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!

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?

Sooooo help me God..." Ugh...they're everywhere, they're everywhere.

The sky is falling. The commies are coming.

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.

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...

There is already an organization designed to specifically to enforce their oath. It is the Judge Advocate General's Corps.

:eyes:

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.”

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...

Yes, it does.

Convinced me!

I am not disputing your info., but it is not necessarily what I have heard.

It's called Google.

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.

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.

NOT. Who's the decider?

Recommend.