Which side do you come down on

[noose4]

Is this just rhetoric question or you're questioning it because you're against it?

If is rhetoric, then the answer is: Those patches are called "REMF's", they are something that is "allowed" in hot zones. Swearing to uphold the Constitution isn't a "political banner" any more than an American flag is. It identifies the ideology that we should be pushing for. When I said We, I mean Americans.

If you are against it, I would advise you to go rip one off their shoulder and tell them to Obama Up! Let them know also that girly boys of America are against their oath and their belief in the US Constitution.

so you can wear any patch you want when in a hot zone? it was a legit question, when i was in the Marines we were not allowed such deviations from the required uniform and especially not patches from radical right wing anti American groups.

I thought that I was pretty clear when I wrote: "It identifies the ideology that we should be pushing for". Do I need to explain further that ideology is called in our Constitution, you know... part where our founding fathers are talking about Republic, liberty, freedom, our rights, etc.

Now, if you please, explain to me, since when is upholding the Constitution radical right and anti American thing? I would really like to know that!

where were these guys during bush? contrary to whack job right wing radio, unlike bush, President Obama has done nothing that can be considered unconstitutional

 

[Cecilie1200]

An oath to uphold the Constitution against unlawful order is anti=American.

except that is not why this group was formed, funny they didnt pop up when the patriot act was enacted but a black guy gets elected and boom, groups like this pop up.

Oh, yeah, it's his COLOR that's the problem, not his noxiously un-American policies. If you people really MUST be such virulent racists, could you please at least refrain from projecting your disability onto everyone else?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some of the OKs undoubtedly are racist, Cecilie1200, but assuredly not the majority, much less all. I don't even think they are necessarily unAmerican. However, if they break the UCMJ, they will be arrested, restrained, court-martialed, and if convicted, will be fined and sent to prison for the length of their sentences.

The OKs know the deal, and if caught, one of them will squeal for real, and snitch out the rest. Not to worry.

 

[Ame®icano]

so you can wear any patch you want when in a hot zone? it was a legit question, when i was in the Marines we were not allowed such deviations from the required uniform and especially not patches from radical right wing anti American groups.

I thought that I was pretty clear when I wrote: "It identifies the ideology that we should be pushing for". Do I need to explain further that ideology is called in our Constitution, you know... part where our founding fathers are talking about Republic, liberty, freedom, our rights, etc.

Now, if you please, explain to me, since when is upholding the Constitution radical right and anti American thing? I would really like to know that!

where were these guys during bush? contrary to whack job right wing radio, unlike bush, President Obama has done nothing that can be considered unconstitutional

Oh, I see... Bush is a problem, again.

I don't know where were these guys when Bush was a POTUS.

I do know that Bush's DHS never accused returning members of armed forces to be potentional terrorists and place them on a watch lists.

Btw, you haven't replied to my previous question: Since when is upholding the Constitution radical right and anti American thing?

 

[noose4]

An oath to uphold the Constitution against unlawful order is anti=American.

except that is not why this group was formed, funny they didnt pop up when the patriot act was enacted but a black guy gets elected and boom, groups like this pop up.

Oh, yeah, it's his COLOR that's the problem, not his noxiously un-American policies. If you people really MUST be such virulent racists, could you please at least refrain from projecting your disability onto everyone else?

and which policies are those?

 

[noose4]

I thought that I was pretty clear when I wrote: "It identifies the ideology that we should be pushing for". Do I need to explain further that ideology is called in our Constitution, you know... part where our founding fathers are talking about Republic, liberty, freedom, our rights, etc.

Now, if you please, explain to me, since when is upholding the Constitution radical right and anti American thing? I would really like to know that!

where were these guys during bush? contrary to whack job right wing radio, unlike bush, President Obama has done nothing that can be considered unconstitutional

Oh, I see... Bush is a problem, again.

I don't know where were these guys whan Bush was a POTUS.

I do know that Bush's DHS never accused returning members of armed forces to be potentional terrorists and place them on a watch lists.

Btw, you haven't replied to my previous question: Since when is upholding the Constitution radical right and anti American thing?

and neither did this one, all that is said by limbaugh and hannity etc, is not the truth, you should check stuff like that out for yourself.

if upholding the constitution was what this group was actually about it would be great, but these are just potential mcveighs in waiting, its a shame that there are decent people wrongly getting involved with this bunch.

 

[Ame®icano]

where were these guys during bush? contrary to whack job right wing radio, unlike bush, President Obama has done nothing that can be considered unconstitutional

Oh, I see... Bush is a problem, again.

I don't know where were these guys whan Bush was a POTUS.

I do know that Bush's DHS never accused returning members of armed forces to be potentional terrorists and place them on a watch lists.

Btw, you haven't replied to my previous question: Since when is upholding the Constitution radical right and anti American thing?

and neither did this one, all that is said by limbaugh and hannity etc, is not the truth, you should check stuff like that out for yourself.

if upholding the constitution was what this group was actually about it would be great, but these are just potential mcveighs in waiting, its a shame that there are decent people wrongly getting involved with this bunch.

Oh, I see. Do you maybe feel that American soldiers shouldn't be able to wear American flags? They swore to the flag too. Or would you rather see them having "Lenin" patch on their shoulder and "code pink" flag.

If these patches make you or anyone else "nervous", then they've done their job.

You know what, we got here plenty of former military, so why don't you tell them that they are terrorists?

 

[PixieStix]

Oath Keepers, of course

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zztaj2AFiy8]YouTube - Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey[/ame]

I love this organization

 

[Godboy]

Is this just rhetoric question or you're questioning it because you're against it?

If is rhetoric, then the answer is: Those patches are called "REMF's", they are something that is "allowed" in hot zones. Swearing to uphold the Constitution isn't a "political banner" any more than an American flag is. It identifies the ideology that we should be pushing for. When I said We, I mean Americans.

If you are against it, I would advise you to go rip one off their shoulder and tell them to Obama Up! Let them know also that girly boys of America are against their oath and their belief in the US Constitution.

so you can wear any patch you want when in a hot zone? it was a legit question, when i was in the Marines we were not allowed such deviations from the required uniform and especially not patches from radical right wing anti American groups.

Same here....the patches had to regulation or some squadron patch, etc. NOTHING from an outside group or cause.

Yep, was in the Navy and i assure you that if you ever put an unregulated patch on any uniform, whether your working uniform or dress uniform, you would be going to captains mast (a sort of mini court where the Captain is the judge and jury, its also one step below a court martial). I would imagine if you made this mistake on my base in Lemoore, California, youd get sent to the jail crew to pick up trash for a month, with half months pay. The captain could send you for up to 2 months though if he felt like it.

The Navy is much more lenient though than the other armed forces, like the Marines for example. If you pulled that crap on a Marine uniform, they would lose their minds and go fucking ape shit on your ass. If any of you have ever served in the military for long periods with Marines, you know exactly what im talking about. They take that shit really seriously. Hell, they will lose their minds if you are simply wearing a wrinkled shirt.

It must take a big set of brass balls to put that patch on and wear it in front of other military personell. I dont see how you could possibly last even a day without getting busted.

 

[DiveCon]

An oath to uphold the Constitution against unlawful order is anti=American.

except that is not why this group was formed, funny they didnt pop up when the patriot act was enacted but a black guy gets elected and boom, groups like this pop up.

How do you know that wasn't one of the initial driving factors that gave someone the idea to form the group?

if this is correct:
Oath Keepers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

they didnt

 

[DiveCon]

timing? the Patriot act has been here for some time now but they wait till the president who enacted it is no longer the president? it doesnt take kreskin to see what they are all about.

Evolution of an idea. One possible scenario; Issue arises, person gets an idea, idea sits on back burner, another issue arises which spurs the idea into action. Not saying this is what happened in this case but since neither of us are involve with this group how do we know? It's called giving the benefit of the doubt without having all the facts, you know, being fair, open minded and not jumping to conclusions.

since there is no need for this group they do not get the benefit of the doubt, this group was formed because of the lunatic fringe fantasies put forth by the nutty part of the right wing that see's fema building concentration camps and other such nonsense.

c'mon man, the nutters saw those things when Bush was POTUS too

it has NOTHING to do with who is POTUS right now

 

[PatekPhilippe]

An oath to uphold the Constitution against unlawful order is anti=American.

except that is not why this group was formed, funny they didnt pop up when the patriot act was enacted but a black guy gets elected and boom, groups like this pop up.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Ya...try the race card...maybe that'll work.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

so you can wear any patch you want when in a hot zone? it was a legit question, when i was in the Marines we were not allowed such deviations from the required uniform and especially not patches from radical right wing anti American groups.

I thought that I was pretty clear when I wrote: "It identifies the ideology that we should be pushing for". Do I need to explain further that ideology is called in our Constitution, you know... part where our founding fathers are talking about Republic, liberty, freedom, our rights, etc.

Now, if you please, explain to me, since when is upholding the Constitution radical right and anti American thing? I would really like to know that!

where were these guys during bush? contrary to whack job right wing radio, unlike bush, President Obama has done nothing that can be considered unconstitutional

Agreed. Neither did Bush.

 

[Fatality]

Oath Keepers, the military and police organization that was formed earlier this year and held its April muster on Lexington Green, may be a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival.
particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival.
particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival.
particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival.

SPLCenter.org: SPLC Report: Return of the Militias
With the Oath keepers or the souther poverty law center

Oath Keepers, the military and police organization that was formed earlier this year and held its April muster on Lexington Green, may be a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival. Members vow to fulfill the oaths to the Constitution that they swore while in the military or law enforcement. "Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders," the group says. Oath Keepers lists 10 orders its members won't obey, including two that reference U.S. concentration camps.

for the new government the constitution is bad, and patriots are evil. janet naplitano already said so.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

yes anti American cloaking themselves with the above, where were they when bush put forth the patriot act? why have they all of a sudden popped up now after 8 years of bush putting forth constitutionally questionable acts? how many of these military and police members of this group have already acted upon constitutionally questionable action put forth by bush? like law enforcement types using the patriot act? they are a crock, they just oppose the duly elected government of the U.S. because their side was voted out by the American people.

Link?

see the article in the above post, they have compared the duly elected president of the U.S. to Hitler

So you're saying someone else posted bullshit , therefore it's ok for you to follow suit. Typical leftwing logic.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

where were these guys during bush? contrary to whack job right wing radio, unlike bush, President Obama has done nothing that can be considered unconstitutional

Oh, I see... Bush is a problem, again.

I don't know where were these guys whan Bush was a POTUS.

I do know that Bush's DHS never accused returning members of armed forces to be potentional terrorists and place them on a watch lists.

Btw, you haven't replied to my previous question: Since when is upholding the Constitution radical right and anti American thing?

and neither did this one, all that is said by limbaugh and hannity etc, is not the truth, you should check stuff like that out for yourself.

if upholding the constitution was what this group was actually about it would be great, but these are just potential mcveighs in waiting, its a shame that there are decent people wrongly getting involved with this bunch.

"these are potential McVeighs's in wating" where's the evidence that supports this claim?

"It's a shame decent people wrongly getting involved with this bunch", Again, where's the evidence that supports this claim?

 

[Shorebreak]

Oh, I see... Bush is a problem, again.

I don't know where were these guys whan Bush was a POTUS.

I do know that Bush's DHS never accused returning members of armed forces to be potentional terrorists and place them on a watch lists.

Btw, you haven't replied to my previous question: Since when is upholding the Constitution radical right and anti American thing?

and neither did this one, all that is said by limbaugh and hannity etc, is not the truth, you should check stuff like that out for yourself.

if upholding the constitution was what this group was actually about it would be great, but these are just potential mcveighs in waiting, its a shame that there are decent people wrongly getting involved with this bunch.

"these are potential McVeighs's in wating" where's the evidence that supports this claim?

"It's a shame decent people wrongly getting involved with this bunch", Again, where's the evidence that supports this claim?

There is no evidence.

In 1993 the OKC bombing was used by the media and the White House as justification to shut down all patriotic groups who were worried about globalist leadership in the US who would slowly eliminate US sovereignty by merging our economy with others, and who would gradually erode our Constitution at the same time with things like warrantless surveillance, free speech zones, gun control, etc.

The media launched a massive campaign with specials and documentaries showing a bunch of hillbillies running around with assault rifles, and claiming that they were organizing to oppose the government. At the height of the frenzy, the OKC bombing took place and McVeigh was heralded as the ultimate product of the militia's.

Since militia members are actually true patriots who would never conduct such an attack, most members of these groups backed away from the militia's because they didn't want to be associated with that kind of murderous treason. Although it was less than 20 years ago, at that point in our history most Americans didn't understand how the media and the White House work together to formulate public opinion, so most decent militia members never even suspected that the OKC attack was being used to spin the event against them. The organizations fell to the wayside.

Now fast forward to 2007. News spreads that the Supreme Court has ruled that in favor of Sheriff mack that all federal law enforcement activity throughout the nation is subject to approval of the locally elected sheriff. Sheriff Mack begins to generate natioanl support as a result. Other patriotic officials begin seeing the bigger picture. They see that federal control is spreading. They've witnessed orders to dis-arm law-abiding citizens. They've witnessed successive Presidents are meeting with neighboring leaders to merge us into a single security apparatus. They see that federal government is conducting warrantless searches and gagging or imprisoning those who speak about it, etc, etc, and many have joined Sheriff Mack in promising to uphold the oath that they swore.

So now the federal government has a new problem. It's similar to the militia's in the sense that people are organizing against potential tyranny, but this time it's law enforcement and military who are uniting, rather than civilians.

So how can they respond?

The first step is to attack the messengers. Call them names. Give them labels. Associate them with past criminals and events.

"They are wing nuts."
"They're like the KKK - they're racist."
"They're a breeding ground for multiple Timothy McVeighs."

Do that often enough and even the people who support them will be well aware of the accusations - no matter how false or unsupported they may be.

If I were the White House or CIA, my ultimate goal would be to find some way to pin a massive atrocity on the group so that I could discredit them in the same manner that militia's were discredited back in 1993.

The false claims by Noose (or that Noose is hearing elsewhere and parroting here) are intended for that reason. Disinformation to discredit opposition to the elimination of certain rights by the globalist banks who control our federal government.

 

[Old Rocks]

Members vow to fulfill the oaths to the Constitution that they swore while in the military or law enforcement. "Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders," the group says. Oath Keepers lists 10 orders its members won't obey, including two that reference U.S. concentration camps.

That's not something liberals in power will be too happy with!

Really? Who the hell was defending those very rights when Bush was imprisoning Americans without proper legal cause or procedure. It sure wasn't you faux Conservatives. In fact, you were cheering the whole thing on, just as you did in the case of ol' Tail Gunner Joe.

The fact is, you people are as big a bunch of hypocrits as ever existed.

 

[Old Rocks]

A Three Percent Oath Keeper in Iraq

This is the Oath:

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

New Orleans

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

Bush's flaunting of the FICA laws

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

Will have to check this out

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

Dumb, real dumb. There are natural disasters that are big enough to require this step for a state, or even several states

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

This was settled in the Civil War. No succession, to try it is treason

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

Not even in the case of a pandemic?

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

Is this an excuse not to provide food and shelter for fellow Americans in the case of a natural disaster?

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."

Who in the hell would? Does this also include resistance to mercenaries such as Blackwater?

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

I can think of so many situations where this may be neccessary, particularly in a multi-state natural disaster, that this needs re-written

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Seems to me, in the past, it has been the Conservative camp that has been the primary problem here, see ol' Tail Gunner Joe

Another wingnut attempt to paint themselves as "Saviours of the Nation" while doing their best to do exactly the type of things they are accusing other of.

 

[Old Rocks]

In 1962, when I entered the military as an enlisted man, I took an oath. As a citizen, I still consider that oath in effect. I don't need this kind of drivel.