An oathcreaper... An officer who swears to follow his opinion, not the US constitution.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
An oathcreaper... An officer who swears to follow his opinion, not the US constitution.
Another box flip flop, I remember him trying to tell us how he and his Vietnam buddies didn't have to follow unjust orders. But now he bashes those who won't follow unjust orders or do the illegal bidding of the state One more for the books why nobody believes him.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Yea Mrs Lanza bought a gun to "protect her person and property... She and 26 others paid the price with their lives. What did she protect???
Ok.. Good gun laws = Box telling 300 million Americans what guns they can and cannot own because of 26 tragic deaths by the hands of 1 mentally ill kid that stole his mother's guns.
Box's rule for good laws - use the exception not the rule to write "good gun laws", and treat everybody as if they are likely to violate the exception. Prevent another Sandy Hook by treating EVERYBODY like they are Adam Lanza.
Another box flip flop, I remember him trying to tell us how he and his Vietnam buddies didn't have to follow unjust orders. But now he bashes those who won't follow unjust orders or do the illegal bidding of the state One more for the books why nobody believes him.
Thats right, we had an obligation to disobey unlawful orders. If possible, we were to move up the chain of command to clarify if an order is unlawful or not. At times that was not possible so we had to make that decision at the moment... if wrong, we could face disciplinary action for 'refusing an order', a very serious charge. If a police officer in NY State suspects that what he's asked to do is 'unlawful', his obligation is to contact the NY State Attorney General for clarification. He too rarely has to make a decision 'at the moment' and if wrong could face disciplinary action or a lawsuit. Today's police force is seldom out of radio contact or forced to make split decisions on the legality of an arrest. If ordered to say "disarm a suspect", and he thinks that order is unconstitutional, he should refuse that order, and if wrong, (as in the military) he should face disciplinary action for 'refusing an order'.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Thats right, we had an obligation to disobey unlawful orders. If possible, we were to move up the chain of command to clarify if an order is unlawful or not. At times that was not possible so we had to make that decision at the moment... if wrong, we could face disciplinary action for 'refusing an order', a very serious charge. If a police officer in NY State suspects that what he's asked to do is 'unlawful', his obligation is to contact the NY State Attorney General for clarification. He too rarely has to make a decision 'at the moment' and if wrong could face disciplinary action or a lawsuit. Today's police force is seldom out of radio contact or forced to make split decisions on the legality of an arrest. If ordered to say "disarm a suspect", and he thinks that order is unconstitutional, he should refuse that order, and if wrong, (as in the military) he should face disciplinary action for 'refusing an order'.
These are the things listed the OathKeepers will not do, you don't need a higher chain of command to tell you these things are wrong. Frankly if anyone gives such an order that person should be treated as a traitor.
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
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."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
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.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
These are the things listed the OathKeepers will not do, you don't need a higher chain of command to tell you these things are wrong. Frankly if anyone gives such an order that person should be treated as a traitor. 4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
Martial law on the national level may be declared by Congress or the president. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, of the Constitution, Congress has the power "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions." Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution declares that "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Neither constitutional provision includes a direct reference to martial law. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted both to allow the declaration of martial law by the president or Congress. On the state level, a governor may declare martial law within her or his own state. The power to do so usually is granted in the state constitution.
TeaBagger OathCreapers... and the US Constitution. If they are unable to uphold the law and the US CONSTITUTION AS SWORN, then resign and get out of the way for someone who will.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
These are the things listed the OathKeepers will not do, you don't need a higher chain of command to tell you these things are wrong. Frankly if anyone gives such an order that person should be treated as a traitor.
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.
And "FREE SPEECH" is determined by the officer at the scene??? HE determines what IS and what IS NOT Constitutional???
So a TeaBagger assembly that advocates the overthrow of their government by force, is Free Speech? (by your definition, "Free Speech" depends on if the Officer is a TeaBagger or an actual American.)
TeaBagger OathCreapers... and the US Constitution. If they are unable to uphold the law and the US CONSTITUTION AS SWORN, then resign and get out of the way for someone who will.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Your rights don't disappear because some politician says so, you really don't understand what a "RIGHT" is box. its sad really, how old are you?
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
These are the things listed the OathKeepers will not do, you don't need a higher chain of command to tell you these things are wrong. Frankly if anyone gives such an order that person should be treated as a traitor.
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
So the TeaBaggin OathCreapers would disobey an order to 'confiscate property' that is contaminated with a plague... under OathCreaper #9. The TeaBaggin OathCreapers would disobey an order to 'confiscate property' if that property is stolen, or illegal to possess, such as a small nuclear bomb... a 55 gal drum of anthrax, or weapons to be used in a planned riot by say... the Black Panthers or the KKK?
(Under TeaBaggin OathCeapers #9, Timothy McVeigh, on his way to blow up the Oklahoma Federal Bldg, would have been allowed to continue with his plan, until he actually blew up the building. It was his rented truck... his fertilizer... his fuel... his detonators... his weapons... all his "PROPERTY" that cannnot be confiscated)
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
LMAO look at him trying to justify illegal orders. There here to stay box, your just going to have to live with that
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Your rights don't disappear because some politician says so, you really don't understand what a "RIGHT" is box. its sad really, how old are you?
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.
The TeaBaggin OathCreapers contend it's your 'RIGHT' to Falsely Yell Fire in a Crowded Theater, endangering all the people in the theater, because: 10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech. BTW, if it's up to the TeaBaggin OathCreaper at the theater, HE DECIDES IF IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL, NOT THE SUPREME COURT!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
If the Supreme court says it is constitutional for the government to put cameras in all homes without consent would you stand by them? Well I'm sure you would but many wouldn't.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
These are the things listed the OathKeepers will not do, you don't need a higher chain of command to tell you these things are wrong. Frankly if anyone gives such an order that person should be treated as a traitor. 4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
These so called OathCreapers, swear an oath to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States" NOT To "uphold and defend the part of the Constitution of the United States that fits our political agenda"
Martial Law & OathCreapers:
Quoted Text
The martial law concept in the United States is closely tied with the right of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
The TeaBaggin OathCreapers, openly and publicly contend (#4) they will under any circumstances, disobey the Constitution of the United States as stated above.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
One more for the books why nobody believes him.
