Which oath?

[Minister of Truth]

Technically it's a federal district, not a military one. All military bases are property of the federal government.

Hmm, I wonder what a state could decide if a Guard base were attacked. Could the Guard of that state convene a tribunal?

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

Let's ask that eminent constitutional scholar, Dumber N' Shit!

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Hmm, I wonder what a state could decide if a Guard base were attacked. Could the Guard of that state convene a tribunal?

The national guard is federally owned.

 

[Minister of Truth]

The national guard is federally owned.

Not while under the governor's authority. That said, we receive federal funding, so I destroyed my musing right there. The particular Guard unit that I operate under is definitely federally owned, but we're a little different.

I'm thinking of some of those fellows who work down at some of the all-Guard units in southern Oregon, in which the drill status personnel actually dramatically outnumber the active guard personnel.

 

[Good Luck]

Members of the armed services have the right to refuse illegal and/or immoral orders - this was established most notably at Nuremberg.

That this refusal might also entail disciplinary action does not excuse the service member - in that situation, they are expected to refuse the order, be subject to disciplinary action, and trust that in the end, moral authority will be restored and their actions honored.

When you make a commitment, you honor the commitment, even if it becomes inconvenient or onerous.

The Oaf Keepers get it wrong.

Actually, for the most part, Oath Keepers have it right. They state in advance specifically the types of orders they will refuse obey, which are, indeed illegal. If they were to obey those orders acknowledged to be illegal, thus avoiding the "onerous, inconvenience" of having to defend their choice in court martial, they would be breaking their oath, (ie: commitment) not honoring it.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

There is no "right of revolution," GL. In other words, the Constitution does not authorize the destruction of the Constitution. Nor does it authorize law-illiterate hotheaded private citizens to take the law into their own hands as the Oaf Keepers threaten to do.

 

[Good Luck]

There is no "right of revolution," GL. In other words, the Constitution does not authorize the destruction of the Constitution. Nor does it authorize law-illiterate hotheaded private citizens to take the law into their own hands as the Oaf Keepers threaten to do.

Like any other big mommy government brain dead liberal, you have the Constitution ass backwards. NO WHERE does the Constitution "authorize" ANY power of the PEOPLE. The Constitution grants certain limited powers to the GOVERNMENT. It is a one way document. The people are not bound by the Constitution, the government is. The people are bound by those laws which obey the limits of the Constitution, but NOT by the Constitution itself.

The Oath Keepers, as an organization, do not "threaten to take the law into their own hands". That is a lie made up by big mommy government assholes like yourself who think bending over and kissing governments gigantic rosy asshole is why the Constitution exists. They DO make the promise to KEEP their military oath by stating in advance recognized illegal orders the will refuse to obey. Yes, there are a number of hot heads who seem to WANT an internal civil war - but every movement has its idiot hot heads. The far extremes do not define any organization. Most of them recognize that refusing to obey ANY order will land them in the defendant's seat of a court martial, but are willing to face a court rather than violate their oath. Nothing wrong with that. Why you insist on demonizing them is beyond me, unless you WANT the government to have the authority to use the military to enforce a totalitarian government on us.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

Maybe you need to read STY's posts.

I feel much safer knowing this guy is out there protecting our rights.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/02/17/oath-keeper-package-and-whats-inside/

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Members of the armed services have the right to refuse illegal and/or immoral orders - this was established most notably at Nuremberg.

That this refusal might also entail disciplinary action does not excuse the service member - in that situation, they are expected to refuse the order, be subject to disciplinary action, and trust that in the end, moral authority will be restored and their actions honored.

When you make a commitment, you honor the commitment, even if it becomes inconvenient or onerous.

The Oaf Keepers get it wrong.

if they refuse to obey an illegal order, how do they get it wrong?

another epic fail.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

There is no "right of revolution," GL. In other words, the Constitution does not authorize the destruction of the Constitution. Nor does it authorize law-illiterate hotheaded private citizens to take the law into their own hands as the Oaf Keepers threaten to do.

but the constitution DOES allow for restoration of a free state, should some dick headed democrat majority government try to do something stupid like confiscate the weaponry of its citizens.

 

[Good Luck]

Maybe you need to read STY's posts.

I feel much safer knowing this guy is out there protecting our rights.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/02/17/oath-keeper-package-and-whats-inside/

Oh, gee golly whiz. A man (former Army by comments made) shows us the contents of the Oath Keepers membership package. Stickers, info pamphlets, info cards, membership card, cert. and letter. Where does it "authorize law-illiterate hotheaded private citizens to take the law into their own hands"?

Liar.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

Oh, gee golly whiz. A man (former Army by comments made) shows us the contents of the Oath Keepers membership package. Stickers, info pamphlets, info cards, membership card, cert. and letter. Where does it "authorize law-illiterate hotheaded private citizens to take the law into their own hands"?

Liar.

Oh, golly, gee whiz. You didn't read STY's posts, or perhaps you agree with him.

Jagoff.

 

[Good Luck]

Oh, golly, gee whiz. You didn't read STY's posts, or perhaps you agree with him.

Jagoff.

Does STY post on Oath Keepers? Under what name? I just followed the link YOU posted. If you haven't the brains to link to the info you intend to present, is that my fault?

But regardless of what STY has to say, unless you can provide evidence that STY's opinions are officially part of Oath Keepers' platform, then you are still a liar about Oath Keepers intent to "authorize law-illiterate hotheaded private citizens to take the law into their own hands".

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

Does STY post on Oath Keepers? Under what name? I just followed the link YOU posted. If you haven't the brains to link to the info you intend to present, is that my fault?

But regardless of what STY has to say, unless you can provide evidence that STY's opinions are officially part of Oath Keepers' platform, then you are still a liar about Oath Keepers intent to "authorize law-illiterate hotheaded private citizens to take the law into their own hands".

If you're too lazy to read his rants, ask him. He's probably willing to repeat his BS.

 

[Good Luck]

If you're too lazy to read his rants, ask him. He's probably willing to repeat his BS.

I've read some of what he has to say on this site. Is he an officer of Oath Keepers? Does he use Oath Keepers official doctrine?

One more time: show that STY's "rants" are part of Oath Keeper's official platform. Otherwise just admit you are a liar.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

I've read some of what he has to say on this site. Is he an officer of Oath Keepers? Does he use Oath Keepers official doctrine?

One more time: show that STY's "rants" are part of Oath Keeper's official platform. Otherwise just admit you are a liar.

So you are suggesting he is not really an Oaf Keeper?

 

[Damocles]

Shouldn't they keep whichever oath they took?

 

[Good Luck]

So you are suggesting he is not really an Oaf Keeper?

It does not MATTER if he is an Oath Keeper or not, you lying twit. Taking the opinions of the most extreme of ANY political group and using those to insinuate that is the position of the group as a whole is dishonest, and you fucking KNOW it. You are a political hack of the extreme, and a liar to boot.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

Does the stated position of the founder of the group (captured on video) count?

 

[Good Luck]

Does the stated position of the founder of the group (captured on video) count?

YouTube- Stewart Rhodes On MSNBC - Hardball with Chris Matthews Part 1 of 2


YouTube- Pt 2/2 Oath Keepers' Stewart Rhodes On MSNBC Hardball with Chris Matthews

LOL Do you even purview the crap you post? Chris Matthews STARTS OUT by asking stupid fucking questions.

First question by Matthews:

Do you guys have the current firepower to stand up against the federal government if you people are ordered to do those things?

What the fuck does fire power have to do with it? Right there is the assumption that they will VIOLENTLY oppose unlawful orders.

Rhodes answer:

Well, it‘s not the point. It‘s not the point of firepower. It‘s the obligation all of us have who have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution. And so what we‘re calling on active duty military and police to do is to simply stand down and to refuse to comply with unlawful orders.

Then Matthews goes on about secession. Rhodes carefully explains that Oath Keepers is not about secession. Rhodes does say, after much badgering by Matthews, that a state has the right to secede IF the federal government destroys the Constitution. You stupid, frightened, hide behind Mommy Government liberals keep ignoring the qualitative statements. As long as the Constitution is kept, there is no need for ANY typer of revolt, at the ballots or otherwise.

Then Matthews REALLY goes off the deep end:

What I don‘t like about people who are armed, who are being recruited to stand up in some operation—I want to know when you would call your forces together... ... and challenge the authority of the U.S. government.

Rhodes tries to answer:

It‘s not about calling...

Matthews talks over him, as the pompous ass is so prone to:

When would you do that?

Again, note that Matthews is not asking legitimate questions. He making bald accusations disguised as questions.

Rhodes answer:

It‘s not calling forces together. It‘s simply saying they‘re not going to comply with orders to violate the rights of the American people. We‘re not talking about asking them to go fight. We‘re saying simply, Don‘t fight.

After a whole lot more badgering by Matthews:
Rhodes:

We are trying to prevent this country from suffering the abuse and the violation of rights that has happened in other countries in recent history.

The rest is pretty much the same, with some ass twist from Southern Poverty Law Center joining in against Rhodes. It was Matthews and that Mark Potok from Southern Poverty Law Center who make ALL the statements about Oath Keepers being dangerous, and being formed to foment violent conflict. Matthews keeps harping about HIS belief of why Oath Keepers was formed. Not ONCE did Rhodes make a statement that agreed with Matthew's accusations.

The entire transcript can be read here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33413979

Now, look at EVERY STATEMENT made by Rhodes. You post the interview to show Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers, philosophy and reason for forming Oath Keepers. So look at all his statements, and tell me: WHERE IS THE CALL FOR ARMED CONFLICT ASSHOLE? WHERE is the threat to enjoin "law-illiterate hotheaded private citizens to take the law into their own hands"? WHERE IS IT YOU FUCKING LIAR?