Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

FIRE THE OATHKEEPERS

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:18 PM
Original message
FIRE THE OATHKEEPERS
 
Run time: 01:13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKYjoOy711M
 
Posted on YouTube: April 11, 2010
By YouTube Member: nightingale4governor
Views on YouTube: 55
 
Posted on DU: April 12, 2010
By DU Member: Joanne98
Views on DU: 1280
 

They need to be removed from law enforcement and the military. They don't care about the Constitution. The "war on drugs" is the most unconstitutional stunt ever pulled in this country and they NEVER SAID A WORD! In fact the "oathkeeper' types supported the UNCONSTITUTIONAL "war on drugs" for their whole fucking lives.

LIARS FRAUDS!

They're just worried that they will finally get what they deserve and being the most EVIL human beings that ever walked the Earth, that's a lot of PAYBACK TO WORRY ABOUT!

They DO NOT OWN THIS COUNTRY!

This is TREASON FIRE THEM!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AlbertCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. What a bunch of baloney....
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 01:38 PM by AlbertCat
I just know they feel all patriotic-y and important-y.... but it means nothing. Besides, if they support the Constitution, they know the Prez was elected by a democratic majority (unlike Bush) and if they're gonna pledge their LIFE.... why not join the Army or some REAL organization that defends America, not this fake crap?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. The idiot being sworn in looked like she was keeping time with her "high five"...
Sooooo help me God..." Ugh...they're everywhere, they're everywhere.

The sky is falling. The commies are coming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
file83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. "Oathkeepers" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 01:49 PM by file83
There are the "oathers" - those are the people in office, police, military, etc., who swore to support and defend the Constitution.

Now, many of those people have not upheld their oath, as you said.

The fear now is that if martial law is enacted, that those very same "oathers" might violate Americans' Constitutional rights.

To counteract that, there is a movement to REMIND the OATHERS of their oath. That movement is called "Oathkeepers".

It's a good cause, and it is spreading fast. It's an education campaign to teach all these people what their oath really means.

So for you to say "fire the oathkeepers" is counterproductive to your complaints.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinboy3niner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. From what I can see, the "Oathkeepers" is an organization
dedicated to defending Americans against usurpation of their Constitutional rights. Which all sounds fine, except that it seems to be based on the fear that the current administration is somehow hostile toward Americans and their rights. I think that that irrational paranoia is what people find disturbing about this movement.

The Oathkeepers may drape themselves in the Constitution, but their true purpose remains suspect...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Bullshit

There is already an organization designed to specifically to enforce their oath. It is the Judge Advocate General's Corps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
file83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. Wow, and they are doing a wonderful job, aren't they!
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
A Physicist Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Oathkeepers my A$$

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers)

“Oath Keepers is an American nonprofit organization that advocates that its members (current and former U.S. military and law enforcement) uphold the U.S. Constitution should they be ordered to violate it. The organization says that it is non-partisan, but has worked with the conservative 9-12 Project to promote the National Liberty Unity Summit.

The Oath Keepers' motto is ‘Not On Our Watch!’, and their stated objective is to resist, non-violently, those actions taken by the U.S. Government that it believes oversteps Constitutional boundaries.

The Oath Keepers were founded on March 2009…”

From the Constitution

“Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

This is slightly modified here by the 11th Amendment.

So under the rules of the CONSTITUTION, the SUPREME COURT decides what IS and IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.

I don’t see any mention of the authority/jurisdiction of an organization called Oathkeepers.org; furthermore, the Declaration has been cited by SCOTUS as having legal impact and it states:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

Where is the Prudence in the Oathkeepers position to (kind a, sort of, hint, hint, wink, wink, say no more) abolition of this long established Government? And since the Oathkeepers only manifested after Obama was elected, I’d say the Oathkeepers are the embodiment of a “light and transient cause”.

The Declaration goes on to state:

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Where is the “long train of abuses and usurpations”, cite examples that make sense to the sensible. Where is the “absolute Despotism”, cite examples that make sense to the sensible.

The Oathkeepers are no different than the Talibangelists or Teahadists and there clearly is overlap between these groups; they did not vote for Obama and only chose to honor the results of a Presidential election when a Republican wins and only begin all this “our rights are being taken away” talk when a Democrat wins; never citing a concrete example other than unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. In similar fashion to the Talibangelists they wrap themselves in some venerated document and claim sole rightful ownership and authority to interpret that document. In the case of the Talibangelists, it is the Flag & the Protestant Bible, in the case of the Oathkeepers it is the Flag, the Constitution & the Declaration.

Imagine an Oathkeeper American; imagine due process at the end of a barrel of an AR-15; imagine the sentence appeals process, there won’t be one. In their twisted logic only they can interpret what is and is not Constitutional and yet have no mechanism other than some form of group think to render that interpretation. Dixie Chicks, Liberals, Muslims, and Latinos, get your passports in order and make your flight plans early. They will speak of the right to decent as they do on to those who dissent from their point-of-view. They will loudly pronounce the right to speak freely as they curtail opposing speech. In their muddled minds, the right to decent means accent, accent to them, and no one else.

Sinclair Lewis wrote:

“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

Perhaps we need to also include:

“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in camouflage and carrying the Constitution.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
file83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Oh, I apologize.
I didn't realize that the Supreme Court is part of the military chain of command. That's great news! It comforts me to know that the Supreme Court will be there on the ground to intercept unconstitutional orders given to foot soldiers against American citizens.

Oh, wait...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wolfgangmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. re: "Oathkeepers" doesn't mean what you think it means."
Yes, it does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
file83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. That's a compelling argument you've got there.
Convinced me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ashling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. do you have some reference citation
I am not disputing your info., but it is not necessarily what I have heard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
file83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Yes, I do.
It's called Google.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
5. Started, of course, by a Ron Paul staffer.....

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/meet-oath-keepers

Founded last April by Yale-educated lawyer and ex-Ron Paul aide Stewart Rhodes, the group has established itself as a hub in the sprawling anti-Obama movement that includes Tea Partiers, Birthers, and 912ers. Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Pat Buchanan have all sung its praises, and in December, a grassroots summit it helped organize drew such prominent guests as representatives Phil Gingrey and Paul Broun, both Georgia Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhoIsNumberNone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
9. The funniest thing about this video...
isn't the way she can't even accurately repeat the words he's saying (does anyone else think she said "purpose of invasion"?) but the emphasis she adds while repeating the oath.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CLANG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I listened again - "purpose of invasion" - LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
16. If they think it's a good thing, then it's constitutional. If they think it's a bad thing, then it's
NOT. Who's the decider?

Recommend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 09th 2024, 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC