Oath Keepers

[ADB]

To paraphrase Carmine Lupertazzi, we always think we're at the precipice of an enormous crossroads. Every generation thinks they've got it worse than the last. It's just a weird facet of human nature.

Bing! And as a corrolary, pretty much each generation also thinks that the NEXT generation has it easy and are a bunch of losers.

and even with the control of two branches of government, those who would further infringe upon our rights are surprisingly silent.

Because the pro-gun-control people don't control dirt. Most of the Democrats learned their lesson about gun control after 1994, the smarter members of the herd have a strong incentive to rein in the people who still believe that stuff.

thallub, the irony is that Rense is/was also popular with some of the conspiraloons on the left when it was Bush's name attached to the "concentration camps" and all that jazz. It really is true that if you go far enough off either end of the political stage you end up in the same place.

I am a little perplexed that such an effort has been painted here as undermining the 2A effort, appearing to associate with lunatics, etc.; and further to discourage people from attending 'tea parties' and other freedom rallies.

Sarge, the problem isn't the idea, it's the rhetoric and paranoia that they're using to advance it. City-wide concentration camps? Seriously?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

What happened in NO, after Katrina was an aberration and will never, ever happen again. Right? We should all keep telling ourselves this....

What stopped Nagin's tactics? A court order. In TN and LA laws were passed that if a Nagin ever does that again he might face prosecution. It may happen again but the Oath Keepers won't stop it, our system will. Interesting thing about Katrina though. What did you hear most folk crying for after the storm? More guns or the government to come help?

the 'oath' referred to by this organization is not some swearing of allegiance to a fringe militia organization. It is to an oath already sworn.

Then why swear to it again? The Good Book say: Let your yes be yes and your no be no. If a person has no intention of keeping that oath making him swear to it a 100 times won't matter, will it?

...and if 10% of those officers had the stones to tell their handlers that Nagin was not God,

You know a lot of LEOs that were involved with that confiscation weren't even from LA? Nagin had no real control over them anyway. Which was a larger problem than the oath silliness.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

You know, Nnobby45 provided a link to the Oath Keepers back in March and I read their stuff then. For the life of me, I cannot see a reason to be a part of such an organization.

 

[Wagonman]

It is to an oath already sworn.

Sorta like the pledge of allegiance.

What stopped Nagin's tactics? A court order.

You know a lot of LEOs that were involved with that confiscation weren't even from LA? Nagin had no real control over them anyway. Which was a larger problem than the oath silliness

Kinda trying to have it both ways aren't you? Either he was culpable for the actions or not?

I have pretty much decided against joining but I don't disparage them either.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Sorta like the pledge of allegiance.

Not really an oath IMO. More ceremonial than otherwise. Here is a good link to read about differing interpretations. http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/03/26/pledge-of-allegiance-as-loyalty-oath.htm

Kinda trying to have it both ways aren't you? Either he was culpable for the actions or not?

No, I'm just refuting that out of state police thought Nagin was "god" to those officers as Sarge said. Nagin is only culpable for the actions he intiated. If those cops were acting under his orders then yes he was culpable but I am not sure what the command relationship was. They may have been acting on their own.

I have pretty much decided against joining

I agree with your decision.

 

[Mello2u]

History teaches that all Republics and Democracies eventually fail and turn into a dictatorship. The most famous is the Roman Empire.

The ten orders that the Oath Keepers would not obey all deal with constitutional issues such as the freedom of speech (1st Amendment), the right of the people to bear arms (the 2nd Amendment), right to a trial by jury (6th Amendment), unreasonable search and seizure (4th Amendment) and so on.

Many people hold that all welfare payments including corporate welfare is unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court of the U. S. will not grant standing to any citizen to contest the issue before the Supremes. They has written that it is a political question that must be left to the legislative branch; which contains the people who most benefit from the vote buying scheme.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

History teaches that all Republics and Democracies eventually fail and turn into a dictatorship. The most famous is the Roman Empire.

Rome never had the type of government we have today. The Senate was controlled by patricians and there was no universal voting or independent judiary. Apples and Oranges.

The ten orders that the Oath Keepers would not obey all deal with constitutional issues

That try to scare people by bringing up abuses that have no chance of happening throughout our country. Fearmongering. BTW does the guy that started this outfit get paid? Are there "dues" or does he ask for $upport? Follow the money.

 

[Al Norris]

What stopped Nagin's tactics? A court order.

Yup. After the guns had been confiscated. After the citizens had been assaulted and battered, under color of law. The Courts are a great place to correct the wrong, after the wrong has been committed. And as we should all know, full restitution has never been achieved. For those of you that are short on memory, it has been well documented.

Nagin did issue the order. His Chief of police did carry out the order. That order was communicated to all other LEO's and National Guard.

Laws were already in place that should have prevented this in the first place. That is documented. Adding new laws will not prevent it from happening again. That's a given... Simply considering what we have gone through with respect to gun-control should be the tip-off: The older laws did not curtail crime. New laws have not curtailed crime.

Oath Keepers is not a militia movement, despite all the rhetoric that is being said here and elswhere.

Oath Keepers does not require anyone to resubmit (retake) their oath of service. They do endorse that those considering membership, remember their sworn oath and hold to it. Oath Keepers mission is to remind us of that oath. To educate those that don't understand what it means.

Board of Directors of Oath Keepers:

Sgt. Dave Freeman (RET), Las Vegas Metro, and Army veteran. National Peace Officer Liaison.

LCDR David R. Gillie, USN. National Liaison to current Serving Military Officers.

Capt. Chauncey Normandin (RET), Lowell (MA) PD, and Army veteran. Florida State Director.

Capt. Gregory Gooch (Ret), Merchant Marine, and Viet Nam Era Navy veteran. Texas State Director.

Chief Celia S. Hyde (RET), Bolton (MA) PD. Member, International Association of Chiefs of Police. Oath Keepers Massachusetts State Director.

Sgt. Rand Cardwell. U.S.M.C. veteran (Desert Storm). Tennessee State Director.

Elias Alias. U.S.M.C. veteran (Vietnam). Montana State Director.

Robert A. Gomez, MSgt, USAF (RET). Oklahoma State Director.​

Add to this that S.W.A.T. magazine endorses the group should say something about their legitimacy. Neither Denny Hansen (Editor) nor Rich Lucibella (Owner of the mag and TFL) would put their names behind an illegitimate organization.

So just who is doing the fear mongering here?

 

[Ruthless4christ]

Maybe if the german military had a club like this, it would have been easier for them to declare an affective NO! When they were ordered to do something they knew to be wrong.

 

[Evan Thomas]

All the more important to nurture the concept of individual freedom in their minds BEFORE the event, rather than after.

And one of the ironies of this whole thing is the notion that the way to "nurture the concept of individual freedom" is to get people to (drum roll here) join a group.

If an individual soldier refuses to obey an order he or she believes to be unlawful, that's a matter of conscience, of individual freedom, if you will; and it can be done honorably, as a matter of civil disobedience in which the individual accepts the legal consequences of doing so. The case of Ehren Watada, who refused an order to deploy to Iraq because he believed the war there to be illegal, is an instructive example of this. (And given the Oath Keepers' #5, "We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty," they should also be refusing to serve there, it seems to me.)

But when a group of soldiers refuses to obey orders and decides to resist instead, that's, well, mutiny, which is not remotely the same as civil disobedience.

So... when I looked at their website, they completely lost me with this:

"If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you."​

Do I have this right? There are NO conditions attached to the above statement, are there? These folks -- whose whole point, ostensibly, is that they're explicitly sworn to uphold the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" -- are saying that they'd support an attempt to overthrow the Government. The, um, Constitutionally mandated, duly elected Government.

They can't have it both ways. This goes well beyond reminding those who serve that they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Combined with the fearmongering which TG rightly points out, it's not a pretty picture, no matter how they try to dress it up in ersatz patriotism.

And perhaps S.W.A.T. magazine ought to reconsider its endorsement...

 

[Tom Servo]

Neither Denny Hansen (Editor) nor Rich Lucibella (Owner of the mag and TFL) would put their names behind an illegitimate organization.

You've got a good point. As I stated earlier, my concern is not with the organization itself, but with the possibility that folks from the fringe could attach themselves to it. Organizations with strong rhetoric can have a strong allure for the misguided and overzealous. That's what they have to watch for.

 

[zukiphile]

I understand that some might not like this group for sociological reasons, but not liking or trusting the sort of people you think they are is hardly an indictment of an idea.

So... when I looked at their website, they completely lost me with this:

"If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you."
Do I have this right? There are NO conditions attached to the above statement, are there? These folks -- whose whole point, ostensibly, is that they're explicitly sworn to uphold the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" -- are saying that they'd support an attempt to overthrow the Government. The, um, Constitutionally mandated, duly elected Government.

Except that the statement doesn't offer help in overthrowing constitutional government. That the specific statement doesn't detail each circumstance underwhich they envision assistance or refusal to follow specific orders doesn't reasonably entitle a reader to conclude that they would oppose any and all government acts.

They can't have it both ways. This goes well beyond reminding those who serve that they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.

It is not "having it both ways" to swear to uphold the COTUS and to oppose with force those who depart from constitutional practice. The two principles are fully consistent.

Combined with the fearmongering which TG rightly points out, it's not a pretty picture, no matter how they try to dress it up in ersatz patriotism.

I wouldn't present myself as they have, but it isn't a reasonable extension of a difference in presentation to conclude that their love of country (not government) is inferior to my own or your own.

For those reasons, I believe that your analysis inadequately distinguished between the COTUS, government and country.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Add to this that S.W.A.T. magazine endorses the group should say something about their legitimacy. Neither Denny Hansen (Editor) nor Rich Lucibella (Owner of the mag and TFL) would put their names behind an illegitimate organization.

So just who is doing the fear mongering here?

The above quote appears to be a good example of argumentum ad verecundiam, that the endorsers would not endorse something bad (and have not made a mistake doing so), hence there should be no problem with that which is endorsed.

Endorsements are nice and all, but don't mean too much to me. I have seen too many examples of very good people, very reputable people who endorsed things that turned out to be garbage, sometimes for various financial incentives, sometimes out of real or perceived commonalities, sometimes out of professional courtesies, sometimes out of naivete, and sometimes because they were out and out duped. Sometimes those making such endorsements simply have a different agenda from mine, even if they are very good people.

So just because people of note have endorsed the group is fine, but I can't see changing my mind about the organization on that sort of basis. To do so would mean that I would be doing nothing more than blindly following the lead of the endorsers...which sort of gets back to the original problem of cops and military folks who blindly follow illegal orders given to them.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Yup. After the guns had been confiscated. After the citizens had been assaulted and battered, under color of law. The Courts are a great place to correct the wrong, after the wrong has been committed.

I know what you mean. Democracy sucks. Many time folks are wronged and have to then go to court where the wheels of justice grind slow but they grind fine. I guess those citizens should have fought the police with their guns rather than let the law take care of the problem in due course later on.

Is that what you and Oath Keepers are proposing? Surely not. Without a doubt the government does oppressive and bad things from time to time. Sort of a human thing I guess as the leaders of government are human. Me, I like the idea of a nation of laws not men. Nagin was sued by the NRA and the NRA settled the case. I guess they felt they achieved restitution enough but you don't think so. Of course legally the RKBA does not now apply to the states and hasn't in 200 years but our courts will fix that in June next year right? Yeah, Nagin is an idiot and might get away with the gun grab unless he loses the next election.

Yeah the democratic system of law sucks, unless of course you compare it to any other system.

They do endorse that those considering membership, remember their sworn oath and hold to it. Oath Keepers mission is to remind us of that oath.

I don't need to be reminded of something I took seriously to begin with.

The older laws did not curtail crime. New laws have not curtailed crime.

You lost me here. Law never curtails crime as far as criminals go. Only honest people obey the law. Enforcing the law curtails crime. As my daddy used to say: "locks are for honest folk." Are you saying then that individuals should enforce the law as they see fit as opposed to officers of the court and law?

Oath Keepers is not a militia movement,

Same song, different tune. the government is out to get you and FEMA is a parallel government blah blah. BTW I used to work with FEMA a whole lot and the thougth of them running us is laughable.

Add to this that S.W.A.T. magazine endorses the group should say something about their legitimacy. Neither Denny Hansen (Editor) nor Rich Lucibella (Owner of the mag and TFL) would put their names behind an illegitimate organization.

I am sorry. I didn't know that TFL officially endorsed the Oath Keepers.

So just who is doing the fear mongering here?

Let's see, concentration camps, foreign troops on our soil depriving us of liberty, states right to secede from the union, blockading cities, martial law, detention camps, taking of food from the populace by military force. Al, are you serious? Do you think in the face of this I am fear mongering?

Did you notice Mr. Stewart has a place to donate money to his cause? Follow the money.

 

[hogdogs]

And one of the ironies of this whole thing is the notion that the way to "nurture the concept of individual freedom" is to get people to (drum roll here) join a group.

I hit upon vanya's post and it stole the wind right outta my sails...
I was going to say that I have my beliefs and agendas but refuse to align myself with groups of similar as they always seem to have a few other agendas or beliefs either in the way of officially or just that of some members that will be 180 out from my own. I also prefer to keep my name off their rosters for many reasons.

I do belong to the NRA as they are the only frontline lobby group fighting on behalf of my 2A rights directly.
Brent

 

[zukiphile]

The above quote appears to be a good example of argumentum ad verecundiam...

It doesn't appear to represent that fallacy well.

An argument from authority is that X must be true because Mr. Y says so.

The argument here isn't that Oath Keepers are "true", but that they aren't a group of icky camo wearing embarrassments. That is directly responsive to the charge that the group is a bunch of icky camo wearing embarrassments.

 

[zukiphile]

Yup. After the guns had been confiscated. After the citizens had been assaulted and battered, under color of law. The Courts are a great place to correct the wrong, after the wrong has been committed.

I know what you mean. Democracy sucks.

Certainly, but you've missed the point. A remedy once a wrong is committed is not an impediment to the wrong. Refusing to engage in the wrong before it happens has an obvious value.

France gave us democracy in 1787 and it was a bloody horror, the mother of modern totalitarianism. Let's not permit liberties to be abused so long as it is done by majority vote.

So just who is doing the fear mongering here?

Let's see, concentration camps, foreign troops on our soil depriving us of liberty, states right to secede from the union, blockading cities, martial law, detention camps, taking of food from the populace by military force. Al, are you serious? Do you think in the face of this I am fear mongering?

Since these are merely activities in which these people say they will not participate, but you present the group somewhat differently for discussing the topics, it would be reasonable to conclude that you are fear mongering without due justificaion.

 

[thallub]

Vanya, thank you for a most excellent post.

 

[MTT TL]

Curiouser and Curiouser... The military should not have a problem with most of these but the police sure will.

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

Ok, got it.

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

Hmmm... this is problematic for the police. There are many circumstances where a search is conducted without a warrant legally.

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

On the surface this seems clear. However there are a number of circumstances (such as captured in a combat zone fighting US troops or certain contractors) where this simply would not apply.

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

That is pretty much a non-starter. A "state of emergency" is declared frequently after a natural disaster strikes.

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

That is no good either. The SCOTUS found in White vs. Texas that the States do not have the right to secede. I guess they only believe in certain parts of the Constitution and not the whole thing.

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

Well OK. Even if such a thing were possible it would require a huge amount of resources so they would probably have a pretty good reason for it.

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

Hmm. That is also a non-starter for police. The location for prisoner processing is sort of irrelevant so long as their rights are respected.

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."

While even more Paranoid than #6 it seems a good idea.

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

Again a non-starter for the police, especially the feds who confiscate stuff at the drop of a hat. Many of the drug war laws would have to be rolled back.

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.

Not a chance. Not if they mean unlimited rights anyway.

 

[mayosligo]

Katrina/New Orleans

We could have used more people who followed the 10 lines of the Oath Keepers during Katrina as law abidding citizens were treated like criminals and had their firearms confiscated while looters ran wild.

It sounds like a group that are simply reaffirming an original oath to remind and in some case educated a population that has little knowledge of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the fact that we live in a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.

Additionally, I don't read anything that sounds like they are gathering to organized some type of armed resistance.