cases involving national security and the war on terrorists.

It's just the same old sorry, mis-leading leftist bilge who decry the "evil big brother is watching", yet at this very moment are instituting the largest government expansion in the history of the republic and are taking shots across the bow of media suppression.

It's the same people who promised "no red/blue folks, just Americans" who, if one disagrees, resists or challenges the status quo coming out of the WH...are vociferously condemned by not just the attack dogs of the WH but the Prez himself.

He's been whinning about how much the Chamber of Commerce has increased their campaign contributions over the last couple of years....yet says nothing about groups such as MoveOn.org, Acorn, the Unions, etc who poured in vastly larger sums that enabled Him to get elected.

Sadly, Acorn was using taxpayer money and Unions are squandering the hard-earned money of their constituents union dues which are meant for way more important things than campaign contributions.

Yes....several items you mention are included in the Oath-Keepers charter but I daresay they are there for protection agains the type of Congress and WH that are in power today. Who's main motivation is simply power itself.

dnf777
10-21-2009, 10:50 AM
[QUOTE=TXduckdog;514731]You know, folks always lump all this stuff together without ever breaking down the reason and background for such actions. Most of which are restricted for use in cases involving national security and the war on terrorists.

Please explain how a 70 year old double-war veteran wearing an antiwar t-shirt at a presidential speech poses a threat to our national security???

The actual crime he was arrested (detained) for was failing to comply with law enforcement who was trying to herd him into a cordoned off "free speech zone" that was out of camera view.

As convenient as it may be to lump all these assaults on our God-given rights into a ball of "national security" and sweep it under the rug, I will not give up my rights so easily.

Was it Ben Franklin who said, "those who would trade liberty for security, deserve neither!" ?

TXduckdog
10-21-2009, 12:01 PM
[QUOTE=TXduckdog;514731]You know, folks always lump all this stuff together without ever breaking down the reason and background for such actions. Most of which are restricted for use in cases involving national security and the war on terrorists.

Please explain how a 70 year old double-war veteran wearing an antiwar t-shirt at a presidential speech poses a threat to our national security???

The actual crime he was arrested (detained) for was failing to comply with law enforcement who was trying to herd him into a cordoned off "free speech zone" that was out of camera view.

As convenient as it may be to lump all these assaults on our God-given rights into a ball of "national security" and sweep it under the rug, I will not give up my rights so easily.

Was it Ben Franklin who said, "those who would trade liberty for security, deserve neither!" ?


Like I said...MOST OF WHICH ARE RESTRICTED.....I didn't say all.

I happen to agree with you on this situation....I think the "Free Speech zone" is kind of silly......but the dude did fail to comply with LE and that will always get you busted.

I won't surrender my rights without a fight either....thats why groups like this one have sprung up. But you do need to consider that security issues are what they are and will always involve some level of compromise on individual liberties. But I have yet to see the 'average joe's' liberties being violated on a trend basis. Isolated cases, yes...as a whole, no.

I think you and I agree a lot more than we think we do.

dnf777
10-21-2009, 03:00 PM
[QUOTE=dnf777;514750]

I think you and I agree a lot more than we think we do.

I bet you're right. It's more fun to slap-box than to pat each other on the back though, isn't it? :) I suspect that's why there's a POTUS room. Hell, I think even Hew and I agreed once or twice. (probably didn't admit it, though)

happy training,
dave