The Mental Militia Forums

Partner Sites => Oath-Keepers => Topic started by: da gooch on April 04, 2009, 12:10:34 am

Title: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: da gooch on April 04, 2009, 12:10:34 am

            What We Are Not


We are Not advocating or promoting the overthrow of
any government whether local, state or national.
We want our governments to return to the Constitutional
Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution defined and instituted.


We are Not advocating or promoting violence towards
any organization, group or person.
We are determined to Honor our Oath to support and
defend the Constitution.


We are not advocating or promoting the removal of any
person from his or her elected office.
We want all elected persons to live up to their
Oath to "support and defend the Constitution" as it
is written or to leave of their own volition.


We are not advocating or promoting that anyone in the
Judicial Branch be removed or replaced.
We want the Justices in the Judicial Branch to follow
the Constitution as written without interpretation.


We are not advocating or promoting any particular
form of government other than the Constitutional
Republic which the Declaration of Independence and
the Constitution defined and instituted. 


We are not advocating or promoting the rewriting of
the Constitution nor are we asking for an Amendment thereto.
We are insisting on the Constitution being Enforced
as it is written without interpretation.   


We are Not advocating or promoting any act or acts of
aggression against any organization or person for any
reason including, but not limited to; race, religion,
national origin, political affiliation, gender or
sexual orientation. 

We hope for a return to a Constitutional Republic free from fear and hatred,
We hate only tyranny.


We are Oath sworn Americans who want the
Constitution returned to its Legal and Rightful place, intact,
as the Ultimate Law of the Land.

-------------------------------------------

Comments are welcome.

CaptGooch
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: Who...me? on April 04, 2009, 03:52:47 pm
Quote
We are not advocating or promoting the rewriting of
the Constitution nor are we asking for an Amendment thereto.
We are insisting on the Constitution being Enforced
as it is written without interpretation.   

Quick question gooch.

What about the repeal of amendments that harm US Citizens or the original Constitution?
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: da gooch on April 04, 2009, 05:10:25 pm
Quote
We are not advocating or promoting the rewriting of
the Constitution nor are we asking for an Amendment thereto.
We are insisting on the Constitution being Enforced
as it is written without interpretation.   

Quick question gooch.

What about the repeal of amendments that harm US Citizens or the original Constitution?
YES
There are a few of those that really need to be "fixed" [read removed ....] BUT not any of the first ten IF you get my drift ?
And also there is the fact that Any law that is unconstitutional [directly in contradiction to the Constitution] is on its face null and void.

                   BUT ....

All in good time my good man, all in good time.
Let us make sure we have a "critical mass" before we start making changes.

IOW .... First things first .... let's make sure this "ship"*  will continue to float and Then we can change her course.
Grab a bucket let's get the bailing process started.   Okay ?
There are bailing buckets for the taking at Oath-keepers.blogspot.com and Appleseedinfo.org and RWVA.org and FIJA.org.

Let's get this ship bailed out, her course changed and then we can see to the specific repairs.
[Like those spurious amendments you mention.]

Once we can be sure that the "ship" isn't going to sink out from under us then we can change her course and fix the damage done by the professional politicians  er .... parasites of the past and present.

Grab a bucket ....

*"ship" = "ship of state."

edit to add some more bucket suppliers   :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: Jeff Watts on April 08, 2009, 08:31:40 pm
I'm glad to see that this isn't a hate group. I'm just returning to the patriot movement. I was a member of a "group" in the 90's and left them because they wanted to open the membership to racists.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: SSgt_USAF_vet on April 08, 2009, 09:19:12 pm
I'm glad to see that this isn't a hate group. I'm just returning to the patriot movement. I was a member of a "group" in the 90's and left them because they wanted to open the membership to racists.
I commend you for having the wisdom and moral fortitude to leave under such circumstances. There is no place for racism in our movement; the idea of such is actually contadictory and undermining to our mission of re-establishing our Constitutional Republic.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: Jeff Watts on April 08, 2009, 10:04:36 pm
I agree, just the "paramilitary" attatchment to the patriot movement seems to draw out the wackos, nazis, and other sorts of garbage like flies, and the media is quick to use them as a broad brush to paint all of us.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: CorbinKale on April 09, 2009, 09:34:19 am
I'm glad to see that this isn't a hate group. I'm just returning to the patriot movement. I was a member of a "group" in the 90's and left them because they wanted to open the membership to racists.

The phrase, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is the basic philosophy that negates racism. Skin pigment is a silly reason to hate another man. Just as silly as eye color or hair color. It makes no sense.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: da gooch on April 09, 2009, 02:42:23 pm
I'm glad to see that this isn't a hate group. I'm just returning to the patriot movement. I was a member of a "group" in the 90's and left them because they wanted to open the membership to racists.

I'm glad to see that this isn't a hate group. I'm just returning to the patriot movement. I was a member of a "group" in the 90's and left them because they wanted to open the membership to racists.
I commend you for having the wisdom and moral fortitude to leave under such circumstances. There is no place for racism in our movement; the idea of such is actually contadictory and undermining to our mission of re-establishing our Constitutional Republic.

I agree, just the "paramilitary" attatchment to the patriot movement seems to draw out the wackos, nazis, and other sorts of garbage like flies, and the media is quick to use them as a broad brush to paint all of us.

I'm glad to see that this isn't a hate group. I'm just returning to the patriot movement. I was a member of a "group" in the 90's and left them because they wanted to open the membership to racists.

The phrase, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is the basic philosophy that negates racism. Skin pigment is a silly reason to hate another man. Just as silly as eye color or hair color. It makes no sense.

All of the above is why Stewart and the rest of the Oath Keepers Crew felt that a "We are Not" list should be posted.  To head off the broad brush of racism or of any other isms that the MSM might try to use beyond Patriotism.

Help us spread the word of what we Are but also of What we are Not.


CaptGooch


"Not on Our Watch"
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: Jeff Watts on April 09, 2009, 03:34:40 pm
That's my intent, once I've looked around for a bit.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: Klapton Isgod on April 10, 2009, 03:46:33 pm
Quote
We are not advocating or promoting the rewriting of
the Constitution nor are we asking for an Amendment thereto.
We are insisting on the Constitution being Enforced
as it is written without interpretation.   

Quick question gooch.

What about the repeal of amendments that harm US Citizens or the original Constitution?

As an Oath-Keeper, I support the Constitution, including the amendment process.  I think the point of this thread, however, is simply to state that the Oath-Keepers organization is not promoting any particular amendments - just a return to the Constitution itself.  If FedGov actually OBEYED the Constitution, it would become very clear that some things need to be amended.  But at that point, Oath-Keepers would have already succeeded in its mission.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: Maxstake on April 10, 2009, 04:59:23 pm
Well Said Sir, Very Well Said!
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: TNT on April 14, 2009, 06:51:29 am
as much as I agree with not supporting any particular amendment I think we should suppoort one by having one added.  Our forefathers forgot to add one to punish those who abuse the system, primarily holding those elected accountable for there actions just we are accountable for ours.  And even though we have term limits in place, they have still managed to abuse it and treat things like this was a permenant job.  And that our fore fathers never intended for it to be.  IMO 
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: Who...me? on April 14, 2009, 11:02:22 am
Quote
Our forefathers forgot to add one to punish those who abuse the system, primarily holding those elected accountable for there actions just we are accountable for ours.

I think you are missing the point that the laws already in place, if they were enforced by the federal and state law enforcement, are sufficient to hold the gov accountable. More laws or amendments would not make a bit of difference when congress can lie under oath, commit fraud and generally do what they want because they no cop will arrest them and the courts won't prosecute. It's just like the gun lobby calling for more gun laws when they are already there. In fact, on a side note, I think there should only be ONE gun law. That being if you use a gun to commit a crime you get extra jail time over and above the original crime you committed.  Anything else is just BS.

Quote
And even though we have term limits in place

What term limits, there are none. Congress would have to pass a law saying that, like thats gonna happen. If fact the supreme court rule that the States do not have the right to limit terms.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1456.ZO.html

Quote
Justice Brown's plurality opinion also rejected the argument that Amendment 73 is "merely a ballot access amendment," concluding that "[t]he intent and the effect of Amendment 73 are to disqualify congressional incumbents from further service." Id., at 265-266, 872 S. W. 2d, at 356-357. Justice Brown considered the possibilities that an excluded candidate might run for Congress as a write in candidate or be appointed to fill a vacancy to be "glimmers of opportunity . . . [that] are faint indeed--so faint in our judgment that they cannot salvage Amendment 73 from constitutional attack." Id., at 266, 872 S. W. 2d, at 357. In separate opinions, Justice Dudley and Justice Gerald P. Brown agreed that Amendment 73 violates the Federal Constitution.

Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: TNT on April 14, 2009, 01:39:37 pm

What term limits, there are none. Congress would have to pass a law saying that, like thats gonna happen. If fact the supreme court rule that the States do not have the right to limit terms.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1456.ZO.html
then it is time my friend we add another amendment to that would you say so...?
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: Klapton Isgod on April 14, 2009, 04:47:02 pm
I folks are tossing around amendment ideas, I like this one:

Voluntary Funding Amendment

Government agencies shall be funded by voluntary donation or by fees for services rendered.  Government shall not have a monopoly on the provision of any service, but we the people shall choose our own providers.  Neither shall government be funded by debt.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: Jeff Citizen on April 21, 2009, 01:14:13 am
Be very careful what you wish for. If there is a vote that allows the Constitution to be amended, they can literally do anything they want to it. ANYTHING. The very same people that are in DC right now, that we are trying to figure out what to do with, will have free access to change the Constitution at will? I certainly hope not!
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: Bernie on April 21, 2009, 06:33:11 am
A constitutional convention or Con Con is what you are talking about.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_convention_(political_meeting) and as states reassert their rights they are pulling out of these.  There is still enough delegates to have one so the fight against it is still on.http://www.infowars.com/21-states-claiming-sovereignty/

Then again I heard there was to be an independent Con Con but this really is not the place to go into details about that. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: JayJay on June 19, 2009, 05:06:10 pm
Quote
We are not advocating or promoting the rewriting of
the Constitution nor are we asking for an Amendment thereto.
We are insisting on the Constitution being Enforced
as it is written without interpretation.   

Quick question gooch.

What about the repeal of amendments that harm US Citizens or the original Constitution?
YES
There are a few of those that really need to be "fixed" [read removed ....] BUT not any of the first ten IF you get my drift ?
And also there is the fact that Any law that is unconstitutional [directly in contradiction to the Constitution] is on its face null and void.

                   BUT ....

All in good time my good man, all in good time.
Let us make sure we have a "critical mass" before we start making changes.

IOW .... First things first .... let's make sure this "ship"*  will continue to float and Then we can change her course.
Grab a bucket let's get the bailing process started.   Okay ?
There are bailing buckets for the taking at Oath-keepers.blogspot.com and Appleseedinfo.org and RWVA.org and FIJA.org.

Let's get this ship bailed out, her course changed and then we can see to the specific repairs.
[Like those spurious amendments you mention.]

Once we can be sure that the "ship" isn't going to sink out from under us then we can change her course and fix the damage done by the professional politicians  er .... parasites of the past and present.

Grab a bucket ....

*"ship" = "ship of state."

edit to add some more bucket suppliers   :rolleyes:

Always said great leaders need a sense of humor.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: Mad Wet Hen on August 22, 2009, 11:32:34 am
There is a small problem with that. Major companies will fund those sent to represent the people and then we will be in the some shape or worse. I give you credit for thinking and trying to come up with something that may work.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: da gooch on August 22, 2009, 01:24:20 pm
There is a small problem with that.
Sorry cordobablue  but I don't understand what it is that you are saying has a problem. Please explain ? I cannot answer your  Question(?) if I don't understand it.
Quote
Major companies will fund those sent to represent the people and then we will be in the some shape or worse.
This statement seems to assume that the same "system of governance" will be instituted "after the big change" what ever that is. 
In the original setup Representatives are NOT Paid* so any "donations to individuals" would be corruption of Government and highly frowned upon whereby the offenders would find angry voters when they stood for election the second time. The Major Company involved could be/might be boycotted by the general public [this is not to mention the cancellation of any and all government contracts currently in process] and the elected representative could be recalled by his or her constituents.
Quote
I give you credit for thinking and trying to come up with something that may work.
All the credit for the Oath Keepers idea goes to Stewart Rhodes and a couple of his friends.

The credit for a Constitutional Republic would go to our founding fathers and George Mason in particular for his attempt to describe one effectively.

That is what Oath Keepers [the association] ultimately want ... Our Constitution restored to its rightful place as the "Law of the Land" and our Constitutional Republic back.

edit to add quote from Articles of Confederation

"No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind."

Meaning no person employed by "the Government" can hold an elected office.
And that all elected offices be voluntary. [IE: unpaid]
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: Mad Wet Hen on August 23, 2009, 12:06:13 am
I was talking about this statement by: Klapton
Government agencies shall be funded by voluntary donation or by fees for services rendered.  Government shall not have a monopoly on the provision of any service, but we the people shall choose our own providers.  Neither shall government be funded by debt.

There is a small problem with that. Major companies will fund those sent to represent the people and then we will be in the some shape or worse. I give you credit for thinking and trying to come up with something that may work.

Does that clear things up for you gooch?
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: da gooch on August 23, 2009, 02:12:15 pm
I was talking about this statement by: Klapton
Government agencies shall be funded by voluntary donation or by fees for services rendered.  Government shall not have a monopoly on the provision of any service, but we the people shall choose our own providers.  Neither shall government be funded by debt.

There is a small problem with that. Major companies will fund those sent to represent the people and then we will be in the some shape or worse. I give you credit for thinking and trying to come up with something that may work.

Does that clear things up for you gooch?

Yes and No.

Thank you for including the referral to the post you were commenting upon.  It nearly always helps especially when the response is not exactly following the comment being remarked upon.

Now to explain my No part of my response.

Those "major Companies" cannot "fund those sent to represent the people" if WE don't let them can they ?
I will repeat what I said earlier:
Quote
Major companies will fund those sent to represent the people and then we will be in the some shape or worse.
This statement seems to assume that the same "system of governance" {That we have now with money being allowed to buy votes and representation} will be instituted "after the big change" what ever that is.
In the original setup [Articles of Confederation]  Representatives are NOT Paid* so any "donations to individuals" would be corruption of Government and highly frowned upon whereby the offenders would find angry voters when they stood for election the second time. The Major Company involved could be/might be boycotted by the general public [this is not to mention the cancellation of any and all government contracts currently in process] and the elected representative could be recalled by his or her constituents. [Or we could go Hog wild and make a Law stipulating that act as illegal.]
end of self quote
[additional comments are in green]

And then add:

This change would be quite simple if there is ever a "Realignment" or "Rearrangement" of the government as we know it.[IF we could get the 3P's to vote on it we could do it now actually ... but they won't. It would cut off their gravy train.]
Removing most of the "laws" which are actually unlawful edicts and unlawfully imposed "regulations having the force of laws" would then get us back to a pretty open system of governance. [as if we actually needed one ....]
It would be not difficult at all to call for a national referendum to forbid politicians or government employees of ANY level [President all the way down to White house parking attendant] from accepting money from anyone as a gift or "present". Wages IF ANY would be set by National Referendum and until such time as the People settled on an amount the office holders would serve as "volunteers".
After the referendum the office holders could reapply for their current offices or step down as they saw fit. Most of them wouldn't have a job anyway as their unnecessary "Department" will have been eradicated most likely.

98% [MY Personal Opinion] of Federal Offices are Not Required for this country to run and support itself. [We did fine without them for more than half of our history]  Any function that is actually necessary [Arm the Militias in time of war and supply our Navy and Marine Corps {part of the Navy} is about it.] would find willing private entrepreneurs as quickly as the government monopoly was removed.

Those "Major Companies" can only do as you point out in the current system. They rely upon the system as it is currently and know that any new system would automatically remove their leech hold on our pocket books which is why they fight any change tooth and nail.
The 3P's in office now know and exploit this arrangement to their personal aggrandizement which is yet another reason to Flush the whole rotten mess and start over at the beginning.   IMO
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: unspy on August 25, 2009, 11:02:13 pm

98% [MY Personal Opinion] of Federal Offices are Not Required for this country to run and support itself. [We did fine without them for more than half of our history]  Any function that is actually necessary  would find willing private entrepreneurs as quickly as the government monopoly was removed.

It is a pleasant thought. Some people get a mental image
of a tropical beach to relax themselves. I have to get a metal
image of American when Common Law was the only authority
'governing' the the lives of free men.

Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: Jarel on October 18, 2009, 04:54:13 pm
I don't know, just spitballing here but I think we could do a lot by making our DC pols State Employees (isn't that what they are anyway?) and streamlining accountability at that level. National referendum is, um, less than entirely Constitutional maybe, in that it entails reverting to a more pure democracy, which is why we have a Con in the 1st place. Most of the issues I see would be easily fixed by reinserting the corporate campaign contribution assivemay ixnay of the early 20th century, though finding politicians willing to give away their easy millions to pass the bill might be,...messy? That and of course ending mr Fed Res. Love the list; I've been personally (gently)attacking that angle since I reaffirmed my Oath; it's amazing how many people think that Oathkeepers magically sprung up out of nowhere when we actually have such a fine upstanding govt doing truly ethical things and just want to take good care of us. This is my first post on this section; I dig that from what I've read so far y'all are thinkers not haters.

"All that racism and stuff, I never really had time for that. I had songs to play."--BB King

By the way, something escapes me: what the hell is a 3P? :huh:
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: da gooch on October 18, 2009, 07:22:36 pm

Professional Political Parasite a label of my own invention for the "Elected" representatives of the People who make a career of getting re-elected rather than solving the problems they were sent to address.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: Who...me? on October 18, 2009, 07:26:19 pm
Well I can tell you that here in PA many of the state level "employee's" that reside in Harrisburg are just as corrupt and their buddies in DC. So I don't see that it would work.  If, on the other hand, anytime a "representative" was found to be corrupt or did anything illegal they were charge with treason and hanged...well then thing would be a little different.

Another treasonous activity would be, as gooch so adroitly mentions,  politards who only care about their position and its power and not the people they are supposed to represent.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: Jarel on October 18, 2009, 08:07:12 pm

Professional Political Parasite a label of my own invention for the "Elected" representatives of the People who make a career of getting re-elected rather than solving the problems they were sent to address.
Cool acronym, great imagination gooch, thanks for the info, that was a new one on me. Any chance I can add that to my dictionary at http://www.restackthedeck.com/? Check it out, lemme know, bro.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: da gooch on October 18, 2009, 09:56:58 pm
It would be neat to get mentioned as its originator BUT not really necessary.

Sure Man go for it.

BTW it is ALWAYS used as a derogatory term.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: warbourne on December 08, 2009, 05:58:59 am
What we are not = (thumbs up)

And the racism stuff.  I got my opinion on that too.  Just one of the many gifts of our providers. (notice the small p)
Let me put it this way.  I burn real easy in the summer sun.  One of my best friends is darker than I like my coffee.
I'd trade 100 "white" 3P's, for one "any other" honest patriot.  And I'm willing to negotiate on those numbers.

Racism, like most other things, can be weighed by its effect.  What do you get as the end result of racism?
Hate-crimes.
And what do hate-crimes give them?  The power to up the stakes and enforce more enforcement on us.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: CorbinKale on December 12, 2010, 11:58:00 am
Gooch,

I saw your post on the Daily Bell interview. The 'What we are not' list was a great addition to the comments.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: da gooch on December 12, 2010, 09:17:43 pm
Thanks CorbinKale.

I was afraid they would make me cut the response into two pieces [for being so long] I'm glad they left it as it was.

Stay Safe,

gooch
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: Niecee56 on July 20, 2011, 02:07:30 pm
ph34r  URGENT*********PLEASE WATCH THE FOLLOWING VIDEO AND CONTACT ME TO FIND OUT  HOW TO GET MORE DETAILS IF YOU REALLY ARE AN OATHKEEPER*******


http://www.facebook.com/ video /video.php?v=1468256563646

THIS WILL TAKE PLACE AUGUST 2ND, 2011 IF CONGRESS AND SENATE DO NOT INDICT AND ARREST OBAMA FOR TREASON!!  WE WILL NEED MILLIONS OF ARMED CITIZEN (SOLDIERS AND REGULAR CITIZENS).  WE WILL NOT USE FORCE UNLESS THEY USE FORCE FIRST!!!


This Event posting is NOT acceptable to the Oath Keepers Organization and as such will NOT be supported Officially. Oath Keepers does not "demand" actions with an "or else" clause attached.

Folks are herewith encouraged to actually read the What We Are Not List and to also make themselves familiar with Oath Keepers as an organization by going to our actual website at http://oathkeepers.org/oath/  and/or  http://oathkeepers.org/about/ .

gooch
Oath Keeper
Admin
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: Klapton Isgod on July 20, 2011, 02:13:08 pm
What exactly are you proposing to do on August 2?
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: da gooch on July 20, 2011, 02:31:57 pm
ph34r  URGENT*********PLEASE WATCH THE FOLLOWING VIDEO AND CONTACT ME TO FIND OUT  HOW TO GET MORE DETAILS IF YOU REALLY ARE AN OATHKEEPER*******


http:// www.face  book.com/ video /video.php?v=1468256563646

THIS WILL TAKE PLACE AUGUST 2ND, 2011 IF CONGRESS AND SENATE DO NOT INDICT AND ARREST OBAMA FOR TREASON!!  WE WILL NEED MILLIONS OF ARMED CITIZEN (SOLDIERS AND REGULAR CITIZENS).  WE WILL NOT USE FORCE UNLESS THEY USE FORCE FIRST!!!


Have You even read the What We Are Not List?

You apparently do NOT Realize that we [Oath Keepers] are NOT some kind of "rapid reaction force" to spring into action at the least sign of tyranny.
[Tyranny is already rampant or haven't you noticed until now?]
Why do you think we organized in 2009?

What we ARE is an education organization whose goal is to educate the currently serving to their responsibility to defend the Constitution and thereby refuse unconstitutional orders.

I do not have or want a facebook account and therefore cannot watch your video.
Explain it if you can/will?
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: Klapton Isgod on July 20, 2011, 03:14:20 pm
From the comments thread under the video on Facebook:

Quote
THEY HAVE UNTIL AUGUST 2ND, 2011 TO ENDICT AND ARREST OBAMA FOR TREASON AND IF THEY DON'T WE MARCH--AND TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY---IT'S UP TO THEM IF IT'S PEACEFUL OR NOT!!

No, Oath Keepers will NOT support your march.  We support all LEGAL means of removing officials from office, including impeachments, criminal indictments, etc.  But we will NOT demand that these things happen "or else."  I understand that many people fear that election fraud will result in a second term for Obama.  MY greater fear is that the GOP will choose yet another status-quo, big goverment neo-con in the primary, and it won't even MATTER which party wins next year.

But running off to DC half-cocked in an unorganized, unpermitted (I don't care about permits, but the DC cops do - A LOT) demonstration will achieve nothing but your own arrest.

If you do NOT want to get arrested on August 2, I suggest you start here:  http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1241,Q,548264,mpdcNav_GID,1523,mpdcNav,%7C,.asp
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: jamie on July 20, 2011, 04:29:40 pm
MY greater fear is that the GOP will choose yet another status-quo, big goverment neo-con in the primary, and it won't even MATTER which party wins next year.


I don't expect anything else.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: DiabloLoco on July 20, 2011, 04:37:43 pm
MY greater fear is that the GOP will choose yet another status-quo, big goverment neo-con in the primary, and it won't even MATTER which party wins next year.


I don't expect anything else.
Even if Paul wins the primary, Congress is still full of "status-quo, big goverment neo-con". "and it won't even MATTER which party wins next year."

Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: da gooch on July 20, 2011, 04:56:57 pm
MY greater fear is that the GOP will choose yet another status-quo, big goverment neo-con in the primary, and it won't even MATTER which party wins next year.


I don't expect anything else.
Even if Paul wins the primary, Congress is still full of "status-quo, big goverment neo-con". "and it won't even MATTER which party wins next year."



Yes it is true that one man cannot completely "fix" the mess that is the current government.
However, that one office Can issue a series of signing statements that can remove or nullify MUCH of what has been done in the same manner for the last fifty years. The last "signing statement" would be the one removing the "signing statement" function from the office holder ad infinitum.

Also as "Commander in Chief" the troops overseas could all be "reassigned" and then "mustered out" of the standing army that our founding generation were so vociferously Against.


There are good things that COULD be accomplished IF the office holder is truly a minarchist and not just another brand of bankstah statist dupe.
Which I don't think Dr Paul is BUT I don't KNOW that for a fact.

The biggest problem is that I honestly don't think that Dr Paul has a chance to win and he is unfortunately getting tired of trying. [or so it seems]
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: da gooch on July 20, 2011, 05:02:02 pm
From the comments thread under the video on Facebook:

Quote
THEY HAVE UNTIL AUGUST 2ND, 2011 TO ENDICT AND ARREST OBAMA FOR TREASON AND IF THEY DON'T WE MARCH--AND TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY---IT'S UP TO THEM IF IT'S PEACEFUL OR NOT!!

No, Oath Keepers will NOT support your march.  We support all LEGAL means of removing officials from office, including impeachments, criminal indictments, etc.  But we will NOT demand that these things happen "or else." 

{snip - snip}

Well said Klapton.
Allow me to reiterate your statement, to reinforce it, if you will.

No, Oath Keepers will NOT support your march.

We, as Oath Keepers, do NOT demand that things happen "or else."
Questions? PM me.
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: jamie on July 20, 2011, 05:03:22 pm
 2012 may be the last and final chance to turn this around. But then again it is probably not possible anyway.

http://johngaltfla.com/wordpress/2011/07/19/more-proof-the-republipigs-are-not-serious-about-controlling-the-deficit-either/
Title: Re: Oath Keepers What We are Not List
Post by: Klapton Isgod on July 20, 2011, 05:24:10 pm
2012 may be the last and final chance to turn this around. But then again it is probably not possible anyway.

http://johngaltfla.com/wordpress/2011/07/19/more-proof-the-republipigs-are-not-serious-about-controlling-the-deficit-either/

Stewart delivered a similar message to a GOP gathering in 2010:

Quote
So, I’m going to close with just this one thought:

This is your last chance.


http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/07/a-warning-to-republicans-speech-of-oath-keepers-founder-stewart-rhodes-to-the-clark-county-nevada-republican-party/?cp=4