Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.142.89.126 (talk) at 15:43, 13 May 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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)

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 Repubican. 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)