Manhunt for "Oathkeeper"

[Luissa]

Lol...that's it?

OK.

I didn't know that the first camp opened in '33.

So it was the sentiment of a German in 1932 instead of 1937.

I have no fear of admitting when I am wrong about something.

I should have looked up the fact that concentration camps in Germany existed far earlier than I imagined.

Thanks for clearing that up.

But since it is trivial and has no bearing on anything else in this thread except that one tiny post, and not even the POINT of that post...I have no idea what your point is.

So please...continue stamping your foot and calling names to your hearts content.

But try to make an intelligent comment somewhere in the contents of your post.

Thanks in advance.

The point of your post was defend me saying they shouldn't be spreading fear... Were you implying that Obama or the government will soon be opening up concentration camps?

The point of my post was that I was sure that a German in 1932 (THANK YOU L.K. EDER) probably shared your sentiment that no concentration camps could possibly be instituted in Germany.

It is your blind partisanship that makes this about Obama.

The example I use was Bush era, not Obama.

Ergo, I am neither being partisan nor implying anything about Obama or anyone else...I am only explaining why there is a need for the Oathtakers and the reinforcement of refusing illegal orders.


Anything else you read into my comments is your own projection.

Take off your Obama tinged glasses and go back and read my posts.

Maybe you should have said that in response to the quote where I mentioned Obama, instead of just saying what you did, along with your later response of Nuremberg...


Speaking of back tracking.

 

[Ravi]

OK, so you found one alleged example of guns being taken illegally.

Regardless, the order was rescinded by someone higher up in the government. The person giving the order was forced to resign. In other words, the system works fine without a bunch of disgruntled nutcases taking a phony oath.

 

[Ravi]

maybe you learned when the first concentration camp was opened from this thread, so you won't ever again make such a stupid post as before.

and then you can thank me.

maybe in the future you will also know what you are invoking when you write "nuremberg redux", you little turd.

your backpeddling has been noted and observed with a lot of grinning.

Lol...that's it?

OK.

I didn't know that the first camp opened in '33.

So it was the sentiment of a German in 1932 instead of 1937.

I have no fear of admitting when I am wrong about something.

I should have looked up the fact that concentration camps in Germany existed far earlier than I imagined.

Thanks for clearing that up.

But since it is trivial and has no bearing on anything else in this thread except that one tiny post, and not even the POINT of that post...I have no idea what your point is.

So please...continue stamping your foot and calling names to your hearts content.

But try to make an intelligent comment somewhere in the contents of your post.

Thanks in advance.

The point of your post was defend me saying they shouldn't be spreading fear... Were you implying that Obama or the government will soon be opening up concentration camps?

Haven't you heard of FEMA camps?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

OK, so you found one alleged example of guns being taken illegally.

Regardless, the order was rescinded by someone higher up in the government. The person giving the order was forced to resign. In other words, the system works fine without a bunch of disgruntled nutcases taking a phony oath.

Guns have been illegally taken since 1865

 

[Missourian]

I am still trying to get him to answer about how he feels in regards to Perry not pardoning an innocent man who was later put to death... Is there an oath about that?

More partisan deflection.

Can you at least make an attempt to stay on topic.

Perry followed the law and the Constitution.

The man was found guilty by a jury of his peers.

He was afforded every appeal to the judiciary of both Texas and U.S. Federal Court.

Perry decided not to reverse all of those decisions.

Any other unrelated topic you'd like to deflect to?

But wasn't there evidence sent to Perry a month before his executions stating no arson was involved? Wouldn't not pardoning someone that you have evidence for that shows they probably didn't commit the crime taking away someone's right?

If such irrefutable evidence existed, why was it not presented during the appeal process?

Perry's job isn't to judge, that is a responsibility reserved to the judiciary.

If their was incontrovertible evidence that the man was innocent, I guarantee Rick Perry would have pardoned him.

I thought Oathkeepers didn't like the government taking away the rights of innocent citizens? They didn't even respond to appeal.

Which of his rights were violated.

He had a trial...he was found guilty...he was given every opportunity to appeal.

If his rights were violated...by whom...the police, the judges, the jury?

I would rather Oathkeepers stand up for stuff like that this, stuff that is actually happening, then something that MIGHT happen.

That's silly...if I made a list of all the things we as a nation or even individuals do to prepare for things that MIGHT happen, I would fill this server before it was half completed.

 

[Missourian]

OK, so you found one alleged example of guns being taken illegally.

Regardless, the order was rescinded by someone higher up in the government. The person giving the order was forced to resign. In other words, the system works fine without a bunch of disgruntled nutcases taking a phony oath.

Except the order was carried out...aside from that everything worked perfectly.

 

[Missourian]

The point of your post was defend me saying they shouldn't be spreading fear... Were you implying that Obama or the government will soon be opening up concentration camps?

The point of my post was that I was sure that a German in 1932 (THANK YOU L.K. EDER) probably shared your sentiment that no concentration camps could possibly be instituted in Germany.

It is your blind partisanship that makes this about Obama.

The example I use was Bush era, not Obama.

Ergo, I am neither being partisan nor implying anything about Obama or anyone else...I am only explaining why there is a need for the Oathtakers and the reinforcement of refusing illegal orders.


Anything else you read into my comments is your own projection.

Take off your Obama tinged glasses and go back and read my posts.

Maybe you should have said that in response to the quote where I mentioned Obama, instead of just saying what you did, along with your later response of Nuremberg...


Speaking of back tracking.

Here is the exact post...

In the last few years has anyone been forced into concentration camps, or has martial law been imposed?

I'm sure a German pre-1937 made a statement very similar to this one.

How could that have been any more clear!


Just because you don't think it could happen in the next few years doesn't mean it can't happen.

Just like the 1932 (THANK YOU L.K. EDER) German probably didn't believe it would happen there in the next few years.

 

[L.K.Eder]

the date is not the only thing wrong with your statement.

 

[freedombecki]

"Orders we will NOT obey"

The Oath Keepers feel that their sworn oath to the American Constitution, grants them not only the right, but the duty to refuse unconstitutional orders. The Oath Keepers organization has published a list of orders that they claim they will not obey, the list is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."

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

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.

Oath Keepers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

So, which of these do you disagree with?

you know it's not so much a matter of disagreement on issue as one on attitude.

there's no reason to 'reaffirm' any oath, or pledge to not follow orders like that. it's unnecessary.

what the pledge does do though is put you in an adversarial role with the government - one where not only do you think they could issue such orders but where you expect them too.

and it makes the 'oathkeepers' look as though they'd relish an opportunity to take up arms against their government.

ogibillm, are you aware the oath given by Missourian is actually an affirmation of U.S. Bill of Rights privileges?

A government agency that does not approve of the constitution and acts against any citizen in a way that violates the Bill of Rights is out of control. It's not a complex oath when you consider what that Bill of Rights is all about.

 

[freedombecki]

I don't give a damn what this scumbags political views are !!!if he hurt a child he should pay!!!

I hate to tell you this, but in the meantime, he is innocent until proven guilty. So far, getting a jury to declare him guilty is apparently not all that easy.

I remember back to the trial of the California child care facility in which public hysteria was so far out of control, justice was skewed. Some time later, the accused were set free because the first woman accuser was found likely of giving false testimony due to acute schizophrenia, a mental illness. Then a prosecutor and social worker who believed the woman, made plans and teamed up, coercing confessions out of a bunch of children who went to the Day Care facility. A few years later, the children realized their testimony didn't fit the good care they received at the facility.

We should never let sex abuse charges drive us hysterical to the point of determining guilt by press. It may not be what it seems to be.

Innocent people wrongfully accused in child sex abuse cases

I don't know whether the man committed the crimes he is accused of. They're not very nice charges.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't give a damn what this scumbags political views are !!!if he hurt a child he should pay!!!

I hate to tell you this, but in the meantime, he is innocent until proven guilty. So far, getting a jury to declare him guilty is apparently not all that easy.

I remember back to the trial of the California child care facility in which public hysteria was so far out of control, justice was skewed. Some time later, the accused were set free because the first woman accuser was found likely of giving false testimony due to acute schizophrenia, a mental illness. Then a prosecutor and social worker who believed the woman, made plans and teamed up, coercing confessions out of a bunch of children who went to the Day Care facility. A few years later, the children realized their testimony didn't fit the good care they received at the facility.

We should never let sex abuse charges drive us hysterical to the point of determining guilt by press. It may not be what it seems to be.

Innocent people wrongfully accused in child sex abuse cases

I don't know whether the man committed the crimes he is accused of. They're not very nice charges.

exactly

 

[Luissa]

Look up the case. He ignored his appeal and a specialist.

More partisan deflection.

Can you at least make an attempt to stay on topic.

Perry followed the law and the Constitution.

The man was found guilty by a jury of his peers.

He was afforded every appeal to the judiciary of both Texas and U.S. Federal Court.

Perry decided not to reverse all of those decisions.

Any other unrelated topic you'd like to deflect to?

But wasn't there evidence sent to Perry a month before his executions stating no arson was involved? Wouldn't not pardoning someone that you have evidence for that shows they probably didn't commit the crime taking away someone's right?

If such irrefutable evidence existed, why was it not presented during the appeal process?

Perry's job isn't to judge, that is a responsibility reserved to the judiciary.

If their was incontrovertible evidence that the man was innocent, I guarantee Rick Perry would have pardoned him.

I thought Oathkeepers didn't like the government taking away the rights of innocent citizens? They didn't even respond to appeal.

Which of his rights were violated.

He had a trial...he was found guilty...he was given every opportunity to appeal.

If his rights were violated...by whom...the police, the judges, the jury?

I would rather Oathkeepers stand up for stuff like that this, stuff that is actually happening, then something that MIGHT happen.

That's silly...if I made a list of all the things we as a nation or even individuals do to prepare for things that MIGHT happen, I would fill this server before it was half completed.

 

[Missourian]

Look up the case. He ignored his appeal and a specialist.

Be careful what you wish for.

The most cursory investigation proves Rick Perry COULD NOT POSSIBLY have commuted Willingham's death sentence.

Cameron Todd Willingham was a Texas man whose three young children died in a 1991 fire at the family home in Corsicana, Texas. Willingham, accused of having set the fire, was convicted of murder and was executed in 2004. Shortly before the execution and after several years of unsuccessful appeals, an arson expert, Gerald Hurst, filed a report advising the 7-member Board of Pardons and Paroles that the investigation of the case had not been based on good science and that there was no proof of arson, but the Board of Pardons and Paroles declined to recommend clemency to the governor.

Rick Perry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


​

--------------------------------------------------​

Board of Pardons and Paroles

In addition, a defendant may also appeal to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (a division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice) for commutation of the [death] sentence.

The Board, after hearing testimony, decides whether or not to recommend commutation to the Governor of Texas. The Governor can accept or reject a positive recommendation of commutation, but has no power to override a negative recommendation.

Capital punishment in Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is already known to Americans that the Constitution protects civil rights...yet there is an ACLU.

As noted, the ACLU defends citizens against civil rights abuses. Indeed, they would be among the first to defend an oath keeper’s right to be a nut.

Black man as president all of a sudden we get oath keepers.

Where were they when the Patriot Act was passed or DHS was formed?

Or when tax cuts squandered a budget surplus creating a deficit.

I’ve always resisted the ‘black man as president’ argument. I’m sure for many this is an issue and motive but not so for a majority of rightists. I think it’s just the simple fact that a democrat is president, regardless race. It goes to the idiotic myth and contrivance by the right that democrats are ‘gun grabbers’ and ‘socialists’ and similar nonsense. It’s part of the general tactic to try to generate fear and mistrust in a partisan effort to undermine a democratic administration. We saw the same with Clinton, we’ll see it again with the next democratic president.

It has nothing to do with patriotism, the Constitution, or ‘oaths,’ it’s pure politics.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We first noticed Marine Sgt. Charles Dyer, aka "July4Patriot," back in March, when we ran one of the first reports on the "Oath Keepers" bloc of the Tea Party movement -- an organization devoted to recruiting military and police-force veterans into a Patriot-movement belief system predicated on a series of paranoid conspiracy theories, especially the notion that the federal government intends to begin rounding up citizens and putting them in concentration camps.

Dyer played a prominent role in connecting the Oath Keepers to the Tea Party movement, speaking at a July 4 Tea Party rally in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. And he's been involved in organizing militia "maneuvers" in Oklahoma.

'Oath Keepers' Leader Arrested for Child Rape; Cops Find Stolen Grenade Launcher In His House | Crooks and Liars

Your post reminds me of Nazi propaganda in the year 1933

Really? How OLD are you?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We first noticed Marine Sgt. Charles Dyer, aka "July4Patriot," back in March, when we ran one of the first reports on the "Oath Keepers" bloc of the Tea Party movement -- an organization devoted to recruiting military and police-force veterans into a Patriot-movement belief system predicated on a series of paranoid conspiracy theories, especially the notion that the federal government intends to begin rounding up citizens and putting them in concentration camps.

Dyer played a prominent role in connecting the Oath Keepers to the Tea Party movement, speaking at a July 4 Tea Party rally in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. And he's been involved in organizing militia "maneuvers" in Oklahoma.

'Oath Keepers' Leader Arrested for Child Rape; Cops Find Stolen Grenade Launcher In His House | Crooks and Liars

Your post reminds me of Nazi propaganda in the year 1933

Really? How OLD are you?

Age has nothing to do with it, Nazis propaganda is well documented.

 

[Ravi]

OK, so you found one alleged example of guns being taken illegally.

Regardless, the order was rescinded by someone higher up in the government. The person giving the order was forced to resign. In other words, the system works fine without a bunch of disgruntled nutcases taking a phony oath.

Except the order was carried out...aside from that everything worked perfectly.

By one group of idiots, allegedly. Still no need for vigilantes.

 

[Ravi]

the date is not the only thing wrong with your statement.

Ya think?

If we are going to assign brown shirts, it would be to the oathkeepers.

If we were going to assign them.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

OK, so you found one alleged example of guns being taken illegally.

Regardless, the order was rescinded by someone higher up in the government. The person giving the order was forced to resign. In other words, the system works fine without a bunch of disgruntled nutcases taking a phony oath.

Except the order was carried out...aside from that everything worked perfectly.

By one group of idiots, allegedly. Still no need for vigilantes.

It's called Militia and is perfectly legal.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

the date is not the only thing wrong with your statement.

Ya think?

If we are going to assign brown shirts, it would be to the oathkeepers.

If we were going to assign them.

Rocket scientist the brown shrits weren't kjnown for defending individual rights The oath keepers are known for that.