| Author | Message | ||
     Buellkowski |
Jerry, are you saying this "Oath Keeper" initiative is an anti-Obama initiative? The one described in your original post as "non-partisan?" I think I see where this is going. The Tea Party is trying to raise an army.  | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
Nope, the Oath Keepers are not an "anti-Obama initiative." Their mission is pretty clear, and is explained by them much better than it is by me. Me personally? Yes, I am fully engaged in an anti-Obama initiative. Best, Ferris | ||
| Cityxslicker |
wasnt the American Revolution launched from a score of men, and fought by less than 10% of the population ?..... don't necessarilly need an army You do however need people to be awake - and passing phonebook sized legislation without reading it based on the title -.... that ain't awake. Start reading those bills - you can bet the suit that signed em didnt. | ||
| Guell |
My sheep dog likes to sleep on the sofa all day. | ||
| Reindog |
That is because he got the ••••• out of there.  Wow! the word flo*k is not allowed. | ||
| Sifo |
I think I see where this is going. The Tea Party is trying to raise an army. It has nothing to do with the Tea Party either. They are both Constitutionalist groups however. No doubt they will share many ideals because of that. The only way they could be seen as anti-Obama is by acknowledging that BO is an anti-Constitutionalist. The reality is that these are people who have sworn an oath to follow the Constitution in service of our country. They are now taking another oath to be faithful to the first oath. They are basically saying that they will refuse to follow any order that violates the Constitution. This is very different from saying that they will take any action against those that are violating the Constitution. Some may lean that way and that would be their personal decision based on events at hand, but it isn't what Oath Keepers is about. I have never personally sworn an oath to the Constitution in service of our country, so I don't fit what they are. I am however 100% in agreement with what I've learned about them both from reading about them and with personal interaction with members. Good folks! | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
I have never personally sworn an oath to the Constitution in service of our country, so I don't fit what they are. Sifo: Nor have I, but we can still support them, by helping spread their word, as we're doing here, and by becoming an associate member. I am however 100% in agreement with what I've learned about them both from reading about them and with personal interaction with members. Good folks! Roger that! It's one thing to ask the folks who seem hell-bent on spitting on the Constitution and the memory of the folks who fought and died for our freedoms as Americans to change their evil ways. It's quite another to tell these same folks that we're cocked, locked and ready to rock. To any liberals reading this and formulating a scathing reply, ask yourself this: If George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were alive today, which man do you think they would have more respect for, Stewart Rhodes or Barack Obama? Put another way: Do you think Presidents Washington and Jefferson would be satisfied with the current state of our federal government? Do you think they would condone sending federal troops door-to-door demanding that honest, law-abiding American citizens give up their arms? Obama will lose his Presidency in the upcoming election. I've fretted over this issue to the point of losing sleep, but I'm now confident there are enough true Patriots left in this country who are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore that Obama will be defeated at the polls. I'm also confident he won't go away without a fight. Me? I'm all in. FB | ||
| Ulyranger |
"Aren't the "wolves" the bad guys? Sheep dogs good?" Blake, I guess it all depends on your perception of the analogy. Sheep dogs are basically wolves on a genetic level. Wolves to me are top tier predators in the food chain, social animals when needed to maintain their pack, discipline maintained within their social order, not afraid to go it alone to seek better hunting grounds, fiercely defends their territory and pack. Eagles are highly observant predators with unparalleled long range sight. I probably could have used falcon or hawk here as our highest profile eagle (the Bald) tends to be a lot less majestic than most know.....they are primarily opportunistic scavengers more than hunters. Sheep are........well, sheep and there is nothing dog-like within their dna. It is far better to be the predator than the prey........ | ||
| Moxnix |
>>>It is far better to be the predator than the prey........ Words to live by, that. I certainly support the Oath Keepers. Those in various positions of power have nothing to offer but lies, excuses and broken promises. Half the country sees government as a savior, the other half has gradually come to fear it as an enemy on our own soil. Shame. | ||
| Reindog |
I have been thinking what daily life was like in 1860 where friends became increasingly divided over the issues that led to The Civil War. They were friends until it was killing time. I have a lot of friends who support Obamas's philosophy and they literally SICKEN me with their deluded vision of dividing America and trampling the US Constitution. We are friends. For now. | ||
| Sifo |
I've actually decided to sever some friendships based on political beliefs. I've found I'm not alone in this. In fact I found out that others have cut the same people out of their social circle that I have. I'm not sure if it says more about me or those who have been cut out. I'm just sick of their method of taking the quick political jabs, then saying they don't want to discuss politics. Same thing certain folks do here on BW.  | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
This should make the folks who are alarmed about where our federal government is herding us - folks like me, for example - even more alarmed. It should also alarm the folks who worship at the alter of the Chosen One. This is a snip from http://www.infowars.com/google-caught-violating-br owser-privacy-settings-to-track-users/ : Indeed, as we have documented on numerous occasions, Google’s actions are completely consistent with the charge that the company is in cahoots with the National Security Agency, America’s foremost spying operation. Last year the Washington Post reported that Google and the NSA had formed an “alliance…to allow the two organizations to share critical information.” After the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a FOIA request in an attempt to glean an insight into the relationship between the two, the NSA claimed it “could neither confirm nor deny” the existence of any information about its relations with Google, because “such a response would reveal information about NSA’s functions and activities.” Charges that Google is merely the private arm of U.S. intelligence outfits stretch back years. As we reported in late 2006, ex-CIA agent Robert David Steele claimed sources told him that CIA seed money helped get the company off the ground. Speaking to the Alex Jones Show, Steele elaborated on previous revelations by making it known that the CIA helped bankroll Google at its very inception. Steele named Google’s CIA point man as Dr. Rick Steinheiser, of the Office of Research and Development. I'm not sure how any sane American could not see the writing on the proverbial wall. I haven't severed any friendly relationships over differing political views....yet.... FB | ||
| Buellkowski |
The "Oath Keepers" pledge and Jerry's comments all smack of preparation for a civil conflict. The "Oath Keeper" membership swells with militia-type "patriots" and recent veterans, some of who acknowledge stockpiling weapons & ammo. Extracting the "Oath Keeper" promise appears to be an attempt to protect these "patriots'" weapons, supplies and state sovereignty from those in uniform currently possessing sanctioned authority & weapons, in preparation for this impending civil conflict (the "next" American revolution). Jerry, what evidence is there that President Obama will be the first U.S. president in history to resist a peaceful transfer of power, should he lose this year's election? That's what this is all about, yes? A bogus emergency resulting in imposition of martial law and suspension of the Constitution? What solid evidence of this conspiracy is there, that only the sharp-eyed wolves & eagles can see and that the sheep cannot? I'm listening, because I'd like to know. I have a family & property to protect. | ||
| Blake |
I count as friends a number of folks who are left leaning including Fahren, Sifo, Darkside, Kowski, Whatever, and others here for example, even at least one who is WAYYYY deep in tingler territory; typically surrounds himself with nothing but fellow far-leftists, so he's pretty much blind to reality. But when we talk issues, it's all thoughtful. The man is confused and just can't see it. I don't/won't have any friends who aren't thoughtful. I recently irritated a thoughtful friend by blurting out my views against abortion and govt funding of Planned Parenthood on his FBook page. He un-friended me. Not sure, why; maybe one of his family works for the baby-killers. It's the one issue I have an exceptionally tough time addressing diplomatically. I've recently discovered common ground with some of those angry at big corporations. Monsanto for instance is apparently running roughshod over some farmers. According to more than one documentary I've seen, what they've been able to get away with truly is criminal. www.google.com/search?q=monsanto+lawsuits (Message edited by blake on February 22, 2012) | ||
| Blake |
Seems to me that posting their names is the exact opposite of protecting themselves. Seems to me to be more like a statement, a warning to anyone in power who imagines Americans are not willing to oppose by force if necessary any domestic enemies of the constitution and/or our unalienable rights. Not a lot of signatures so far. Once they hit a hundred thousand, the gesture may present pause to anyone intending by whatever means necessary to fundamentally change the United States of America. | ||
| 2734 |
>>>It is far better to be the predator than the prey........ >>>>Words to live by, that. Sort of.... I heard a man say once " I dont follow lemmings.... Even well armed ones" The Oath Keepers have a good thing going. I hope that as an organization the stay out of Politics. I wonder at what point the Gubment will try to somehow deface them. I'm sure they have a file growing on them somewhere,by someone. | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
What solid evidence of this conspiracy is there, that only the sharp-eyed wolves & eagles can see and that the sheep cannot? I'm listening, because I'd like to know. I have a family & property to protect. There is plenty of info available at your fingertips to lend credence to my concerns. For me to ferret out and go into detail in the manner you suggest would totally consume my time, which I have precious little to spare. Do your research, and believe who and what you want to believe. If you lean like me, you'll be worried. If you lean the other direction, you'll think things are just peachy and rosy with our current state of affairs, and that Mr. Obama truly loves you and has your best interests at heart. I'll repeat a question I asked earlier: Would Presidents Washington and Jefferson approve of the current condition of our federal government? No. Would they approve of Mr. Obama? No. If they could somehow speak to all Americans, right here, right now, what would they say? | ||
| Jb2 |
Buellkowski - read the works of Cloward - Pivens which Obama was a student of. In fact, one of the first search results on Google when typing in Cloward - Pivens is; "cloward-piven strategy for manufactured crisis." Did you notice that while berating Republicans about the budget crisis during the SOTU he also said our welfare system left people behind? That people, either by pride or lack of knowledge, were not receiving benefits? Why would you add more to the social safety net of a country that is going broke? Read Revelations. Why do we need airspace clearance for 30,000 drones to be operable by 2020? Really? We need drones saturating American airspace to keep us safe? There are those who refuse to see the forest for all the trees. I'm of the mind everyone here is smarter than that. I've sure learned a thing or two during my time here. I recently read an article about our times and the gentleman stated that while we are hyperventilating over the latest NFL game history is repeating itself right in front of us and we don't even realize it. Truth Teams? Attackwatch.com? Big Sis naming people who own guns, gold, keep more than seven days worth of food or identify themselves as Constitutionalists are suspect for terror activities? Really? It sounds more like divide and conquer to me. Tell on your neighbor, point out those right wingers. (Message edited by jb2 on February 22, 2012) | ||
| Buellkowski |
Any concerns regarding loss of civil liberties can be rectified with a change in administration, changes in representation, changes in legislation, and even lawsuits, all of which flow from "we the people". What is being presented in this thread is the notion that loss of civil liberty will remain despite change through such democratic vehicles, that there is some insidious force independent of public politics (yet in the guise of public politics) working to suspend our Constitutional rights. That we must elicit new oaths and arm ourselves against this insidious force that is otherwise unaccountable to the public. I ask, who are these shadowy figures and what purpose would suspending our rights serve them? | ||
| Reindog |
Kowski, Our civil liberties are slipping away from us, one molecule at a time, and most do not notice it because of the glacial pace. The Federal bureaucracy is expanding and makes tens of thousands of new laws each year which is not accountable to the constitutionally mandated Federal government. Each one is "well intentioned" but takes away our liberties. Obama is only a symptom of the problem, even though he is a particularly malignant one. Ask the Japanese-Americans during WWII. They might be able to open your eyes. I know I can't. | ||
| Reindog |
Geithner just testified before Congress and made light of the fact that the CBO numbers project that there will be NO American economy in 2027. This is using Geithner's own numbers. This piece also mentions Cloward-Piven. Loss of economic liberty immediately leads to the loss of all other liberties. Read your history, think, and then think again. It is August 1914 and our comfortable world is coming to an end because of our unsustainable debt which Obama is fanatically trying to increase. The Oath Keepers will be demonized but we know who the real demons are. Check this out as it is only 7 minutes and it has my boy, Whittle, at the helm. http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=105&load=6648 | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
Any concerns regarding loss of civil liberties can be rectified with a change in administration, changes in representation, changes in legislation, and even lawsuits, all of which flow from "we the people". What is being presented in this thread is the notion that loss of civil liberty will remain despite change through such democratic vehicles, that there is some insidious force independent of public politics (yet in the guise of public politics) working to suspend our Constitutional rights. That we must elicit new oaths and arm ourselves against this insidious force that is otherwise unaccountable to the public. Like to fish, do you? There are at least several mentions in this thread of voting Obama out of office in November, including in the NRA video I posted. As for losing our constitutional rights, some have already been lost, or badly damaged, including our right to keep and bear arms. I've posted several videos in this thread that illustrate this fact, and there are many more available at your fingertips; Google is your friend....or not.... As for eliciting "new" oaths, how did you concoct that sentiment? The Oath Keepers are reaffirming an existing oath. "Arming ourselves," as you put it, is an American right, granted to us by our Constitution. There's nothing "insidious" about it. It was important to the Founding Fathers, enough so to incorporate that right into the laws of the land, and it's just as important today. Questions: - What is your political affiliation? - Where do you get your news? | ||
| Chauly |
Buellkowski, To cross threads, I'm currently reading "In the Garden of Beasts" by Eric Larson, about the early years of the Nazi regime. It centers on the American Ambassador to Germany and his family, seeing through their eyes the gradual erosion and eventual destruction of civil liberties in German society, all in the name of "stability", "prosperity", and "order". You ask how this can happen in a democratic system? Hitler was appointed Chancellor by President Hindenburg, and just when Hindenburg was terminally ill, there was a referendum/plebiscite on how Hitler was doing. 96% of the adult population voted, and 91% approved--- or else! Even the 2500+ inmates of Dachau voted, with the same results.(No mention of the fate of the 88 dissenters) Loss of freedoms can happen gradually, through office changes and elections, each time like a fishhook going in, but hard to remove. You also ask "What's in it for them?" Power over others, pure and simple. Old as time, current as mankind. | ||
| Buellinmke |
Of course they wouldn't approve of President Obama. In Washington and Jefferson's day, President Obama would have only been 3/5th's of a man and would have been bought and sold at auction. Times change, people evolve - Washington and Jefferson weren't perfect. Also - I am a decorated combat veteran that has shed blood for this wonderful nation and these so-called "oath keepers" do nothing but insult the armed services. Alex Jones, Stewart Rhodes, etc. - they're all a bunch of whack-job conspiracy theorists dealing in fear. Do you really believe that the federal government is going to try to take your guns? | ||
| Buellkowski |
Jerry, Are you accusing me of trolling with your "like to fish" quip? That you (and others) would like to vote Obama out of office is abundantly clear. That will take care of your personal "change in adminstration" goal. Do you have any "change in representation/legislation" goals? Working hard to share those goals with others so they act/vote similarly? If so, wonderful. You're part of your own solution to the problems you see. One does not need to be an "Oath Keeper" to be part of that solution. Some of your constitutional rights have been lost, eh? OK, restoring those can become part of your "change in administration/representation/legislation" and/or lawsuit goals, fully protected by the Constitution. Do you disagree? It is tempting to view "Oath Keepers" as reaffirming an existing oath, but it does not appear that simple to me. The original oath calls for obediance to the President and superior officers. "Oath Keepers" very emphatically state ten orders that they will not obey. Are these orders part of the Code of Military Justice's understanding of what constitutes illegal orders? Is there legal precedence in courts martial finding that these ten orders are illegal? If not, then the "Oath Keeper" oath is a "new" oath, not promoted by the uniformed services it is targeted at, and effectively placing an asterisk at the end of the existing oaths of service. Instead, why not make changing the existing oaths or amending the various services' legal codes can become part of your "changing administration/representation/legislation" goals? I did not state that arming oneself is insidious. Please re-read my post. If you honor Washington & Jefferson, then orate, convince, work, vote, lobby, and sweat in the manner you believe best honors them. But do so within the framework they worked so hard to create for us. Do not work to divide the loyalties of the people who protect and rescue us. My political affiliation? My news sources? I'll take the Fifth Amendment, thank you. | ||
| Buellkowski |
Also, the only associations I can find between Cloward - Pivens and Obama come from those purported by right-wing pundits. Sort of like this: 1.) Cloward & Pivens advocated economic collapse through unsustainable welfare rolls, and 2.) President Obama advocates additional welfare expenditures, therefore 3.) President Obama advocates economic collapse. Not convincing to me. But I'm open to other evidence you may have that Obama is out to destroy us all and will keep his presidency by force. | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
If you honor Washington & Jefferson, then orate, convince, work, vote, lobby, and sweat in the manner you believe best honors them. But do so within the framework they worked so hard to create for us. I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, and I am. This thread is partial evidence of that. The "framework" they worked so hard to create for us is the Constitution, and I support the principals therein 100%. Do not work to divide the loyalties of the people who protect and rescue us. I'm a law-abiding citizen, and have always respected men and women in uniform, be it military, peace-keepers, or firefighters. I have friends who fit in these categories, my maternal grandfather was a deputy sheriff in Washington State, and my son was an MP in the US Army. They ALL have my thanks and full support. I have the utmost respect for anyone who would lay their life on the line for me. Conversely, I have the utmost DISRESPECT for a President who would order federal troops to disarm law-abiding citizens of their lawfully-owned firearms during a time of "national crisis." The folks you've seen in the video I linked to were law-abiding citizens in possession of legally-owned firearms, and yet they were ordered - at gunpoint - to disarm themselves. Or, it would seem, be shot to death. This is NOT the America that Presidents Washington, Jefferson, and the other Founding Fathers worked so hard to create. The little old lady in the video, whose house was not in danger from the flooding, who had enough food on hand to survive on her own for quite some time, and whose revolver was legally hers, was not loaded, was being held in a not-able-to-be-fired manner (she had her hand wrapped the cylinder, which looked like it had been swung out from the body of the gun), is it okay that she was gang-tackled by federal agents, arrested, and hsuffered injuries that required treatment in a hospital? It is? What if that was your neighbor? What if that was your mother? Would that make a difference? My political affiliation? My news sources? I'll take the Fifth Amendment, thank you. Cool, I just won a $50 bet I made with myself. Apologies for the "fishing" comment; it seemed to me you were fishing rather than truly wanting to debate. My bad. | ||
| Sifo |
The original oath calls for obediance to the President and superior officers. True, but only within the confines of the Constitution. It's clear to me that you don't understand what the Oath Keepers is about. I didn't either until I asked a couple of them about it. Then I did a bit of reading on it on my own. Their intent is to simply not follow unconstitutional orders. If you see that as threatening somehow, or as being insulting to anyone then I must also assume that you find the Constitution equally insulting. The Oath they take is nothing but a reminder that the Constitution is the rule of law in the US, not any leader at any level that may issue an order that conflicts with the Constitution. Quite simple. Of course they wouldn't approve of President Obama. In Washington and Jefferson's day, President Obama would have only been 3/5th's of a man and would have been bought and sold at auction. It's a shame you can't answer that question without the racial bigotry that clearly wasn't meant to factor into it.  | ||
| Buellkowski |
Jerry, for the record, I do not condone the seizures your video protrays, nor do I have an explanation for them. But in an effort to lay blame appropriately, it appears that the seizures were effected by a local sheriff's department, not by state or federal authorities. Oh, and I'm glad you made $50 off of me. Treat yourself to something nice.  | ||
| Sifo |
But in an effort to lay blame appropriately, it appears that the seizures were effected by a local sheriff's department, not by state or federal authorities. Does it matter what level of government is attempting to violate the Constitution? Oath Keepers are simply taking an oath to not take part in that. |
