OATH KEEPERS: Are They for Real???

[vince]

The actual words and sentiment of the oath is "innocent enough". But the organization's presumption that there is a need for currently serving military personal to take such an oath is what I find paranoid.

Furthermore, who determines when an order should be disobeyed? Do the the members of Oath Keepers call some hotline to have a review of their orders done? I mean how does this work exactly?

Read some of the comments in the blog. There is some paranoia man. One guy wrote, "My great-granddad rode with Mosby in defense of states’ rights during the 2nd revolution, which revisionists falsely call the “civil” war." Jesus...

 

[HazelGod]

The actual words and sentiment of the oath is "innocent enough". But the organization's presumption that there is a need for currently serving military personal to take such an oath is what I find paranoid.

They already took the oath...that's the whole point. The oath taken was to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. And there is always a need for vigilance against tyrrany. I'm much more suspicious of people who don't understand that notion.

 

[B_spiker067]

I'm much more suspicious of people who don't understand that notion.

I understand that notion and am glad when I hear others like you speak in these terms.

 

[Industrialsize]

“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army” -- Gen. George Washington, to his troops before the battle of Long Island​

Such a time is near at hand again.

Sounds paranoid to me. I've seen the "leader' interviewed three times now. This is your garden variety, conspiracy theory, don't like the Black president, right wing, armed citizens militia. I'd prefer my government to protect me from THEM.

 

[vince]

They already took the oath...that's the whole point. The oath taken was to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. And there is always a need for vigilance against tyrrany. I'm much more suspicious of people who don't understand that notion.

I get it that they took that oath when they were inducted. So why is it necessary to take an additional one under the auspices of a blog? I understand that is an oath to do nothing, i.e., lay down your arms, if given an unconstitutional order. It may do no harm, but it still seems paranoiac to take an additional oath.

Some of the non-military rabble in the comments section don't read that oath that way. They don't see it as a call to stay in the barracks if given illegal orders. They imagine themselves at Bunker Hill waiting to see the white of the enemies eyes.

 

[HazelGod]

“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army” -- Gen. George Washington, to his troops before the battle of Long Island​

Such a time is near at hand again.

Sounds paranoid to me.

Sound more like wide-eyed vigilance to me. You do realize he quoted the first POTUS, right?

And you guys either haven't read or didn't understand Heinlein. The vision isn't fascist at all...it's democratic. The crucial difference is that participatory citizenship is no longer a birthright...it must be earned, effectively suppressing the prevalence of selfish greed that has so corrupted our present-day society from the control structure.

I'd actually carry his vision a step further and require citizenship for holding an executive position in any publicly traded company.

 

[B_spiker067]

When you make something like this public you are also trying to nip something in the bud.

Nipping things in the bud works!!! Liberals try to do it too.

 

[Industrialsize]

Sound more like wide-eyed vigilance to me. You do realize he quoted the first POTUS, right?

And you guys either haven't read or didn't understand Heinlein. The vision isn't fascist at all...it's democratic. The crucial difference is that participatory citizenship is no longer a birthright...it must be earned, effectively suppressing the prevalence of selfish greed that has so corrupted our present-day society from the control structure.

I'd actually carry his vision a step further and require citizenship for holding an executive position in any publicly traded company.

We'll have to disagree on this one. It sounds like wide eyed CRAZY to me.

 

[B_spiker067]

We'll have to disagree on this one. It sounds like wide eyed CRAZY to me.

Patriot Act didn't bother you then.

Or wholesale torture.

 

[vince]

Critical thinking skills, some knowledge of history and geography, and turning off Dancing with the Stars, would go a helluva lot further towards protecting freedom, than politicizing the military or citizen armies marching on Wall Street.

If the American people (or any other people) truly gave a damn about anything beyond their own happiness, they'd educate themselves and become politically active instead of taking oaths and bitching and moaning on some meaningless internet blog.

 

[vince]

Patriot Act didn't bother you then.

Or wholesale torture.

Well on that note, where was the guy behind this blog when Congress passed and Bush signed the Patriot Act? Or engaged in wholesale torture? Where were the officers signing up for this oath then? Why didn't they refuse orders to engage in renditions and the like? Ask yourself, what's changed in the meantime?

I wonder if it's politics?

 

[B_spiker067]

Well on that note, where was the guy behind this blog when Congress passed and Bush signed the Patriot Act? Or engaged in wholesale torture? Where were the officers signing up for this oath then? Why didn't they refuse orders to engage in renditions and the like? Ask yourself, what's changed in the meantime?

I wonder if it's politics?

I don't think it's all politics like that. I'd wager a large percentage are taking the full range view and seeing more of the same regardless of party or ideology.

Many, many conservative citizens were bothered by the Patriot Act and torture. Take note that the Democrats in office at the time were complicit. They voted for the stuff.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I don't think it's all politics like that. I'd wager a large percentage are taking the full range view and seeing more of the same regardless of party or ideology.

Many, many conservative citizens were bothered by the Patriot Act and torture. Take note that the Democrats in office at the time were complicit. They voted for the stuff.

I think the general consensus is that The Patriot Act was something that should have never been signed into law. But let's not twist things here. I'm sure there are a number of people who see nothing wrong with the Oath Keepers. However, many of the rhetoric coming from this group is nothing more than crazy talk.

The government is the problem. They want to take our guns away. They want to tap our phone calls and come into our homes whenever they feel like it. If they even suspect that you're a problem they're going to take you away and put you in a concentration camp. etc, etc, etc...

Plus, the actions are a bit suspect. I mean, the Patriot Act was signed into law back in 2001. It took them 8 years to make a website in protest? Maybe you need some more rational thinking, civilized people who don't think solely on party lines to sell this, because for the most part it just looks like paranoia to me.

 

[B_spiker067]

@VB: Of course it is paranoia, but in this matter it is basically acceptable.

 

[Industrialsize]

I don't think it's all politics like that. I'd wager a large percentage are taking the full range view and seeing more of the same regardless of party or ideology.

Many, many conservative citizens were bothered by the Patriot Act and torture. Take note that the Democrats in office at the time were complicit. They voted for the stuff.

The Democrats NEVER voted for TORTURE.

 

[B_spiker067]

The Democrats NEVER voted for TORTURE.

Well by that measure neither did the Republicans VOTE for torture.

Interesting Frontline show exposed how it was conservatives within who resisted the Patriot Act and revealed the torture/rendition practices going on.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Interesting Frontline show exposed how it was conservatives within who resisted the Patriot Act and revealed the torture/rendition practices going on.

And here's the vote tally:
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
Senate Vote Roll Call on U.S. Patriot Act 2001 & 2006

Republicans: Yea - 211 / Nay - 3 (99%)
Democrats: Yea - 145 / Nay - 62 (47%)

Perhaps you wanted to say that some conservatives resisted it?

 

[B_spiker067]

And here's the vote tally:
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
Senate Vote Roll Call on U.S. Patriot Act 2001 & 2006

Republicans: Yea - 211 / Nay - 3 (99%)
Democrats: Yea - 145 / Nay - 62 (47%)

Perhaps you wanted to say that some conservatives resisted it?

Perhaps you should watch the Frontline show and see that it was conservatives within the administration who felt uncomfortable and worked to reveal and change things. I wasn't speaking about the politicians and voting at this point.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Perhaps you should watch the Frontline show and see that it was conservatives within the administration who felt uncomfortable and worked to reveal and change things. I wasn't speaking about the politicians and voting at this point.

But it's the vote that matters in the end, right?
I mean, a politician can say they're going to do something. But if their vote doesn't align with their voice then what's the point? Again, I'm sure there were some conservatives that were not comfortable with the passing of the Patriot Act, nor were they too content with the renewal of it in 2006. But let's not suggest that it was only conservatives pushing the charge to repeal it because the numbers speak for themselves.

Only 3 Republicans voted against it. Either some of the information Frontline received was not 100% factual, or there were a lot of politicians in office full of hot air. And that's putting it nicely. :wink:

 

[B_spiker067]

@VB:

Perhaps you should watch the Frontline show and see that it was conservatives within the administration who felt uncomfortable and worked to reveal and change things. I wasn't speaking about the politicians and voting at this point.

Please put your comments in context in respect to the type of people I highlighted in the above quote from my previous post. I'm making the case that conservatives have values we can all identify with.

I know many liberals who are fine with the Patriot Act and torture.