About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Right-wing media promote, give platform to "anti-government extremist" Oath Keepers

February 18, 2010 5:36 pm ET — 212 Comments

Over the past several months, right-wing media have promoted the Oath Keepers, a group established in 2009 and identified by the Anti-Defamation League as "encourag[ing] members of the military and law enforcement to pledge not to follow certain hypothetical 'orders' from the federal government" that "echo longstanding conspiracy theories embraced by anti-government extremists." On February 17, Bill O'Reilly said that he intended to host a member of the group on his next show to "give forth their point of view."

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

O'Reilly said he would host member of Oath Keepers to "give forth their point of view"

From the February 17 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Is there one group in America right now that you guys believe is dangerous, is growing fast, and that the folks should know about? 

MARK POTOK (editor, Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report): Well, let me give an example. I'm not going to say this group is dangerous and, you know, these people are going to blow up federal buildings -- that's clearly not true -- but there is a new major group called the Oath Keepers. It was started, if I recall, in February of last year. This -- it has grown fairly explosively. It's well over a thousand members. What's interesting about the group is it's composed mainly of military and law enforcement personnel, officers of the law. The thing about the group is what they say is, you know, "What we're all about is simply pledging allegiance -- or re-pledging our oaths to defend the Constitution," which of course is well and fine. But the reality about the group is that what it's really about is the fear that martial law is about to be imposed, that Americans are about to be herded into concentration camps, that foreign troops are going to be put down on American soil. The Oath Keepers says specifically, we will not obey these orders, we will refuse orders to put Americans into concentration camps. Now, is that dangerous? It seems to me the danger is that these are men and women, in the case of police officers, who are given a real power over the rest of us, sometimes the power of life and death. They make very important decisions. And if these men and women are animated by the idea that, you know, foreign forces are about to come into this country and put us under martial law and throw us all into concentration camps, I think there is a certain danger associated with that. 

O'REILLY: All right. Well, it's certainly not rational. 

POTOK: They're operating on the basis on crazy theories that may cause one of them to draw a gun one day. 

O'REILLY: All right. You know what I'm going to do, Mr. Potok? Because it's a very interesting topic. I'm going to invite somebody from the Oath Keepers to come on the Factor tomorrow and give forth their point of view. I think it's a fascinating topic, and we appreciate your time very much.

Right-wing media promote group

Buchanan: "[T]he establishment's reaction seems more problematic for the republic than anything the Oath Keepers are up to." In his October 20, 2009, syndicated column, Pat Buchanan wrote that Oath Keepers are "are ex-military and -police who repledge themselves to defend the Constitution, even if it means disobeying orders. If the U.S. government ordered law-enforcement agencies to violate Second Amendment rights by disarming the people, Oath Keepers will not obey," adding that founder Stewart Rhodes "is headed for cable stardom," and that "if the Pelosi-Reid progressives went postal over town-hall protesters, calling them 'un-American,' 'Nazis' and 'evil-mongers,' one can imagine what they will do with the Oath Keepers." Buchanan also stated that "the establishment's reaction seems more problematic for the republic than anything the Oath Keepers are up to. For our political and media elite seem to have lost touch with the nation and to be wedded to a vision of America divorced from reality."

Beck, Drudge promoted story on group. On the October 20, 2009, edition of his radio show, Glenn Beck read from a Las Vegas Review-Journal article about Oath Keepers linked by the Drudge Report, which noted that the SPLC called the group "a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival." Beck responded: "Boy, what would our Founding Fathers say just on that sentence? ... The people saying the government is getting too big and too out of control. All they want to do is make sure you keep your oath to the Constitution of the United States."

Oath Keepers promote discredited conspiracy theory regarding "[m]ass, forced internment into concentration camps"

Oath Keepers: "We Will Not Obey" order "to force American citizens into any form of detention camp."Oath Keepers describes itself as "a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial." In its list of "Orders We Will Not Obey," Oath Keepers states the following:

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. 

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the blockade of Boston, and the occupying of that city by the British military, under martial law. Once hostilities began, the people of Boston were tricked into turning in their arms in exchange for safe passage, but were then forbidden to leave. That confinement of the residents of an entire city was an act of war. 

Such tactics were repeated by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto, and by the Imperial Japanese in Nanking, turning entire cities into death camps. Any such order to disarm and confine the people of an American city will be an act of war and thus an act of treason. 

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.  

Mass, forced internment into concentration camps was a hallmark of every fascist and communist dictatorship in the 20th Century. Such internment was unfortunately even used against American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Whenever a government interns its own people, it treats them like an occupied enemy population. Oppressive governments often use the internment of women and children to break the will of the men fighting for their liberty - as was done to the Boers, to the Jewish resisters in the Warsaw Ghetto, and to the Chechens, for example. 

Such a vile order to forcibly intern Americans without charges or trial would be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason, regardless of the pretext used. We will not commit treason, nor will we facilitate or support it.

Detention camp allegation is an anti-Obama conspiracy theory. Media Matters for America has detailed how conservatives have pushed the conspiracy theory that the Obama administration is planning to "round up American citizens" into "internment camps." In fact, the military under both President Bush and President Obama has regularly referred to "internment" and "resettlement" while discussing "detainees" and "enemy prisoners of war."

Oath Keepers called "a new player in a resurgent militia movement," linked to other right-wing fringe players

ADL: Oath Keepers "part of an anti-government extremist movement that has grown since President Obama took office." An October 2009 report by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) described Oath Keepers as "part of an anti-government extremist movement that has grown since President Obama took office." ADL further stated that "the Oath Keepers encourage members of the military and law enforcement to pledge not to follow certain hypothetical 'orders' from the federal government. These 'orders,' including one 'to put American citizens in detention camps,' and another 'to disarm the American people,' echo longstanding conspiracy theories embraced by anti-government extremists, who claim that the U.S. government is creating a police state."

NY Times: Oath Keepers "a new player in a resurgent militia movement." A February 15 New York Times article described Oath Keepers as "a new player in a resurgent militia movement," adding that the group "has been recruiting at Tea Party events around the country and forging informal ties with militia groups."

WorldNetDaily tied group to criticism of Obama. A March 20, 2009, WorldNetDaily article on Oath Keepers claimed that Rhodes said the group "is not a response to President Obama or his policies," but added, "He said the accumulation of power in the executive branch in recent years has been alarming. The fears crystallized when Obama took office and suddenly had access to the accumulated power. That, he said, is a 'powderkeg.' " The article went on to state that "WND already has reported on several members of the U.S. military who have raised concerns about the implications of Obama's possible ineligibility to be commander-in-chief."

Oath Keepers in coalition with John Birch Society, 9/12 Project branch. Oath Keepers is listed as a member of Friends for Liberty, a coalition that, according to its website, includes the right-wing John Birch Society, the Spokane, Washington, branch of the Glenn Beck-associated 9/12 Project, and Vaccination Liberation, a group that claims as part of its mission to "reveal the myth that vaccines are necessary, safe and effective."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by southerngal (February 18, 2010 5:45 pm ET)
      10 17
      So one of O'Reilly's guests mentions them as a dangerous group, O'Reilly calls them irrational and says he will let them go on his show and say their piece. And MMfA goes back six months to a mention by Beck and Buchanan and now says the right wing media is promoting a giving a platform to these people?

      A bit of an over reaction, or just a slow misinformation day.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (February 18, 2010 6:06 pm ET)
        13 5
        So you're in favor of giving a platform to the more irrational anti-government groups?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (February 18, 2010 6:11 pm ET)
          7 12
          Personally, no, but if you think a six month old mention by a couple media conservatives and a possible appearance on one show is a "platform" to "promote", then fine. I don't.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (February 18, 2010 6:25 pm ET)
            11 4
            I'm concerned that a group of more than a thousand people who've sworn an oath to honor the constitution and to protect society would be attracted to an organization like this.

            A few short years ago, this kind of organization would have been considered treasonous. Today, it's just another group trying to break into the mainstream via the anti-Obama express.

            Fox is happy to present these type groups because they have a common enemy. I used to believe the enemy was the president, but I have a feeling lately it's the country.

            If I had shown interest in an organization of this type when I was in the military, I'd have been thrown into the stockade and brought up on charges.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (February 18, 2010 6:26 pm ET)
              9 3
              CORRECTION:
              I used to believe THEIR enemy was the president, but I have a feeling lately it's the country.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (February 18, 2010 6:31 pm ET)
                5 11
                Well I don't know anything about them or what they've done to be considered treasonous other than what they think is going to happen, which is ridiculous. But I also saw some nutty 9/11 conspiracy theorists on TV when Bush was president saying he planned it and all that nonsense too, so I can't imagine this group being any weirder.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by loonz (February 18, 2010 7:12 pm ET)
                  8 1
                  What TV show?
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by DellDolly (February 18, 2010 8:06 pm ET)
                  9 4
                  Trying to change the subject after your argument got totally shot down?

                  See, we now know what you do - not just me, but everyone.

                  You didn't want us talking about how the OathKeepers don't deserve the platform to have their crazy ideas nationally exposed. You don't want us to talk about how NO legit news organization would THINK of doing something like this, but FoxNews and O'Reilly WILL do this - give this group publicity that they shouldn't get due to their traitorous intentions.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by ABBA|Proudly teaBAGGING Liberals (February 21, 2010 11:52 am ET)
                    1 1
                    heloo dulldolly;

                    I suppose, no, I know you think the likes of the teaBAGGED olby and madcow should get national attention...

                    Actually I'm glad they do, even if they are by all accounts, failing actually failed. It's only a matter of time before they go down the tubes... Which will be unfortunate as they both along with the other msm provide huge doses of daily humor....

                    oh yeah, exactly what ideas of the "OathKeepers is "crazy"... no don't wimp out and start on the "troll" or "sockpuppet" BS... just tell us which ideas are crazy... OH defeating bho... hmmm... not crazy, self preservation....
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by whatIthink (February 18, 2010 8:17 pm ET)
                  9 1
                  You mean like Debra Medina, who is running for Governor of Texas and is backed by the teabaggers, the same teabaggers who are promoted and given PR by Fox? Who is not only a 9/11 truther but also a tenther? The same Debra Medina who is a big supporter of the Oath Keepers. The same Oath Keepers that are part of CPAC. The same CPAC that Fox is the lead cheerleader for.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mookie von zipper (February 18, 2010 11:09 pm ET)
                    3 5
                    as a texan i was able to see debra medina debate rick perry and kay bailey hutchison... i had never heard of her before then... i know little about her, but from what i saw in the debate, she totally skewered them... they were probably too concerned with taking pot shots at each other, as the ostensible front-runners on the republican side, to even notice how shallow they sounded compared to her...

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by whatIthink (February 18, 2010 11:39 pm ET)
                      11 2
                      Ahhh, Texas...the land where 1/3 of the people think the earth is only 6,000 years old, dinosaurs walked around with humans, were the history books are going to rewritten to make McCarthy a hero, where evolution is not believed, where the people want to secede from the union yet were more than happy to take hundreds of millions in federal stimulus money, a land where a lady that even Beck thinks is whacko (talk about pot and kettle) is considered a strong contender for the governorship...
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mookie von zipper (February 19, 2010 12:13 am ET)
                        2 7
                        that is a ridiculously broad-brushed and ill-informed opinion... while an overwhelming vast majority of texans do not want secession (count me in the minority), we do believe in our state sovereignty... i'm sorry you're jealous of my state, but i do apologize on behalf of texas and california, as these states pretty much dictate textbook content for the rest of the union, due to the fact publishing companies make most of their money from these 2 states and it makes more economic sense for them to cater to us and our cowboy mentality...

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by lipreader (February 19, 2010 12:45 am ET)
                          8  
                          I can't imagine anyone being happy over the dumbing down of our children's textbooks. That's just going to lead to a generation unprepared to do anything. Why do you hate America?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by mookie von zipper (February 19, 2010 2:00 am ET)
                              6
                            i'm not happy about it, i apologized!...

                            as for an unprepared generation, what planet are you from and/or where have you been?... textbooks are the tip of the iceberg in the dumbing down of this country... we've been on the fast track to idiocracy for decades now...

                            as for me hating america, were you traumatized by a neocon accusing you of this and now use that a defense mechanism?...

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by vhw28672478 (February 19, 2010 10:45 am ET)
                              3 1
                              you are wrong prove it
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by mookie von zipper (February 19, 2010 1:40 pm ET)
                                   
                                prove what, that medina made perry and hutchison look like robotic sound byte parrots?... did you see the debate?... if you did, we'll just have to disagree... if you didn't, the burden of proof is on you... i have the luxury of reviewing it on my dvr, but i must say, i won't be so generous as to make you a dub... try c-span, perhaps they have an online archive, it was originally broadcast on a local pbs in austin or houston...

                                Report Abuse
                        • Author by raddave43 (February 19, 2010 12:56 am ET)
                          7  
                          The Constution makes no mention of State Sovereignty, that is what separates the Constituion from the Articles of Confederation. State sovereignty is a falacy. Good luck whith that secession that you are in favor of.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by mookie von zipper (February 19, 2010 2:06 am ET)
                              6
                            i have no such illusions or delusions of secession, as evidenced by my aforementioned recognition that the vast majority of texans do not favor this... but i'm a firm believer in state's rights...

                            i'm shutting it down for the night, rad... thank you for your service to our country...

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by vhw28672478 (February 19, 2010 10:44 am ET)
                              4 1
                              We need gun control laws
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by mookie von zipper (February 19, 2010 1:43 pm ET)
                                   
                                of course we do... what we don't need is some political hack screaming for more and more laws every time some sociopath shoots up a school or business and blaming everything in site except the perpetrator...

                                Report Abuse
                            • Author by raddave43 (February 19, 2010 10:56 am ET)
                              2  
                              States do have rights, but they do not have the right to secede. We already fought that war 140 years ago. A State does not have a right to declare that the Federal Govt. has violated the pact that allowed the State to join the Union. Thanks for you service as well
                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by Ruby (February 19, 2010 11:02 am ET)
                              1  
                              while an overwhelming vast majority of texans do not want secession (count me in the minority)

                              That statement confused me and I think maybe confused raddave also. It seemed like you were saying that the majority of Texans don't want secession, and that you are among the minority that do. I don't think that's what you meant to say, but that is how I initially read it.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by mookie von zipper (February 19, 2010 1:54 pm ET)
                                   
                                you're initial read was indeed correct...

                                a poll taken soon after gov perry declared state sovereignty may have been as high as 90% against secession...

                                i would love for texas to be an independent nation, again, but the reality is if that prospect were undertaken it wouldn't be without great pain and difficulty, i'll spare you the details on what that might entail... but if i could wave a magic wand and make it so we could hit the ground running, as we are consistently in the top 20 economies of the world annually...

                                2 trivia bits:

                                texas is the only state in the union allowed to fly her state flag at an equal height alongside the american flag... we also have a provision in our state constitution to break up into as many as 5 smaller states (i think that's where a lot of people get confused and think we can just secede without any federal intervention)...

                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Ruby (February 19, 2010 3:16 pm ET)
                                  1  
                                  Pardon me then.

                                  I was incredulous that someone could really say something so ridiculous.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by mookie von zipper (February 21, 2010 4:23 pm ET)
                                       
                                    the notion of texas not only functioning but succeeding as an independent nation is hardly ridiculous... i would only agree that the notion of a peril-free path to getting there is ridiculous, and it's one that i do not harbor...

                                    Report Abuse
                        • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 19, 2010 1:09 pm ET)
                          2  
                          "we do believe in our state sovereignty" - mookie

                          Except of course when it comes to taking money from the federal government. Then that sovereignty thing does not seem so important to Texans.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by mookie von zipper (February 19, 2010 1:55 pm ET)
                              1
                            you say that like it's a bad thing...

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 20, 2010 11:37 am ET)
                              1  
                              What? Thinking that Texas would actually remain a thriving economy without all the money they get from the federal government? Yes, I believe ignorance is a bad thing. I do understand, however, that in Texas it has been turned into a value.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by mookie von zipper (February 21, 2010 4:34 pm ET)
                                   
                                if, by ignorance you mean lack of understanding of texas' economy is a bad thing, then i would agree... i'll spare you the diversity of industry we have here, but losing fed dollars might, at worst, drive our world economic ranking from the top 20 into the top 30... we don't even have a state income tax... maybe you come from a state that's more dependent and therefore can't imagine making it on your own...


                                Report Abuse
                        • Author by rcoplen (February 21, 2010 1:08 am ET)
                             
                          I live next door to Texas and deal with Texans on a daily basis. Whatithink's description is not broad-based and ill-informed, it is actually quite accurate. Remember W?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by mookie von zipper (February 21, 2010 4:42 pm ET)
                               
                            i can't help that i associate with a better class of texans than you do... but i do apologize most humbly and profusely on their behalf for anything that they may have done to offend you and representing our state poorly... i'm sure you live in a state where everyone is a mensa candidate...

                            Report Abuse
                    • Author by rcoplen (February 21, 2010 1:04 am ET)
                         
                      Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchinson would sound shallow compared to anybody.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by ABBA|Proudly teaBAGGING Liberals (February 21, 2010 9:12 am ET)
                      1
                    hey whatIthink | what I think is that it's better to be a teabagger than the teabagged... Gag on that!!!!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by raddave43 (February 21, 2010 3:52 pm ET)
                         
                      I can tell you that if you or any other wingnut tried to tebag me, you will soon find yourself gagging on your own teabgs.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by mookie von zipper (February 21, 2010 4:48 pm ET)
                         
                      please, sing dancing queen!... i love you guys!...

                      [http://gyma.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/abba.jpg]

                      Report Abuse
                • Author by IRONY 101 (February 18, 2010 11:03 pm ET)
                  6 2
                  NUTTY + GUNS = VERY BAD COMBINATION
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mookie von zipper (February 18, 2010 11:30 pm ET)
                    1 11
                    political hacks + gun control = very bad combination
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by vhw28672478 (February 19, 2010 10:43 am ET)
                      3  
                      you are wrong
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mookie von zipper (February 19, 2010 1:56 pm ET)
                        1 1
                        that was quite the impassioned, articulate retort... at least you didn't ask me to prove it this time...

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 20, 2010 11:38 am ET)
                            1
                          I would not bother responding to him, mookie. I am not sure but I believe it is either a child or some kind of computer set to automatically respond to certain posts. Either way, it is bizarre.
                          Report Abuse
                  • Author by Schwartz5534 (February 19, 2010 12:47 pm ET)
                       
                    Yes, just like the Alabama professor.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by ABBA|Proudly teaBAGGING Liberals (February 21, 2010 9:14 am ET)
                       
                    Yup the nutty (left-wing nut) professor and a gun, hmmm .not good...
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by bingolong (February 19, 2010 6:56 pm ET)
                     
                  Yes. Yet a problem: how malleable are the mindsets of people who can believe such obviously empty theories, and by corollary, can their allegiances & missions be transmuted further, and in a more deadly directrion, should they be taken over by a more militant leadership?
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by First Sergeant (February 19, 2010 3:16 pm ET)
                   
                I'm an Oath Keeper. I campaigned and voted for President Obama. We respect our constitution, and have no enemy (from the Conservatives or Liberals), unless the constitutional laws of the United States are abused. Nothing more...not a crazy right-wing militia, just professional military/police/fire servants (I have almost 30 years now). Sometimes manipulation of fact occurs in the media.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by dswynne (February 18, 2010 9:06 pm ET)
                 
              Free association is a right, and the Oath Keepers believe that international law should not trump constitutional law. It's nothing wrong with that, especially since the 2nd Amendment is being assualted by anti-gun groups.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by kp1944 (February 19, 2010 9:34 am ET)
                 
              "A few short years ago, this kind of organization would have been considered treasonous. Today, it's just another group trying to break into the mainstream via the anti-Obama express."


              Can you provide us with the names of these groups that were considered "treasonous"? Can you tell us how these groups were considered "treasonous", more so than the groups you're comparing them to?

              Any by the way, O'bama's approval ratings are still >50% (GREATER THAN 50%).....so how does one "break into the mainstream via the anti-Obama express"?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by rrastro (February 19, 2010 10:29 pm ET)
                2
              no treason...they are not taking arms against the us. maybe sedition
              Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (February 18, 2010 8:03 pm ET)
            9 2
            Just because it happened a while ago doesn't CHANGE the fact that the rightwing media HAS promoted this group.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Floyd (February 19, 2010 8:40 am ET)
              2 7
              I think you need to stop posting. First you whine about someone going off-topic (while they are specifically talking about the topic) then you bring something off-topic of your own.

              What are you talking about? This article is about the "platform" given to a group who don't appreciate what the government is doing. NOT whether rw media has promoted the group. Jeez, get a grip on reality and whine about the topic ... if that's at all possible for you.

              I mean if you want to whine about an anti-government group being given a platform by a politicized media, why don't you investigate the platform given to the black-panthers. Just because it happened "a while ago" doesn't change the fact that left-wing media adored those dangerous anti-government nutcases (and still do). And I can't seem to remember which media supported Bill Ayers when he was a staunch anti-government hater, do you remember? So, I guess mmfa discovered their own little niche for being the focus of pot/kettle comparisons.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by benjr (February 19, 2010 10:37 am ET)
                5  
                Right, because MMfA linking to an article six months ago is somehow factually equivalent to the coverage given to the black panthers forty years ago. . .

                I don't suppose you'd like to give some proof that the "left-wing media" actually adored the black panthers would you?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Floyd (February 21, 2010 9:42 am ET)
                     
                  Is PBS left-wing enough?

                  http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/huey.html

                  "Huey writes poetry? You're kidding; wow - how sensitive of him"
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by Ruby (February 19, 2010 11:25 am ET)
                3  
                The Black Panther Party no longer exists in the United States. There is a radical group that has hijacked the name, but they are in no way associated with the original Black Panther Party that was active in the mid-1960s and 1970s.

                I would encourage you to read about the original Black Panther Party, they're not these evil bogeymen you may think. They were responsible for instituting social programs to help the poor. They established free breakfast programs in poor neighborhoods, offered classes about getting involved in politics, and encouraged peace amongst racial groups. The Black Panther Party was actually very vocal in condemning the actions of more militant, violent factions of the left, such as the Weathermen.

                Wikipedia 'Fred Hampton' and read about him. A completely innocent man murdered by the FBI, basically for just having ideas they didn't like.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (February 19, 2010 12:31 pm ET)
                3  
                If you could READ well and use logic, you'd know that I was replying to RightON who whined that MMFA cited rightwingers who promoted this group up to 6 months ago as a reason to denigrate this posting by MMFA.

                And no, I didn't whine about someone being off-topic when they were really on-topic.

                MMFA said that some rightwing media promoted this anti-gov't radical group, and they have.

                What MMFA said doesn't become untrue just because SOME of that promotion happened last year.

                And whenever I am foolish enough to take your advice about when I should post or not, I'll let you know, but you shouldn't hold your breath waiting for that to happen!
                Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 19, 2010 1:12 pm ET)
                3  
                Wake up, Floyd. You were having a horrible nightmare where somehow you were convinced that the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground were given positive media coverage. I am confident you cannot be this stupid. Hopefully, you will come out of it.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Floyd (February 20, 2010 9:29 am ET)
                    3
                  Hey, Mike, .... uh, this article ISN'T about "positive" coverage. It's about coverage ... period! If you want to make an arguement concerning "positive media coverage" you should probably wait until that article comes out. Because THIS article is about giving them any "coverage".

                  dd says; "O'Reilly should NOT give airtime to this group because of their already-proven track record and their beliefs.". Yet, she has nothing to say about the "proven record" of the black panthers or Bill Ayers and the media platform they received then (and now). You guys are so hypocritical. You demand right wingers be restricted from the air waves because they promote ideals you disagree with, (and demean anyone who disagrees with your ideals) while demanding a platform to state your own opinions and demanding restriction of opinions different than your own.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 20, 2010 11:43 am ET)
                       
                    Neither Bill Ayers nor the Black Panthers received any kind of legitimate "platform" from the mainstream media. They were treated as villians, even though in many cases the Black Panthers were not.

                    The federal government was allowed to bust down the doors on private property and execute Fred Hampton. And the media of the day did nothing to stop it or to present it as it happened. Once again, wake up. You are reliving history and you are getting it wrong!

                    And, I NEVER said anyone should be restricted from the airwaves. NEVER. I simply pointed out that your example of the Black Panthers being given some kind of platform by the media is silly and disingenuous at best. They never were.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Floyd (February 21, 2010 9:11 am ET)
                      1  
                      mike-- Neither Bill Ayers nor the Black Panthers received any kind of legitimate "platform" from the mainstream media.

                      I guess you're right. ABC and CBS shouldn't be considered "legitimate media", should they?
                      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/10/opinion/main4660604.shtml
                      Do you want more examples that prove you wrong?


                      mike-- They were treated as villians, even though in many cases the Black Panthers were not.

                      So, you're changing the subject of the conversation again? If BOR treats the Oathkeepers as villians will you apologize for the misinformation this site is promoting? I don't think the 'treatment' of guests is even being considered in this article about a platform being given to that group. But, if that's the way you want to interpret it, fine.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (February 20, 2010 12:56 pm ET)
                    1 1
                    Hey, Floyd, ... uh, this article IS about both the promotion (positive word) and giving a platform TO an "anti-government, extremist" group.

                    It's not about "coverage period". You're lying, Floyd.

                    The evidence of the promotion is given above in the article by MMFA.

                    Any group found to be as extremist as this group shouldn't get national airtime to promote their agenda. It has absolutely nothing to do with the particular political slant of those 'ideals'.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Floyd (February 21, 2010 9:17 am ET)
                      1  
                      Hey, dell, why don't you whine about the "promotion" of Bill Ayers's extremist ideas by ABC Good Morning America show? So, you think promoting extremist views is A-OK as long as they agree with your own ideas? What a hypocrit YOU are!
                      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/10/opinion/main4660604.shtml
                      Report Abuse
            • Author by ABBA|Proudly teaBAGGING Liberals (February 21, 2010 9:17 am ET)
              1 1
              Hi dulldolly what? students for a democratic society, or the weather underground.... can you say bill ayers??? yup the media does support the loons... and so do you...
              Report Abuse
        • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (February 18, 2010 8:58 pm ET)
          3 2
          I'm in favor of free speech. No one has to listen.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 19, 2010 1:07 pm ET)
            1
          I am actually OK with it. I think we need more voices in the public arena, not less. I think the left is short-sighted when it comes to a topic like this. Saying someone is extreme is exactly how right-wingers like O'Reilly keep the progressive left and their ideas from even being considered.

          Why wasn't socialized medicine or single-payer even considered in the healthcare debate? There are plenty of polls to show that Medicare for all would have sold very well to the American masses. But, the right repeats over and over again that any idea from the far-left is extreme and should never be considered. The mainstream media accepts this and repeats it - then the village decides that it is so.

          The hybrid healthcare proposals being considered now and the Cap and Trade legislation being considered now were both originally Republican proposals of compromise. Now, they have become the left-wing positions. Because the actual positions of the progressive left have been able to be marginalized as "extreme". Be careful when you allow ideas to become marginalized and never to be spoken of. Because it may just happen to your ideas next.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (February 18, 2010 8:02 pm ET)
        7 3
        Falling back to the old "WITH - Why Is This Here?" bogus argument?

        This is here because O'Reilly said that he'd give them a platform. This group should NEVER get a platform on any legitimate news organization to spout their nonsense.

        And the fact that the promotion of this group happened a few months ago doesn't CHANGE the fact that rightwing media HAVE promoted this group and given them a platform.

        How does the fact that this happened a while ago belie anything that MMFA said?

        Oh, wait, it's after your quitting time, ain't it, you paid troll. So, maybe you'll come back tomorrow and throw out an insult or two, or maybe you'll ignore the fact that you were 100% wrong and disingenuous here entirely.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dswynne (February 18, 2010 9:03 pm ET)
             
          Then you do not believe in the first admendment, nor in the public good. I want to KNOW about groups like this so that I can make up MY mind, and not have someone, like the Southern Poverty Law Center simply go unchallenged. If I agree with their position, fine. If not, so what? This is America. You can do what you want to do. THAT is the way.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bludog1 (February 19, 2010 8:19 am ET)
          2 1
          Didn't O'R invite the Oathkeepers after they had been attacked on his show earlier in the week?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (February 19, 2010 12:35 pm ET)
            3  
            So, if O'Reilly (or anyone else on his show or elsewhere) "attacks" Charlie Manson, O'Reilly should invite Charlie Manson on his show to tell his side of the story? We KNOW Manson's side of the story, and he's crazy. Or, if someone were to attack NAMBLA, should we be thrilled if NAMBLA is given some time to promote the alternative lifestyle that THEY favor? How about the radical militias in our nation, who think it's okay to kill federal law enforcement officials. They too should get a platform to spew their hate and anti-gov't rhetoric?

            Your "argument" makes no sense, Weasel.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bludog1 (February 19, 2010 4:06 pm ET)
              2 2
              Having read some of your so called rebuttals, it seems reason is so often missing. I am however impressed that you got all the way through without your LIAR reference. You need to expand your vocabulary. And maybe even open your mind a little.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (February 19, 2010 7:02 pm ET)
                1 1
                The next million times I need advice on how to behave, you still won't be the person I go to for advice.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Floyd (February 20, 2010 8:31 am ET)
                  1 1
                  Admitting you need help with your behavior a "million times" is quite telling about what kind of person you are. That must be why so many, at this site, admire you as much as they do. If there's ever a role model for other liberals it would be someone who needs behavior advise a million times.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by Floyd (February 19, 2010 9:14 am ET)
          1 5
          dd-- So, maybe you'll come back tomorrow and throw out an insult or two

          You mean like YOU do? I think you confuse him with other liberals. Facts show that liberals are the ones who cast insults freely and liberally. And, they don't wait for tomorrow to do it, they do it so frequently it can't be measured on a 'time' based scale. But, it's nice to see you actually mentioned the topic during your whine about right wingers.

          I think if anyone could be considered a "paid troll" it would be you. You have a half-dozen statements (in this article) and this is the only one you actually mention the topic. However, in doing so, you show your inability to discuss a topic. How can you demand that BOR stop giving a platform to this group after whining that FOX isn't a legitimate news organization (in previous articles)? So you either admit that FOX is a legitimate news organization or it isn't. Can you please make up your mind and quit flip-flopping according to who you need to impress from day to day?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by usp (February 19, 2010 1:38 am ET)
        4 1
        the oath keepers? nazi think. the end.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Floyd (February 19, 2010 8:56 am ET)
          2 6
          Let's test your honesty, usp. What evil entity would you relate the Black Panthers to? Would you compare their actions to nazis, like you just did to the oath keepers?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by benjr (February 19, 2010 10:42 am ET)
            5  
            False equivalency alert!

            Also, the Black Panthers pushed socialism. Kinda hard to compare them to Nazis.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by rrastro (February 19, 2010 10:34 pm ET)
                2
              gee mao and stalin were so much better!
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Floyd (February 20, 2010 8:47 am ET)
                3
              benjr-- Also, the Black Panthers pushed socialism. Kinda hard to compare them to Nazis.

              Actually, it's quite easy when nazi's pushed the same agenda ... socialism. Here's another commonality: both wanted the race that differed from their own to be eliminated. However, the black panthers are heros to liberals while nazis are the scourge of humanity ... hmmmm. I guess liberals aren't as honest as they claim, huh usp?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 20, 2010 11:45 am ET)
                2 1
                Once again, Floyd, you fail at basic history. This time you have failed at basic civics as well. Read up, Floyd. Your ignorance is appalling.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Floyd (February 21, 2010 9:26 am ET)
                  1  
                  Oh? Which part of history did I get wrong? Your interpretation or actual? Why don't you provide an actual example of my incorrectly stated history, instead of just whining. Feel free to use one of the MANY legitimate media outlets as reference of what the two racist groups (I mentioned) promoted.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by benjr (February 21, 2010 2:11 pm ET)
                       
                    It is simply not true that the Nazis pushed a socialist agenda. You do know that Hitler had communists rounded up and killed right? The Nazis pushed a fascist agenda, which is basically the opposite of socialism.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by raddave43 (February 21, 2010 1:47 pm ET)
                   
                The Black Panther party didn't want to eliminate white people, they were pushing for equal rights for their race. You did fail basic history numbnuts.
                Report Abuse
      • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 19, 2010 10:54 am ET)
        3  
        It's called offering documentation and context to support a position. If MMFA had launched into a tirade about Oath Keepers' presence at CPAC without offering documentation and context, it wouldn't have the same impact in making its' point and answering the question, "Why are these anti-government types included in what is supposed to be a mainstream organization?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by my4cents (February 19, 2010 11:13 pm ET)
        2  
        pl. believe me. I clicked on the link expecting you to be the first poster.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (February 19, 2010 11:52 pm ET)
             
          Of course RightON was the first poster. As a paid troll, determined to derail conversations away from the actual point that MMFA is trying to make, he has to be on alert for new postings. He has to come up with short but pithy distracting comments that seem like they're close enough to actually being on topic that he'll lure in some unsuspecting victims with his troll post.

          He didn't want us talking about how it's unreasonable to give an anti-government extremist group like the Oath Keepers free air-time on national shows like O'Reilly's to push their radical agenda. No legitimate news organization would do that, but FoxNews supposedly will, and so will other rightwing media sources.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Floyd (February 21, 2010 10:19 am ET)
               
            You mean the "actual point" of promoting hatred by the legitimate media? Like ABC and CBS did for bill ayers and his murderous group of thugs (examples already given)? Oh, wait, you support that kind of thug, it's the right wing thug you hate, so the point is; 'only right wing thugs are bad' according to left wingers everywhere. Left wingers can spew any amount of hatred and racism they want as long as they whine about right wingers being unscrupulous.

            BTW, mikehuck, could you check my spelling and let me know if I spelled any words wrong. Preciate it.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by progressivevoicedaily (February 18, 2010 5:52 pm ET)
      8 5
      RightON, your a doocy bag aren't ya?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (February 18, 2010 5:56 pm ET)
        7 11
        I don't know what a doocy bag is, but I have seen some doozies who couldn't find their way out of a paper bag around here, if that helps.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by nativeofsf (February 18, 2010 7:37 pm ET)
          9 5
          [P]rogressive was referring to Fox's Steve Dooucy. ¶Your subsequent comment not only refers to him but also to the repeated, research/query inabilities you exhibit, troll.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by seahawks123 (February 18, 2010 6:21 pm ET)
      5 21
      You couldn't get any of the libs here to swear an oath to the constitution. It's a document that puts limits on government. Now an oath to Obama they would do in second and probably already has.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by roverflash (February 18, 2010 6:40 pm ET)
        9 5
        Have you EVER spoken with someone who considers Obama as some sort of savior? Ever?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by null1fy (February 18, 2010 6:53 pm ET)
          5 12
          I do almost everytime I post a response on this bizarre web site.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by benjr (February 18, 2010 7:58 pm ET)
            10 5
            Liar. Provide proof. I know facts and data mix with you like oil and water, but I still hold out hope you might find a way to converse logically yet.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by RightsMatter (February 19, 2010 2:32 am ET)
                 
              He's a liar because he doesn't provide proof that he's spoken to someone like you vaguely described? This "liar" pile-on tactic is as weak as it gets. I have, in fact, spoken to someone like you describe. She referred me to this site as near gospel and criticized other sites that she later admitted she had never even visited.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (February 18, 2010 8:07 pm ET)
            13 5
            Liar. The people who describe Obama as the left's Messiah aren't on the left, but are people on the right who are mocking the left.

            You haven't EVER gotten a reply on this website where anyone has acted like Obama is their Messiah. Not ever.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 18, 2010 9:15 pm ET)
            6 4
            Liar.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by loonz (February 18, 2010 11:01 pm ET)
            7 3
            I concur. He's a liar.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (February 19, 2010 1:35 am ET)
            7 2
            [http://neoavatara.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/l2_46730.jpg]
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Floyd (February 19, 2010 9:19 am ET)
              3 6
              That's funny! The LEFT leg is on fire, while the right leg is standing straight and supporting all the rest. Might be some kind of subliminal message.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by benjr (February 19, 2010 10:48 am ET)
                4  
                Yeah. A one legged pair of pants is a crappy pair of pants.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by null1fy (February 19, 2010 11:42 am ET)
                1 2
                Everything is backwards to the loons so it makes sense in their minds.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by raddave43 (February 19, 2010 1:24 pm ET)
                1  
                Actually you can see in the picture that the right leg is hanging there limp and incapable of supporting anything.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Floyd (February 20, 2010 8:50 am ET)
                    2
                  Actually, you can see in the picture ... nothing is holding the pants up except the right leg. However, like a true liberal, you deny facts when they don't agree with your agenda.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by raddave43 (February 21, 2010 12:12 pm ET)
                       
                    Actually you can see the pants are being held up by something attached to a belt loop. And you claim pins ignore the obvious. Also how many pants do you know that can stand on their own?
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 19, 2010 1:15 pm ET)
            2  
            I do almost everytime I post a response on this bizarre web site. - unknown

            Right, but that is seahawks. He doesn't really mean it. He actually believes he's funny. Don't feel bad that you didn't get it, he believes a lot of things that are demonstrably false.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by D-Man_Scientist (February 20, 2010 6:25 pm ET)
             
          http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/kay24/gGxnCP

          http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/mariogriffith/gGgYVP

          and on this anti-Obama website, numerous examples of Obama supporters who see more than just a great president and politician:

          http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

          There are some scary-weird people out there.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Ema_Nymton (February 18, 2010 6:48 pm ET)
           
        .

        "You couldn't get any of the libs here to swear an oath to the constitution. It's a document that puts limits on government. Now an oath to Obama they would do in second and probably already has."

        Nyuk nyuk nyuk. Moe, Larry, Cheese.

        Wait, where is the pie in the face?

        Well I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.

        Nyuk nyuk nyuk. Moe, Larry, Cheese.

        Ema Nymton
        ~@:o?
        .
        Report Abuse
      • Author by wookie (February 18, 2010 6:55 pm ET)
        9 1
        Funny how you guys suddenly liked those limits as of 1-20-09.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by loonz (February 18, 2010 7:23 pm ET)
          8 2
          Those people who swore that oath seem like paranoid freaks and they need to see a psychiatrist promptly.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (February 18, 2010 7:18 pm ET)
        9 2
        I've been arguing with right-wingers here for years about the proper function of the Constitution. They're under the silly impression that the Constitution limits the rights of the general public.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Floyd (February 19, 2010 8:51 am ET)
          1 8
          That's the thing about left-wingers. All they do is argue. Have you ever tried to have a conversation without argueing? Maybe you could try being respectable to those who you talk to and it won't turn into an arguement. Like stop using words that demonize a group or individual simply because they don't agree with you. But, respect is something you earn, which is why so few on the left have it.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Johaely (February 19, 2010 10:32 am ET)
               
            And a beatiful example of the kettle calling the pot black.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Ruby (February 19, 2010 11:30 am ET)
            3  
            Right, because this post right here is not argumentative in tone at all. How silly is it for a person to argue with someone else about how the OTHER person is so argumentative. I mean, really?

            It's so degrading for loonz to use the term "right-wingers", yet you can freely use the term "left-wingers" and that's completely "respectful", right?

            Do you know what the word is for people who condemn others for behavior they themselves engage in, especially when they are engaging in the condemnable behavior within their very condemnation of it?

            A hypocrite.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 19, 2010 1:17 pm ET)
            3  
            Floyd, do you really not see the obvious hypocrisy in your post? It is sad and funny at the same time that this flies right over your head.

            There is nothing inherently disrespectful of arguing. You should have been taught that long ago. It is probably too late now.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Floyd (February 20, 2010 8:59 am ET)
                3
              So, if I call a liberal a 'liberal' you are considering that name-calling? It's quite obvious I think liberalism is one of the worst ideals ever promoted by anyone in the world and I use it often as a demeaning description of people who frequent this site. However, for you to consider it a bad thing to be called a 'liberal' is quite amuzing and exposes the true feelings of liberals who can't even stand being called a 'liberal'. Must be quite a platform you have there if even you consider being called a 'liberal' a BAD thing. I'll bet nazi's hated being called nazi's too. Dang, another correlation between similar ideals.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 20, 2010 11:53 am ET)
                2  
                What in the world are you even talking about, Floyd? Do you read your posts before you post them? They are truly nonsensical and void of any rational thinking.

                Did you go on in a post about how I am offended to be called liberal? I have no idea where you got that. You seem even more confused than usual. You can call me whatever you want to. I am not so easily offended by the ill-informed. But, do you see in your post where you go on about how liberals are sensitive just because you call them liberals and then you call them nazis? That's where your extreme partisanship and ignorance shines through. Don't you find that "amuzing"?

                And, you really think you are stirring anyone up or offending anyone with this grade school nonsense? It's like playing basketball with the slow kid and watching him dribble with both hands. He's so obviously slower than the rest of the class you don't call double dribble, you let him go on and shoot the ball over the hoop. So, good shot, Floyd. You were real close on that one!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Floyd (February 21, 2010 10:03 am ET)
                     
                  mike-- But, do you see in your post where you go on about how liberals are sensitive just because you call them liberals and then you call them nazis?

                  Wow! What reading comprehension! In your mind I called liberals nazi's. In reality, I called nazis nazis. I think I shot a lot closer than you did. Mine even hit the rim. Unlike some of yours where you claim Bill Ayers has never been given a legitimate media platform to spew his hatred ... ayer ball.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by nativeofsf (February 18, 2010 7:51 pm ET)
        6 1
        Just can't ever make a cogent comment or response can you, seahaw? That non-insightful trolling of yours, bespeaks the notochord upon which you stride to strive, seasaw[?]
        Report Abuse
      • Author by raddave43 (February 18, 2010 9:16 pm ET)
        8 1
        Sorry dumbass, I did take the Oath to the constitution six times and made a career out of it, but I also remember the second half of that oath, to obey all orders of the President of the United States and the Officers appointed over me. How many times did you take it?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mookie von zipper (February 18, 2010 11:26 pm ET)
          2 6
          all orders?... if the president or your superior officers ordered you to commit treason would you do it?...

          btw, even though you weren't addressing me, i took the oath once and have an honorable discharge to prove it...

          Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (February 19, 2010 12:39 am ET)
            7  
            Can you think of any circumstance where a President has ordered military personnel to commit treason? Do you see a circumstance when it would happen? I don't. As a soldier who is retiring soon, I know we have an obligation to not obey unlawful orders, but I also know that it is not my opinion about what constitutes an ulawful order, but the opinion of the military justice system.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mookie von zipper (February 19, 2010 12:54 am ET)
                9
              can i think of one?... no, but if oliver stone is to be believed, a vice-president has...

              do i see a possible circumstance?... of course, the patriot act has already greased the skids... and just because it may never happen is no reason not to be vigilant...

              but you're right about the ucmj (uniform code of military justice for you civilians)...


              Report Abuse
              • Author by raddave43 (February 19, 2010 1:00 am ET)
                7  
                Oliver Stone is not well known for his historical accuracy. The Patriot Act did not call for the military to fight against this country or to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by raddave43 (February 19, 2010 1:01 am ET)
                5  
                I also forgot the Vice President is not in the chain of command, so technically he has no authority over the military.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mookie von zipper (February 19, 2010 1:22 am ET)
                    6
                  i merely referred to the patriot act as a slippery slope erosion of liberties thing...

                  the veep's authority is irrelevant to my point... you think generals on the take from the military industrial complex would have told lbj, again if ace historian stone is to be believed, "i'm sorry, sir, we can only commit treason on orders from the president"?...

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by raddave43 (February 19, 2010 9:20 am ET)
                    5  
                    Well like I said Oliver Stone is not well known for sticking with the truth in his movies.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by worrierking (February 19, 2010 10:48 am ET)
                      3  
                      Next we'll be debating Jack Bauer fans. Oliver Stone has taken liberties with history throughout his career. I'm sure he'd be the first to agree that all of his movies are fiction. He's best at what he knows. That's being a PFC. And as anyone who's been a PFC knows, they're treated like mushrooms.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by mookie von zipper (February 19, 2010 1:59 pm ET)
                        1
                      natural born killers wasn't real?... i've been deceived!...

                      Report Abuse
      • Author by epkklk851 (February 18, 2010 10:24 pm ET)
        7  
        seahawks, I swore the same oath to protect and defend the Constitution that Joe Biden swore when he was inaugurated as Vice President. I took it very seriously. I would not take an oath to of loyalty or protection to any one man. The office has the respect, not necessarily the individual in it.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Missouri Democrat (February 19, 2010 1:49 pm ET)
        2  
        Geeze and all this time I thought the oath I swore to when I joined the USMC to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic so on and so forth was actually an oath. Now I learn it's not an oath and only good rightwing conservatives were allowed in the military. Funny I don't remember my recruiter asking me my political views. I guess they let me slip through the cracks and my dad too, he was in the USMC during WWII, but since there was a draft and it was a pretty big war they had to let everybody in. Even us heathen god disbelieving Democrats. Major props to Seahawks for giving me a new look at history.
        Sarcasm turned off now. :)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Missouri Democrat (February 19, 2010 1:54 pm ET)
          3  
          The sarcasm was directed at Seafoam for trying to rewrite history.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by inbow (February 18, 2010 7:44 pm ET)
      7 2
      Hey, maybe O'Reilly could have the Oath Keepers, and the Teabaggers on the same show? They could then unite into one sick movement. Let see, know, what would be a good name for them? The Teabaggers Oath Keepers, or maybe The Keeper of Teabagger Oaths. We need some ideas.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nativeofsf (February 18, 2010 7:59 pm ET)
        8 2
        the Oath Keepers, and the Teabaggers on the same show?

        And what happens after they interbreed?...The HORROR!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dave (February 18, 2010 9:06 pm ET)
          4 13
          Well, if that nut job Cindy Sheehan was given a platform, why not these nut jobs?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 18, 2010 9:16 pm ET)
            8 2
            She isn't a nut. Nice try though.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (February 18, 2010 11:14 pm ET)
            5 1
            People with nutty ideas are not near as dangerous as people who support treasonous behavior or who are huge supporters of guns.

            That's why THESE nut jobs shouldn't be given a platform by a legitimate news organization.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by nativeofsf (February 19, 2010 5:25 pm ET)
              3  
              It's preaching seditious behavior -- not "treasonous behavior."!
              Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (February 19, 2010 7:04 pm ET)
                2 1
                I think preaching sedition is treasonous.

                But I understand and appreciate your point.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by rrastro (February 19, 2010 10:40 pm ET)
                    4
                  Wrong dell...treason is defined as taking arms against the union
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (February 20, 2010 1:05 pm ET)
                    2  
                    Actually, no, it's not. That's "high treason".

                    Treason is

                    1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
                    2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

                    Promoting sedition fits PERFECTLY with the definition above - a violation of allegiance towards one's country by violence.

                    Sedition is

                    Willfully advocating or teaching the duty or necessity of overthrowing the US government or any political subdivision by force or violence.
                    Report Abuse
      • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 18, 2010 9:15 pm ET)
        9 4
        How about simply Oathbaggers.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by JimmyCraghorn (February 18, 2010 10:20 pm ET)
          5 3
          I like the Teakeepers.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by epkklk851 (February 18, 2010 10:26 pm ET)
          5 3
          Oathbaggers, it works for me. And remember, James O'Keefe is involved with Teabuggery.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (February 19, 2010 10:49 am ET)
            3 1
            And soon he'll be experiencing other forms of buggery.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by epkklk851 (February 19, 2010 11:24 am ET)
              2  
              Sadly, yes. Prison is a terrible place to send anybody. I am sure they will target a squeaky clean boy, especially when his "pimp" reputation precedes him.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by IRONY 101 (February 18, 2010 10:38 pm ET)
          4 3
          How about Angry Nutbaggers Who Are Licensed To Carry High-Powered Guns?

          Another powder keg waiting to blow...
          Report Abuse
      • Author by John Paradox (February 18, 2010 11:06 pm ET)
        4 2
        The Oathbaggers?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by ABBA|Proudly teaBAGGING Liberals (February 21, 2010 9:29 am ET)
           
        YUP, still much better to be a teabagger than the teabagged... I can see it now... don't gag on it...

        Report Abuse
        • Author by raddave43 (February 21, 2010 12:20 pm ET)
             
          I can guarentee you that if you or any other wingnut tried to " teabag me" that you will quickly find yourself missing your teabags.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by dswynne (February 18, 2010 9:00 pm ET)
         
      I find it interesting that many of you are not supporting the Oath Keepers on this case. Would you say that those people who were "conscientious objectors" during the Bush II Administration years dangerous and treasonous for not following a presidential directive for deployment? And look what happened at Abu Gharib. Had the soldiers actually disobeyed an obviously illegal order, that fiasco would have never took place. A soldier and constable is suppose to uphold and defend the US Constitution upon taking the oath. Respect that at least, and not get sucked up in political partisanship.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (February 18, 2010 10:20 pm ET)
      7 2
      Oath Keepers certainly make a compelling argument for psychological testing in the military and in police forces.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mookie von zipper (February 19, 2010 12:39 am ET)
      1 7
      from the stop-these-guys-from-obeying-unlawful-orders dept:

      lemme get this straight... media matters and most of their like-minded ideologues here think that oath keepers are anti-government extremists and/or flat-out wack jobs because they have taken oaths to protect and defend the constitution and, hypothetically, won't take part in treason...

      concern about preserving the second amendment is not a new concept, it precedes these oath keeper guys and is hardly irrational...

      reporting from murderland ranch,
      i'm mookie von zipper
      massmurdermedia


      Report Abuse
      • Author by raddave43 (February 19, 2010 12:46 am ET)
        7 1
        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.


        This is what scares me about the "oath keepers" They say that they will join any group that decides a Revolution is necessary, and that in itself would constitute Treason. The overthrowing of a Government in accordance with the Constitution is not only not defending the Constitution, but is against that very document that these individuals swore to protect and therefore THEY would be the traitors.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mookie von zipper (February 19, 2010 1:11 am ET)
          1 4
          arbitrarily deciding revolution is necessary because a president's agenda is considered socialist by tea partyers is clearly treasonous... but if any of their so-called tripwires occurs, as far-fetched as they may be, then revolution clearly is in order...

          Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (February 19, 2010 1:17 am ET)
            4 1
            Sorry I can not ever agree to you that a revolution would be clearly in order. It in itself is an act of Treason. How can "socialism" be considered treasonous?

            Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.


            Treason as defined by the Constitution. It mentions nothing about implimenting unpopular agendas is not mentioned.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mookie von zipper (February 19, 2010 1:34 am ET)
              1 5
              of course socialism is not treasonous, that's not my point... i understood your concern about oath keepers to be fear they would use any excuse for revolution, not just their list of orders they won't obey... so as an example i used a criticism you hear every day from their ilk, that obama is ramming a socialist agenda down our throats...

              if you're of the opinion that even the far-out scenarios from their list is not enough to justify revolt then you would have to violate your oath by not defending the constitution, and you would be the one committing treason, not them...



              Report Abuse
              • Author by dolfan (February 19, 2010 7:07 am ET)
                   
                Your way with words amaze me.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by raddave43 (February 19, 2010 1:16 pm ET)
                2  
                The "far-out" scenarios would most likely be after a revolt has started. And one of their order they refuse to obey is factually wrong. It is #4 which states they would not act against any state unless the legislature AND the governor of that state invited the Federal government to intervene. The insurrection act of 1807 states that the federal government may intervene if the state legislature requests it and if they are not able to meet, then the governor may make this request. Also the Posse Comitatus Act, states that the military can't be used to enforce laws except under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or an Act of Congress. And that actions taken under the insurrection act are exempt from Posse Comitatus Act.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mookie von zipper (February 19, 2010 2:05 pm ET)
                    1
                  well, until they prove otherwise, i'll just have to take these guys' word that the far-out scenarios would precede their revolt... i appreciate your constitutional scholarship, i'll readily admit it's far superior to mine... we just disagree on the oath keepers' intentions, it seems to me...

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by raddave43 (February 20, 2010 1:44 am ET)
                    1  
                    I just know how to use the google to find information. LOL Actually I went through a police acadamy when I was young and we had to learn a lot of constitutional law, and I have a brother who is an lawyer so I have to try to keep up with him as well.

                    I just am very leary of groups that pop up only after the current President was elected claiming they are going to stand up for everyone's constitutional rights when they stood silence while some of those orders they say they refuse to obey were being carried out, such as American citizens being held as "enemy combatants" and were held in detention camps.
                    Report Abuse
        • Author by dolfan (February 19, 2010 7:06 am ET)
             
          These people sound no different than the Taliban or Jihadists! They believe what they believe and will go to any means to accomplish their twisted goals.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by jcalton (February 19, 2010 3:00 am ET)
        1
      Wouldn't the normal course of events here be to wait and see what O'Reilly does with them or allows them to say, then analyze that? The story here is that there soon might be a story. That's not really a story.

      "I promise not to eat a baby if Obama orders me to do it."

      Why would you care if anyone made that pledge?

      I'm not sure what the problem is with people swearing not to carry out orders that you believe are imaginary*.

      * Japanese-Americans would fervently disagree on that point. So would high school-level textbooks.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by drivennail (February 19, 2010 7:08 am ET)
        4  
        In my eyes, the problem is that the teabaggers and "oathkeepers" are sticking with their interpretation of the constitution!
        Remember the Muslim army psyc who opened fire on his fellow military brothers and sisters, and family; because he felt the war in Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal? Would you call him an "oathkeeper"?
        These right-wing nuts have no problem with America maintaining the GULAG Caribbean at Gitmo. That is saying that the constitution is paramount, but we can set up a little enclave and say that this is American-controlled space, but the constitution doesn't apply there.

        The "oathkeeper's" ideology is like demanding that I make an oath to stop beating my wife. The fact that I never have has no bearing on them. It just becomes a second litmus test to one's "true patriotism". I'm retired military. What if several people in my squadron were getting together and making the oath, but I didn't. Its not irrational to feel that my action would put me in danger of being an early casualty in their perceived inevitable conflict.

        The Constitution wasn't very friendly to blacks either, and I think this fringe group has been upset ever since the emancipation proclamation, with Obama's presidency just too much for them to take, so they set up this fake organization in order to try to dilute his constitutional authority. (Like somebody proclaiming that they only take orders from God.)

        And to the Texas guy: Get a life. Perhaps you still feel you aren't part of the UNITED States, that Texas is just an associate member or something. Is there something in the constitution or elsewhere that gives texas its "almost a state" status? I don't think so. Perhaps it should go back to Mexico, because that war wasn't too constitutional either. Does that make you a violator of the "Oathkeeper" movement as well?....or are you just picking and choosing which ones you want to agree with?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mookie von zipper (February 19, 2010 2:15 pm ET)
            1
          if you want a history lesson i'll be glad to elaborate, but in a nutshell, mexico signed a treaty with texas ceding sovereignty... blood was shed, but it had nothing to do with texans invading mexico so there was nothing to "give back"... tejanos fought alongside the texans for independence... for more info visit:

          san jacinto museum of history



          Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 20, 2010 3:06 pm ET)
            1  
            Riiiiight. It was always Texas, the land just didn't know it yet.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mookie von zipper (February 20, 2010 11:28 pm ET)
                 
              i never said it was... just pointed out that mexico wasn't taken thru an "unconstitutional war"... besides, it wasn't always mexico either...

              Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (February 19, 2010 12:41 pm ET)
        1 1
        Nope.

        O'Reilly should NOT give airtime to this group because of their already-proven track record and their beliefs.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jcalton (February 19, 2010 2:54 pm ET)
          1 2
          Already proven track record...what actions have they taken?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Floyd (February 20, 2010 9:09 am ET)
          1 2
          How about Bill Ayers "proven track record and beliefs"? Should he be allowed airtime on 'legitimate' media outlets? Careful how you answer ... I would hate to bring the H-word into this.


          H-word = hypocrit (in case you couldn't figure it out)
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 20, 2010 11:56 am ET)
            1  
            Good try, Floyd. Keep dribbling with both hands, buddy. That last shot almost touched backboard.

            Oh, and you misspelled "hypocrit". Might wanna look that up next time. Good try, though!
            Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (February 20, 2010 1:08 pm ET)
            1  
            Right after he was involved in those kinds of behaviors? Nope.

            70 years later, after he's acted in many different ways? Yeah.

            Your black and white thinking is showing, Floyd.

            Ayers "proven track record" doesn't stop 40 years ago. This is not rocket science.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by jcalton (February 19, 2010 2:51 pm ET)
        1  
        In fact, today is the anniversary of the order to round up all the Japanese Americans.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

        This is not a defense of the Oathkeepers. I think they are shady and reactionary, but I'm pretty sure they are still entitled to 1st Amendment rights. Or are we only giving those to people we agree with now?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (February 19, 2010 7:06 pm ET)
          2  
          The fact that the GOVERNMENT can't restrict lawful free speech has nothing whatsoever to do with them getting a platform from any rightwing media!!!
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Christophe Thill (February 19, 2010 5:08 am ET)
         
      Two comments :
      - According to their own list, these guys would have refused to fight in the Civil War
      - They never say thay they'd refuse to put someone in a gas chamber. They never say that they'd refuse to kill innocent civilians. They never say that they'd refuse to commit any sort of war crime. Why?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by JoshSN (February 19, 2010 8:15 am ET)
        1
      People in the military take an Oath to obey the Constitution and the President and their superiors. even if the orders of the President or their superiors are unconstitutional.

      The American government has put people in concentration camps before during WWII. It did pick up Muslims, after 9/11, without using the normal procedures. Do any of you remember how police stood on a bridge near New Orleans and refused to let any of the black people leave and enter their county?

      One problem I see with government is that sometimes illegal orders are given. Orders to lose, hide or manufacture evidence are often seen in movies, and in the more unbelievable ones, there are orders given to kill inconvenient people. While I expect the mafia to try to kill witnesses against them, I do not expect the government to do so.

      I don't believe there are camps being set up, I don't believe foreign troops are coming in, I don't believe the UN is about to take over, I don't see black helicopters, and I do see gross hypocrisy in the words of the Oath Keepers (they complain about the civil liberties Bush took away, but only got organized when Obama didn't repeal those acts).(example).

      I'm not seeing these guys as scary yet. Someone have a link?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bludog1 (February 19, 2010 8:27 am ET)
        1 3
        I was not in military so I am asking a question for information. Wasn't Nurenberg the example where following orders, when those orders were clearly out of bounds of reason and the GConvention, was not a defense?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by drivennail (February 19, 2010 8:49 am ET)
          5  
          bludog,
          That's correct, but there is a big difference between a soldier vowing to obey all lawful orders, and a soldier inserting an unknown, shadowy organization that has to clear any order as being "OK".
          A US Soldier just has to have the testicular fortitude to know when that thin gray line is crossed.
          Drone strikes is an area where most any soldier understands that there is a military mission in place, and it is having success. In MAI LAI (Vietnam), most soldiers would know that killing a child is not a lawful order and he has a duty to resist if possible and report as soon as possible.
          I just take grave exception to having some possibly subversive organization second-guessing and sowing distrust. There is no plce for them.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bludog1 (February 19, 2010 9:20 am ET)
            1  
            Thanks. That was helplful. I wasn't sure that I understood how all this works together.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by jcalton (February 19, 2010 2:52 pm ET)
             
          I originally mentioned Nuremburg while drafting a post above, but took it out because I assumed it would:
          a) Sound like I think the Oath Keepers are a good idea
          b) Raise a lot of questions with people that don't know history
          c) Would lead to a GODWIN'S LAW response.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by sweetleaf (February 19, 2010 8:07 pm ET)
           
        The new copy of Mother Jones has an in-depth article about the oath-keepers and their relations to militia/constitutionalist/whacko groups.

        I went to the MJ website and apparently it is not up yet.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by kp1944 (February 19, 2010 9:20 am ET)
         
      this is one of the worst pieces i've ever read. o'reilly made the oath keepers look worse than they could have ever looked in any other scenario. are you trying to make an argument that o'reilly offering both sides a platform translates into a promotion of the side you oppose? and you made this assumption before the interview even occurs?

      i've never been to this site before, but after reading this, i'd never put more than a grain of salt into any opinion given here. if the author really believed what he/she claims, he/she would've interpreted o'reilly's offer to host the oath keepers as a chance to expose them. only coward, phony or bully would have a problem with their opposition's voice being heard on an unbiased platform.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 19, 2010 10:50 am ET)
      3  
      "The fears crystallized when Obama took office and suddenly had access to the accumulated power."

      Translation: We became afraid of the chief executive having too much power when the majority of Americans voted that ni99er into the WH.

      These folk have been saying that the basis of their opposition to Obama is because of his policies (for a few of them this might be true, maybe.) I have never bought into this because, since I am an older AA, I know how people like these operate. They don't have the courage to say exactly why they oppose his policies and use BS reasons as a cover for their true feelings.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by coveclimber (February 19, 2010 12:48 pm ET)
           
        Hadn't ever heard it worded this way but makes perfectly clear sense to me. I tend to agree with your keen insight. Thanks for that clarification! Fits Foxx "News", and their true agenda as well I'm sorry to say!
        The dangers I see with the Oath Keepers, over some others who may hold similar political ideas is the fact that they consist of many high ranking Officers of the Law, and those with Military background training and Special Forces being those included, and encouraged to join in this "special" group. That means not only the preference and propensity to have and use weapons, but access to the deadliest arsenals in the nation.
        With their combined background, and potential control of where these weapons are kept; all the ammunition needed to supply the use of these weapons; and the training to subdue and/or eliminate anyone who gets in their way, it should absolutely scare everyone. If some American group of Muslim faith were to organize with a similar oath, do you not think they would be considered as terrorists threats? What's the difference?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Jarhead1982 (February 19, 2010 11:59 am ET)
         
      Worrierking, please identify, present, and explain the military code that specifies upholding the US Constitution is an act of treason.

      Still looking for the settled case laws that define the Oath the Oathkeepers have declared they will uphold as 1) illegal, 2) treasonous. Anything other than specific LAW as an answer means the opinion of such as treasonous is conjecture and fantasy.

      The media gives one of the most virulent hate group minorities, the Southern Poverty Law Center their fifteen minutes of fame to splash their fear mongering diatribe, yet it is wrong to give the target of their libelous tirade a chance to counter?

      Why are the MSM and some of those in power so CONCERNED with just 1,000 former military & police upholding the US Constitution? Here is a theory. The mindless programing during military or police training hasn't imbued these people with the callousness of the people automatically being declared the enemy and all powerful government is God!

      Government think tanks have been performing studies on just about every contingency in or outside the box of reality, and you can bet such a movement of strict constitutionalist military and police HAS BEEN considered and the actions needed step by step to counter such a movement. Direct government involvement, nah, use an outside flunky to do the dirty propaganda work as demonization is the very first step in winning a propaganda battle (see Saul Alinsky, noted Socialist activist who had several of our current high ranking politicians as students, read his play book and compare, lol, if you dare).

      Plausible deniability is valued beyond measure in the government and military, thats not conspiracy theory, thats politics 101 boys and girls, prove otherwise.

      Maybe you should review the average police academy training these days eerily similar to how a Marine Corp trainee is broken down physically first, then mentally molded to be able to function automatically without thought. Being a Marine, I know how this system of training works.

      The other part of reality that government is well aware of is that since the beginning of this nation, our training system and tradition for soldiers has been such that the majority of the soldiers all the way down to privates has the training and capability of leading as well as questioning an order, or use of that person intelligence. There is a proper process for such questioning of orders in the military code of justice. Does that apply to just current military personnel or does it include retired military/police?

      Another dangerous thought to the control freaks is that there are between 25-35 million retired military personnel in the US today. Hmmm, only 3 million US Military police world wide, what would be the effect or effort to recall all these forces back to US soil? Yeah, that contingency HAS been considered

      Anyone here know that of the regular military forces, a Marine is considered to be one of the hardest to break or coerce when captured. Too bad for the control freaks in and out of government cant brainwash everyone under their control and that oh so many of those retired military personnel have the same capabilities of thought and decision capabilities.

      The government should indeed be concerned!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (February 19, 2010 12:11 pm ET)
      1  
      Why did the Oath Keepers just come into being after Obama came into office? One of their 'Orders We Won't Obey' is that they won't follow any order to treat an American citizen as an enemy combatant and subject them to trial by military tribunal. Who came up with that whole concept? It wasn't Obama. The rest of the 'Orders We Won't Obey' are things that will never happen outside of their parnoid fantasies.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jose2 (February 19, 2010 1:59 pm ET)
        4
      So what is better, joining the Oathkeepers or crashing your plane into an IRS building?

      Put another way, is it better to follow the Constitution or better to use violence to solve injustice?

      You would think this would be an easy question to answer, but not here with the progressive idiots.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (February 19, 2010 2:37 pm ET)
        3  
        I haven't seen any evidence yet of injustice towards Stack. Neither have I seen any evidence that anyone in the Oath Keepers knows jack sh!t about the Constitution.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jose2 (February 19, 2010 2:53 pm ET)
            4
          I believe the IRS is full of injustice, just as Stack explained.

          I would like to see the 16th Amendment repealed and replaced with the Fair Tax or some kind of flat tax.

          To understand the Constitution, reading it is a good start. I'll bet it's been a long time since most of Congress read it.



          Report Abuse
          • Author by shaggles (February 19, 2010 3:34 pm ET)
            3  
            Stack apparently was involved in some kind of scam in the '80's to avoid paying taxes and ended up having to pay what he owed (and I assume some penalties.) That's not injustice. I've been screwed by the IRS too. I was trying to do the right thing but reported it wrong and got fined. I tried to explain what I was trying to do but they didn't care. Yes they were pedantic and unhelpful but not unjust. It was my mistake and I paid for it and moved on.

            As far as the Oath Keepers and the Constitution goes I don't think they don't seek to uphold the Constitution. They seek to uphold their interpretation of the Constitution and I don't trust their interpretation.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jose2 (February 19, 2010 4:01 pm ET)
                5
              It takes about 30 minutes to read the Constitution.

              Progressives like to say that all of the first ten amendments grant individual rights except for the second amendment which grants rights to the government.

              It's the twisting of the Constitution that has made its interpretation corrupt. I would rather have a simpleton read and interpret it than a bunch of crooked lawyers.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by shaggles (February 19, 2010 4:31 pm ET)
                1  
                I would rather have the Supreme Court interpret it than a bunch of paranoid zealots. But we can agree to disagree. ;) Have a good weekend.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by jose2 (February 19, 2010 5:10 pm ET)
                    4
                  Normally I would agree with you. But when I saw of 5-4 decision on the Second Amendment, I felt sick.

                  Maybe a 8-1 or 7-2 (either way) would give some confidence that the Constitution was interpreted correctly.

                  I don't see how a decision on something so plain can be 5-4.

                  Why would only one of the first ten amendments not convey individual rights?

                  It is mind boggling.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by raddave43 (February 20, 2010 1:53 am ET)
                    1  
                    Well maybe Supreme court justices who have many years of experience in Constitutional law saw it differently than you did. One could make a pretty good argument that because the 2nd ammendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." Since States no longer have to rely on militias for security that the 2nd Ammendment is no longer valid. Also the term to "bear arms" meant at the time to fight or engage in combat. It didn't just mean we can carry weapons with us.

                    The 10th Ammendment doesn't convey any individual rights either.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by jose2 (February 20, 2010 8:35 am ET)
                        1
                      First of all, I agreed with their decision.

                      And unlike me, these SC justices with their years of experience could not agree with a 5-4 split.

                      Their votes for the most part went along party lines. That's not the way it's supposed to work.

                      And on the 10th amendment, you should actually read it instead of following what other people tell you it says.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by raddave43 (February 21, 2010 11:18 am ET)
                           
                        I have read it many times. It defines the rights of the states not individuals. Maybe YOU need to follow your advice.
                        Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (February 19, 2010 7:08 pm ET)
            2  
            So, the clerks and other enforcement people threatened by the plane Stack flew into their office building are somehow responsible for the tax code that Congress created?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jose2 (February 21, 2010 12:01 pm ET)
                 
              From the looks of your question, I have to ask if you have a problem with constipation?

              Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (February 20, 2010 1:57 am ET)
            2  
            Well until such time the 16th Ammendment is repealed, it is Constitutional for Congress to collect income taxes. Flat tax? Did you know that Adam Smith, the champion of free market economy was in favor of a progressive tax system. "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." From his book The Wealth of Nations.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by First Sergeant (February 19, 2010 3:06 pm ET)
         
      [b]I am a recently retired 21 year US Army Veteran. I am an Oath Keeper. A good portion of the media seems to gravely misunderstand our mission as OKers. We are not a Montana Hills Anti-Government Militia Group! We are, as a majority, educated and dedicated professionals with integrity, loyalty and pride of our nation (and its government)/b]
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bingolong (February 19, 2010 6:52 pm ET)
         
      General Jack D. Ripper must still be around...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ingemar (February 20, 2010 1:22 am ET)
      2 1
      You do realize that it was not Billo who brought the Oath Keepers into discussion in the first place, right? Fox News has also hosted members of the Westboro Baptist Church and consequently made a mockery out of them. Are you going to condemn the channel for that too?
      MSNBC had Orly Taitz et al. on their channel. I don't recall any mention of MMFA condemning that "promotion of an extremist group."
      If you're going to ridicule or otherwise gossip about a group anyway, why not invite a member to your show?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (February 20, 2010 1:28 pm ET)
        1  
        No, we can't read, so how could we possibly know, without your aid that is, that it was not Bill O'Reilly who first mentioned that a really scary group to the editor of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report is the Oath Keepers?

        Bill O'Reilly was told to watch out for this group, and he said that he'd give them a platform to air their views.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Doug-Life (February 20, 2010 5:47 pm ET)
         
      Why is MMfA giving the Oath Keepers a platform?
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.