| Revision as of 08:33, 8 August 2011 editVictor Grey (talk | contribs)11 edits →The Oath That Is Kept← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:35, 8 August 2011 edit undoVictor Grey (talk | contribs)11 edits →The Oath That Is KeptNext edit → | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
| :I have not found any reliable evidence that demonstrates the Oath Keepers standing up for the constitution - rather, only portions of it that many conservatives and libertarians cling to. For example, the Oath Keepers' list of only contains orders regarding disarming of citizens, blockading American cities, confiscation of property from citizens, confining citizens to detention camps, etc. Where and when, for instance, have the Oath Keepers stood up to infringements on religious freedoms and the entirety of the first amendment (rather than just the part about speech)? I cannot find any examples of the Oath Keepers standing up to states' attempts at injecting ] or ] aspects into science curriculums. Some of the key personnel of the organization, such as its founder, Stewart Rhodes, and that Sheriff Richard Mack, have mentioned the IRS in various YouTube videos where they talk about the Oath Keepers and standing up to the IRS. Court decisions have long ruled "the IRS is unconstitutional" arguments to be legally frivolous... so really, I don't see enough of a base on which we can say that the Oath Keepers keep the oath as it is written. In this article, we can really only speak of the oath from a perspective of "this is what the Oath Keepers organization states as its underlying principle" - however, as for standing up for all of the portions of the constitution, rather than the portions of the constitution favored by particular political ideologies, I don't see much in the way of reliable evidence that can use to say the organization does actually back the oath. ] • ] 17:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC) | :I have not found any reliable evidence that demonstrates the Oath Keepers standing up for the constitution - rather, only portions of it that many conservatives and libertarians cling to. For example, the Oath Keepers' list of only contains orders regarding disarming of citizens, blockading American cities, confiscation of property from citizens, confining citizens to detention camps, etc. Where and when, for instance, have the Oath Keepers stood up to infringements on religious freedoms and the entirety of the first amendment (rather than just the part about speech)? I cannot find any examples of the Oath Keepers standing up to states' attempts at injecting ] or ] aspects into science curriculums. Some of the key personnel of the organization, such as its founder, Stewart Rhodes, and that Sheriff Richard Mack, have mentioned the IRS in various YouTube videos where they talk about the Oath Keepers and standing up to the IRS. Court decisions have long ruled "the IRS is unconstitutional" arguments to be legally frivolous... so really, I don't see enough of a base on which we can say that the Oath Keepers keep the oath as it is written. In this article, we can really only speak of the oath from a perspective of "this is what the Oath Keepers organization states as its underlying principle" - however, as for standing up for all of the portions of the constitution, rather than the portions of the constitution favored by particular political ideologies, I don't see much in the way of reliable evidence that can use to say the organization does actually back the oath. ] • ] 17:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
| (O: Have you looked for any? I see no reliable evidence that you have any valuable information to add to the subject matter or debate. Stewart Rhodes has not mentioned the IRS..and Richard Mack's definition of the powers of a Sheriff predate his affiliation with Oath Keepers, and have nada to do with the IRS's constitutionality. We're not about looking for unconstitutional things..we are about supporting an oath and refusing unconstitutional orders. There is no IRS constitutionality argument integrated into the organization or any of its positions. You aren't looking for any evidence. YouTube videos? Gonna base your doctorate on that research source? <span style="font- |
(O: Have you looked for any? I see no reliable evidence that you have any valuable information to add to the subject matter or debate. Stewart Rhodes has not mentioned the IRS..and Richard Mack's definition of the powers of a Sheriff predate his affiliation with Oath Keepers, and have nada to do with the IRS's constitutionality. We're not about looking for unconstitutional things..we are about supporting an oath and refusing unconstitutional orders. There is no IRS constitutionality argument integrated into the organization or any of its positions. You aren't looking for any evidence. YouTube videos? Gonna base your doctorate on that research source? <span style="font-siz] (]) 08:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)e: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| When soldiers are called to impede the voting rights of 18 year old citizens or to arrest paleontology classes, perhaps that viewpoint will gain some reasoned merit. In fact I would actually glean, that many of the oaths already in their list could pose problems with those such actions as well. Which leads to a key point, the purpose of the organization is pertaining to possible, reasonably likely, and controversial actions that could be insisted upon soldiers and law enforcement from their government. That again, is the purpose of the organization, their oaths, why they seem to have been formed, and why they function. The organization and it's intents, are intended for those particular demographic's situation particular in mind. | |||
| Not with intent, to nitpick upon other aspects of the constitution, or of arguably very much less likely hypothetical situations involving them, which have clearly not been deemed rational nor likely concerns for members for which to expressly state or touch upon. It has been decided by them, that violations of the second and forth amendment for example, of foreign enforcement of law upon the public , or the concerns of detaining or restricting the mobility of citizens, are of a much higher likelyhood and concern than other hypotheticals. Some would argue, with a dash of unclouded reason, with a genuine motive, and sensible ingenuity to reach that conclusion and emphasis upon those expressly stated particular situations. | |||
| As far as the two member's position toward the IRS, I see no more than a position of a closely shared opinion among the two of them on the particular topic. Perhaps their oath would also prevent them from fulfilling the duties of tax collector. | |||
| ==Non-violent?== | ==Non-violent?== | ||
Revision as of 08:35, 8 August 2011
 | Conservatism Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Addition of material, discussion of Tags
I have aded a couple of cites from both CNN and the Nevada SOS to the article, and done some minor rearrangement to get the ball rolling. I think is is critical to review to wording to remove and POV material and hold onto relevant information that conforms to NPOV. Your thoughts?
Don't believe the dangerous hateful left wing media. Here is the truth. Oath Keepers is an educational outreach group composed of active military, law enforcement officers, veterans, fire fighters and first responders. We have taken an Oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States just like the president, all federal officers and politicians have. The organization is non-sectarian, non-partisan, non-violent and our mission is simply to remind our men and women in uniform of the Oath that they have taken and their obligation to obey it. We absolutely do not advocate hate, racism, revolution or violence of any kind. Such information about the Oath Keepers is misleading and false.
We do not consider president Obama or any other politican to be an enemy of the state. All we expect is for him to follow the oath of office that he took.
IlliniGradResearch (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am so glad... this is such a horrible group and I am so happy to see[REDACTED] has uncovered them. They are a very racist group and are making a private army... isn't it interesting that only the army are in the Oath keepers? They all have guns. I hope the poverty center arrests them or something before they do real serious harm to our country. It is horrible that people from the army are getting together and talking about a revolution and scary. How is that legal? I have two kids to worry about and I'm worried that their future is in jeopardy because of anti-Obama anti-government gun wielding groups like this. It has to be tracked so we know. Thanks for listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelnee1984 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, you have been misinformed by this[REDACTED] article. It is not only the army who are members. Police, firefighters also make up a large portion of the Oath Keepers membership, and citizens such as yourself are members. Women are members. Mothers are members. I would actually suggest your follow some of the links at the bottom of the article and read up about the organization yourself. We are only advocating that our members stand down when given unlawful orders. Please see the Oath Keepers website for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oatz Keeprz (talk • contribs) 22:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yah, like disobeying orders for the suppression of secession.69.155.45.150 (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Also: "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.' " -President Thomas Jefferson --82.181.195.240 (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- I hope the poverty center arrests them or something I don't usually come to wiki seeking comedy relief but this time I'm pleasantly surprised. They all have guns!...I have two kids to worry about and I'm worried that their future is in jeopardy because of anti-Obama anti-government gun wielding groups like this. Support your political figure or your kids are in peril?Batvette (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The last time I looked, the Southern Poverty Law Center did not have arrest powers. In fact, anyone who detains another without said powers may find himself facing charges of kidnapping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
To say "public safety" or "law enforcement" personnel?
Which is more neutral language? In The Los Angeles Times they say "public safety personnel" but in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle they say "law enforcement personnel." Varks Spira (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Both sound pretty neutral, in my opinion. --darolew (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, although I'd point out that there's a subtle difference between the two. "Public safety personnel" would include non-police personnel, such as firefighters and EMT's, where "law enforcement personnel" wouldn't. --DarthBinky (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Buchanan
Pat just wrote an article on this subject. Good for sources: http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/091019_alienated.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk • contribs) 05:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
False information on Oath Keepers
Oath Keepers is no longer teamed up with the liberty summit and the post has been taken off the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.152.197 (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oath Keepers wants journalism that deals in FACTS NOT OPINIONS!! The UK's Independent spewed opinions that had no basis in fact and quoted nobody from the Oath Keeper organization. Factual information and quotes are welcomed to truly represent what Oath Keepers is about!!
- Here at Misplaced Pages, we have criteria for the sources we use - see our guideline on reliable sources. So if you have any specific links or sources to share, please post them, rather than simply saying that something is wrong. The
- As for the association of the Oath Keepers with the Liberty Summit, according to this blog posting, the Oath Keepers are still very much involved. Again, if things have changed, please cite a source. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Now blog postings are reliable sources? Misplaced Pages is becoming less reliable for information with each passing day - not that it was ever a "reliable source" to begin with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Irrelevant Information
"The organization says that it is non-partisan, but has worked with the conservative 9-12 Project to promote the National Liberty Unity Summit." Conservative is not a party. One can work with the a conservative group without being Republican. The founder is in fact a pretty staunch libertarian as far as I am aware, and is highly critical of much of the Republican Party over the last decade. Gtbob12 (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The Oath That Is Kept
Oath Keepers ... a movement whose members "believe their duty is to the constitution, not to elected politicians"
The U.S. Soldier's Oath is: I do solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; to bear true faith and allegence to the same; and obey the lawful orders of the commander-in-chief and the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
In UMCJ class I was taught that obeying unlawful orders that violate the Constitution/regulations/UMCJ is a violation of the Oath: "just following orders" died as an excuse at the Nuremberg Trials; and Hugh Thompson, Jr. by countermanding Lt William Calley's orders at the My Lai Massacre did the right thing.
It is not an oath of loyalty to a person, a party, a government, or "elected officials". It is loyalty to the principles this country was founded on, when too many people have loyalty to no principle, or blind faith in a person, a party or a government. That some have expressed the feeling this is scary or subversive is scary. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- IIRC from my time in the Navy watching Congressional Representatives stumble around getting in our way sightseeing while underway on the USS Coral Sea, elected officials like that don't have any positions of authority in the chain of command. However the role they do have, budgetary decision makers of huge defense contracts, may be worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.229.63 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have not found any reliable evidence that demonstrates the Oath Keepers standing up for the constitution - rather, only portions of it that many conservatives and libertarians cling to. For example, the Oath Keepers' list of orders they won't obey only contains orders regarding disarming of citizens, blockading American cities, confiscation of property from citizens, confining citizens to detention camps, etc. Where and when, for instance, have the Oath Keepers stood up to infringements on religious freedoms and the entirety of the first amendment (rather than just the part about speech)? I cannot find any examples of the Oath Keepers standing up to states' attempts at injecting creationism or intelligent design aspects into science curriculums. Some of the key personnel of the organization, such as its founder, Stewart Rhodes, and that Sheriff Richard Mack, have mentioned the IRS in various YouTube videos where they talk about the Oath Keepers and standing up to the IRS. Court decisions have long ruled "the IRS is unconstitutional" arguments to be legally frivolous... so really, I don't see enough of a base on which we can say that the Oath Keepers keep the oath as it is written. In this article, we can really only speak of the oath from a perspective of "this is what the Oath Keepers organization states as its underlying principle" - however, as for standing up for all of the portions of the constitution, rather than the portions of the constitution favored by particular political ideologies, I don't see much in the way of reliable evidence that can use to say the organization does actually back the oath. John Shandy` • talk 17:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
(O: Have you looked for any? I see no reliable evidence that you have any valuable information to add to the subject matter or debate. Stewart Rhodes has not mentioned the IRS..and Richard Mack's definition of the powers of a Sheriff predate his affiliation with Oath Keepers, and have nada to do with the IRS's constitutionality. We're not about looking for unconstitutional things..we are about supporting an oath and refusing unconstitutional orders. There is no IRS constitutionality argument integrated into the organization or any of its positions. You aren't looking for any evidence. YouTube videos? Gonna base your doctorate on that research source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.47.88 (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Non-violent?
There are several passages from the 'Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey' section of their website that seem to contradict their stated non-violent methods of Resistance; 'Accordingly, as the militia of the several states are the only military force contemplated by the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, for domestic keeping of the peace, and as the use of even our own standing army for such purposes is without such constitutional support, the use of foreign troops and mercenaries against the people is wildly unconstitutional, egregious, and an act of war. We will oppose such troops as enemies of the people and we will treat all who request, invite, and aid those foreign troops as the traitors they are.'
and...
'The above list is not exhaustive but we do consider them to be clear tripwires – they form our “line in the sand,” and if we receive such orders, we will not obey them. Further, we will know that the time for another American Revolution is nigh. If you the people decide that you have no recourse, and such a revolution comes, at that time, not only will we NOT fire upon our fellow Americans who righteously resist such egregious violations of their God given rights, we will join them in fighting against those who dare attempt to enslave them.'
These are implied threats of violence. Should their methods really be referred to as non-violent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.65.122 (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
(O: No they are not. They clearly imply a resistance to violence imposed.. by simple disobedience to orders to participate by the boots on the ground necessary for any successful usurpation of rights or the constitution.
Interesting point. In the article, "stated objective is to resist, non-violently, those actions taken by the U.S. Government that it believes oversteps Constitutional boundaries.", The "non-violently" seems inserted, and this phrasing does not, significantly, appear in the group's actual mission statement, though there is a statement on the same web-page where the mission statement is found amongst their bylaws, that very carefully states: "We are Not advocating or promoting violence towards any organization, group or person. We are determined to Keep our Oath to support and defend the Constitution." Parsing this, it rather clearly implies the legal necessity to avoid being definable as hate speech by any *specific* incitement to violence against specific organizations, groups, or individuals, but does not reach to the extent of stating that any deemed-necessary resistance will be non-violent in any way. Such "defense" will be unarmed or armed, and so potentially violent. Thus, in expanding this quite precise statement to include the phrase "defend the Constitution" it is clear that the general threat of implied violence is kept in reserve despite the distance to be kept from specific threats. It is rather difficult to characterize such a group as violent or non-violent. To be characterized as violent, in all fairness it should be shown that there is a real history of actual violent acts or direct threats of violence rather than just the carefully crafted implied violence that is on display. However, an ostensible statement of non-violent intent like that I just discussed should not be enough, especially in its disclaimer-like specificity, to outweigh the clearly implied and generally pervasive threat of violence in their language and in their emphasis of a certain interpretation (and interpretation the Supreme Court seems to be in agreement with) of the 2nd amendment which in their view pertains wholly to unrestricted personal arsenals. Members of the oathkeepers are clearly generally very well-armed and there is a demonstrable readiness to violent resistance in their language, so ultimately I don't think the insertion of "non-violently" to qualify the verb "resist" truly reflects the group's stated objectives with respect to such resistance. There is a very real sense in the group that if it comes to the various conspiracy theories that they fear, violence --all arguments about justifiability wholly aside--, will certainly *not* be off the table for them. Vacchagotta (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
(O: " *not* be off the table for them". Oh Pooh. Refusing to participate in unlawful activity or to follow unlawful orders is non-violent, by rational definition. Your false flavored characterizations and assumptions not with standing; that is the mission and purpose of the organization. I know of no poll to count arms among members; and find it impossible that you hold such information, or can reference a credible source. It is simply not available. Support for the existence of a militia and legal militias..on constitutional grounds... does not make the supporter either armed or militia. Oath Keepers are not a militia, not organized as one, and are incapable of functioning as one. There is no legal parsing on their side, that is an incredible stretching excuse to relabel to your political preferences and canned up front prejudices. There is much wishful thinking in comments here..all tied up with SPLC reports, and absolutely no facts. I would know..I am an Oath Keeper. The bare bones initial article is off, but more objective than some of the the comments in here. How can willingness to stand by an oath taken to support and defend the US Constitution be "hate speech"? How? There is none there, but you find them "parsing" or "inserting" or "phrasing" to avoid the label? Perhaps you are trying a wee bit too hard to find places to hang the label? Show me the hate speech you think we wish to sanitize by "phrasing"? If you can't: then your start point is prejudiced conjecture and about as scientific as a game of spin the bottle among 6 twelve year old's. Maybe they are parsing/phrasing/inserting to make it harder for you to falsely depict them and their mission? There are lots of them.. one is talking to you..they are not hard to find..there is no historical mystery or fossil fragment begging for conjecture from dusty archives and confused pedants...they exist and they grow daily, in no danger of extinction. Ask if you really want information..Stewart Rhodes will talk to you..as will many of his members. If you want to write fiction..or circuitously find enemies for unknown political positions, personally held.. then drive on with this exercise in truth bending.
NPOV
The last section of the article is not NPOV. Quoting two ultra-liberal sources to condemn a right-wing political group is not neutral. They're not neutral. The Independent article is not a respected source, because the information is not factual, it's opinion. You need peer-reviewed literature for those sort of things. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Josh Josh what are your politics for all we know your a fascist who supports the oath keepers so your claims of them being ultra liberal are bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.10 (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Categories: