See other Activism Articles
Title: Why Oath Keepers are Under Attack
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 16, 2010
Author: Stewart Rhodes
Post Date: 2010-10-16 15:19:32 by wakeup
Keywords: None
Views: 2952
Comments: 53
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-7) not displayed.
.
.
.
#8. To: wakeup (#6)
Why does Stewart have that flag with the "Gold Fringe" on it?
For God's sake IATL, do you see an ulterior motive behind everything? There are certainly enough conspiracies that ARE in fact true, we don't need to see something sinister in things that aren't.
I would guess he knows nothing of the issue and significance.
~~~~~~~ Or maaayyybbeee he's secretly one of those lizard people who really run the world and that yellow fringe is a signal of some kind to his counterparts. They're everywhere you know.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 Nothing in the State, everything outside the State, everything against the State - Jan Lester, Escape From Leviathan "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone. - Zhuangzi
There's no legitimate evidence which indicates the claims that the fringe means anything special are true. Besides wild claims, do you personally know of any real evidence which proves those claims are in fact true?
What I'm trying to ask is, is there any real evidence which indicates the gold fringe is symbolic of "admiralty law"? I've never seen a ship fly a flag with gold fringe, so how does the fringe have anything to do with naval matters?
Well, I did notice a little something goin' on with his eyes. Has anyone seen him shake hands?
~~~~~~~ We all live our lives based on falsehoods, myths and misunderstandings. My latest wakeup call was a Larken Rose video clip about the Constitution. http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=ngpsJKQR_ZE&feature=player_embedded
~~~~~~~ Weird, huh, starting a thread about OathKeepers who are re-affirming a sworn oath to protect a document that a bunch of guys wrote up a few hundred years ago and then showing how ridiculous our allegiance to such a document may be. Are we all nuts or, is it just me? I may very well prefer the truths in the Declaration over the so called chains of the Constitution. What about all the info. about how we have been controlled by atheistic "Jews" since the time of Jesus? It also seems we are the true "chosen people" of the Bible and we may have the God given right to kill all the money changers of the day. Should we be pleased? So, someone, tell me a universal truth that cannot be debated? I need to adjust my moral compass.
~~~~~~~ I'd rather live under the US Constitution than any other. I can't see what is apparently a flash video you posted, it's not showing up. My point is, you have to draw the line somewhere as to what constitutes acceptable government, and if the government were to truly follow the Constitution, we wouldn't be in the mess we find ourselves in today. We can decide for ourselves whom we wish to trust, but if you can't trust anyone, then you're pretty much on your own.
As fine of a dramatic exercise in futility that Larken Rose presents in the video you posted, it stinks to high heaven. Larken makes the claim of "moral right to steal" between the basis of the US Constitution and himself granting the same to himself as a function of a piece of paper or script. If he had chosen "immoral right" Larken would have been closer to the truth but he didn't; in fact, he avoids the term altogether, yet "immoral right" is the underscore of his presentation. The fact is, the US Constitution grants POWER to Congress to levy AND collect taxes ... the concept of morality is moot to any issues regarding POWER much less considering nonsensical considerations of moral equivalency; government has no conscience; government is power. Nice try but no cigar.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
I think religion has been used as a tool to control the world population since the beginning of recorded history. Those who wish to control us can claim to be any religion they wish, whether or not they are truly religious. More then likely, many if not most of them are not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=ngpsJKQR_ZE&feature=player_embedded
~~~~~~~ I am not persuaded by your comments.
~~~~~~~ It's a fact? ~~~~~~~ Because Congress has been performing the same for 200 years; and not one tear is shed about "morality."
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
I was not addressing morality when I questioned your statement. How is it a "fact" that the Constitution grants power? What makes the grant of power, a fact?
~~~~~~~ Government (any government) is nothing more than raw, brutal POWER or FORCE of exercise in action. "POWER" is distinctive of "rights" although all too often some folks think the two concepts are the same.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Again, where's the beef?
~~~~~~~ But Larken Rose chose "moral equivalency" in his presentation which is silly at best.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
blah blah blah... power, blah blah blah... rights What makes the grant of power a fact? How did the signers grant anything?
~~~~~~~ Inherently government is nothing but POWER. The founders laid out the framework to limit the same; but, as we all know, those limitations have been trampled.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
They didn't. It was an agreement within all the "states" at the time towards the same end.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Your tangents are just frustrating me. ~~~~~~~ That is because you are avoiding the basis of POWER for any government; for the US government the various state assemblies at the time of US Constitutional ratification did not represent each of their own entire constituency; those being represented were those already occupying positions of respective POWER in their own communities.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Oathkeepers bump
The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is: We, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquillity, liberty, etc. Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. Lysander Spooner (1808–1887) was a lawyer, writer, entrepreneur, and libertarian activist.
~~~~~~~ Again from my post just above: Of course, no one signed anything other than an authentication process controlled by just the POWER elite.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
i actually struggle with that too.
I hate to say it, but for the most part, he is right.
God is always good!
Just as our paper money is fiat with no backing so, too, is the Constitution without backing. Only those who voluntarily agree to honor should be expected to do so. If a soldier, elected official, bureaucrat or law enforcement officer who presumably signed up feels motivated to honor the promise then, so be it. But, those who have never agreed to play ball are under no obligation to walk onto the field. They are sovereign and free of any obligation. Force is used to the contrary, as we have seen.
~~~~~~~ It's about as good as it gets. But, who cares anyway... the document is hardly followed by anyone in government. But, I will say this: the Oath Keepers (at least) care by dealing with the contents of the document; not some bastardized alteration that is handed down to some clerk to officiate a rubber stamp upon. "we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
There are two lists, naughty and nice, everybody knows that. ;)
God is always good!
Yeah, the ADL and SPLC; two well known terrorist groups.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Again, POWER is the core. This is one of the problems of voting in America. Lysander Spooner spells it out succinctly in one of his many papers and it is quite the eye opener. I am recalling from memory: voting in America is uncontrolled by the US Constitution; anyone can vote; there is no loyalty or oath sworn or otherwise to the same voting rights that the voter makes. What do you mean?
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
I hate to say it, but for the most part, he is right. I was in the service. All are bullied into compliance under the guise of patriotism and duty. Some get into it and overlook the methods of indoctrination, in the name of God, Family and Country. Besides, the hormones are most powerful during those early years and aggressive behavior is rewarded. You get cool little badges and metal to wear and sometimes they let you carry and shoot weapons.
~~~~~~~ What do you mean? Force should not be used on those who never volunteered to support and finance governments. If you want to pay a tax on income, go for it. If you want to contribute to the education of the neighbor kids, go for it. If you want to swear an oath to protect the government rule book, go for it. Just don't tread on the rest who prefer to be left out of the loop.
~~~~~~~ Government is POWER of and about an entire country; not just a selected few bu the whole enchilada to use an over-abused cliché. Here are the worst two amendments to the US Constitution granting for POWER, not reserved to the states: These are the worst amendments created and should be rescinded somehow.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
"We the People" have no desire to follow the Constitution. If "we" did then the government would be following it. It's gotten to the point it is today due to a combination of apathy and a bad case of the "you owe me's." Regardless if one believe Ron Paul was real or not, the fact remains that his campaign was based upon returning to the Constitution. How did that turn out? He was lambasted and ridiculed not only by the two party fraud and the media, but by average Americans. They wanted no part of it because they stood to lose their government goodies and because they can't stand the idea of not being able to control their neighbor through big government.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 Nothing in the State, everything outside the State, everything against the State - Jan Lester, Escape From Leviathan "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone. - Zhuangzi
I don't dislike or distrust Rhodes. it's more an examination of the wide array of abuses which sworn law enforcement officers practice, as policy, across the country on a daily basis. One could make the case that if you are a cop in the u.s. today, you are by definition, not an oath keeper. if there are really active duty cops who are oathkeepers, they would have to refuse a majority of their orders and job descriptions. it would take some time to compile and detail a list of such cop practices that i am talking about.
"if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." 1 Cor 12:31—13:13
Comments (49 - 53) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#9. To: Itistoolate (#8)
Why does Stewart have that flag with the "Gold Fringe" on it?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#10. To: FormerLurker (#9)
#11. To: Itistoolate (#8)
Why does Stewart have that flag with the "Gold Fringe" on it?
Best Movie Monologue
#12. To: wakeup (#11)
I would guess he knows nothing of the issue and significance.
#13. To: Itistoolate (#10)
www.apfn.org/apfn/flag.htm
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#14. To: Itistoolate (#10)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#15. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#12)
Or maaayyybbeee he's secretly one of those lizard people who really run the world and that yellow fringe is a signal of some kind to his counterparts. They're everywhere you know.
They say you can tell shapeshifters by watching their eyes.
Best Movie Monologue
#16. To: FormerLurker (#13)
(Edited)
There's no legitimate evidence which indicates the claims that the fringe means anything special are true.
Who knows the truth anyway about anything?
It was like being slapped while asleep and I am near 60.
What have I been thinking all this time?
Where exactly is the human refresh button?
'Want to see what I mean?
Best Movie Monologue
#17. To: All (#16)
(Edited)
Best Movie Monologue
#18. To: wakeup (#16)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#19. To: wakeup, FormerLurker (#16)
#20. To: wakeup (#17)
What about all the info. about how we have been controlled by atheistic "Jews" since the time of Jesus?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#21. To: FormerLurker (#18)
(Edited)
Best Movie Monologue
#22. To: buckeroo (#19)
it stinks to high heaven.
Best Movie Monologue
#23. To: buckeroo (#19)
(Edited)
The fact is, the US Constitution grants POWER to Congress to levy AND collect taxes
Oh really?
How so?
Best Movie Monologue
#24. To: wakeup (#23)
#25. To: buckeroo (#24)
(Edited)
The fact is, the US Constitution grants POWER to Congress to levy AND collect taxes
Best Movie Monologue
#26. To: wakeup (#25)
How is it a "fact" that the Constitution grants power? What makes the grant of power a fact?
#27. To: buckeroo (#19)
Nice try but no cigar.
Best Movie Monologue
#28. To: wakeup (#25)
I was not addressing morality when I questioned your statement.
#29. To: buckeroo (#26)
Best Movie Monologue
#30. To: wakeup (#25)
What makes the grant of power, a fact?
#31. To: wakeup (#29)
How did the signers grant anything?
#32. To: buckeroo (#31)
(Edited)
What we have here... is a failure to communicate.
Best Movie Monologue
#33. To: wakeup (#32)
What we have here... is a failure to communicate.
#34. To: FormerLurker (#2)
#35. To: buckeroo (#33)
(Edited)
Best Movie Monologue
#36. To: wakeup (#35)
for the US government the various state assemblies at the time of US Constitutional ratification did not represent each of their own entire constituency; those being represented were those already occupying positions of respective POWER in their own communities.
#37. To: wakeup (#17)
Weird, huh, starting a thread about OathKeepers who are re-affirming a sworn oath to protect a document that a bunch of guys wrote up a few hundred years ago and then showing how ridiculous our allegiance to such a document may be. Are we all nuts or, is it just me?
#38. To: wakeup (#1)
Henry Kissinger, the Secretary of State from 1973-1977 believed military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy.
#39. To: buckeroo (#36)
Best Movie Monologue
#40. To: christine (#37)
(Edited)
i actually struggle with that too.
#41. To: wakeup (#6)
There is only one list and we are all on it.
#42. To: RickyJ (#41)
There are two lists
#43. To: wakeup (#39)
Just as our paper money is fiat with no backing so, too, is the Constitution without backing.
Only those who voluntarily agree to honor should be expected to do so. If a soldier, elected official, bureaucrat or law enforcement officer who presumably signed up feels motivated to honor the promise then, so be it.
But, those who have never agreed to play ball are under no obligation to walk onto the field. They are sovereign and free of any obligation. Force is used to the contrary, as we have seen.
#44. To: RickyJ (#38)
(Edited)
"Henry Kissinger, the Secretary of State from 1973-1977 believed military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."
Best Movie Monologue
#45. To: buckeroo (#43)
"But, those who have never agreed to play ball are under no obligation to walk onto the field. They are sovereign and free of any obligation. Force is used to the contrary, as we have seen."
Best Movie Monologue
#46. To: wakeup (#45)
If you want to pay a tax on income, go for it. If you want to contribute to the education of the neighbor kids, go for it. If you want to swear an oath to protect the government rule book, go for it. Just don't tread on the rest who prefer to be left out of the loop.
AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
#47. To: FormerLurker (#18)
and if the government were to truly follow the Constitution, we wouldn't be in the mess we find ourselves in today.
#48. To: FormerLurker, jethro tull, cynicom, indietx, psusa (#2)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
.
.
.