Soverign Citizen shoots first responders

In gun friendly Texas, A sovereign citizen decided to go hunting public servants:

Dallas Fire-Rescue initially responded to a dumpster fire at Frankford and North 40th Place. The man fired at the fire engine when they arrived. Firefighters sought cover, said Dallas Lt. Jose Garcia.

Dallas police were dispatched to the same location for a missing persons call.

Garcia said the officer did not hear the initial gunshots and were met with gunfire as they walked up to the location. They retreated and secured the perimeter. SWAT was called and the man surrendered.

Additionally, responding SWAT members had to clear the area of "suspect devices".

So, actual serving Oathbreakers (you are breaking your oath if you support anyone who is engaging in insurgent activity against the US per Article III, Section iii of the document you swore an oath to uphold), do you think that anyone who is so anti-government will see you as anything other than a representative of the despised government?

When you claim to uphold the oath, think of what the Constitution ACTUALLY SAYS about rebellion and that refusing to enforce the laws made in accordance with Article VI of that document, whether you agree with them or not, really turn you into.

And it is anything but a patriot.

more on this incident here.

See also:

• Sovereign citizen movement seen by US law enforcement as top terrorist threat: study
• START Understanding Law Enforcement Intelligence Processes July 2014 pdf

Rehash on insurrection

H.A. Goodman had an article in the Huffington Post called What Gun Advocates Should Remember: You'll Never Overthrow The Government and It Isn't Scared of You. It's pretty much the same thing that gets said over and over, but some people think they are going to be"heroes" when the are actually going to be dead idiots.

I am probably wasting my time trying to talk sense to people who think they know more than other people.

Anyway:

First, not everyone has the same definition of the word "tyranny." Some conservatives view Obamacare as tyrannical while many liberals view it as not going far enough in terms of nationalized health care. Furthermore, a law or tax viewed as despotic by some citizens might also be regarded as a necessity by the government. In the late 1700s, some Americans viewed the Founders in the same manner that many of us view Bush or Obama. Whether it was anger of taxes in the Whiskey Rebellion, or unfair treatment of veterans in Shay's Rebellion, armed Americans have never been able to overthrow their government, even in the early years of the country.

Simple fact: the Founders might have given citizens the right to bear arms, they viewed any rebellion to their authority as a mortal threat to the republic. Also, as Richard Brookhiser, the historian and senior editor at the National Review, states, it's the responsibility of citizens to vote or debate, not engage in violence in order to change legislation.

The real lesson here is that any illusion that owning one gun, or one hundred guns, would frighten or alter the way government behaves is not only unrealistic, but something George Washington would find unacceptable. The view propagated by the NRA that gun ownership keeps the federal government "in check" is not only historically inaccurate, but also contrary to the actions of our Founding Fathers.

Got that?

Try to make this simple for stupid people to try to understand.

One thing that makes the US great is Article III, Section iii of the US Constitution which says:

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

The Constitution also says:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Which means anything like founding father quotes and the Declaration of Independence (and other historical documents) ARE NOT legally binding.

So, you assholes need to live by the document you claim to believe in  or get a brain.

The Second Amendment does not explicitly repeal Article III, Section iii no matter how much your diseased minds might want it to, which means that you have to live by consitutional process, or work to change it through the system as provided in the constitution.

And if you took an oath to defend the nation or enforce the laws: guess what?

You have to do that job whether you agree with the law or nor.

If you are given a lawful order you must obey it, and you are not the final arbiter of what a lawful order is since I doubt you have the intelligence to know what the law is if you belong to an organisation as fucked up as the oath breakers.

So, before you start doing silly shit--you might want to get a handle on what exactly the Constitution says and how it works.

Although, that is probably too late for you and you are already doing some seriously fucked up shit.

Why Civilian Control of the Military?

I found this article while looking up Civilian Control of the Military.  It is found here:
www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45870

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, May 2, 2001


Civilian control of the military is so ingrained in America that we hardly give it a second thought. Most Americans don't realize how special this relationship is and how it has contributed to the country.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution worked to ensure the military would be under civilian control. They did not want to emulate the European experience. The colonies had just fought a war for freedom from Britain. The king controlled the British military, and the framers had no interest in duplicating that system.
When they wrote the Constitution they separated the responsibilities for the military, placing the responsibilities firmly in civilian hands.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power "to raise and support Armies …" and "to provide and maintain a Navy." In addition, Congress must provide for the state militias when they are called to federal service.
Article II, Section 2 states, "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual Service of the United States."
Congress has the power to declare war and to make the rules for governing the military.
So the framers spread responsibilities for the military around. The president and Congress had to work together to use the military.
<snip>


With the growth of political parties, an officer's political allegiance became important. President John Adams appointed Federalist officers to the military. As Jefferson's private secretary, Army Capt. Meriwether Lewis vetted the "Republican" (later Democratic) credentials of his fellow Army officers.
This reinforced the belief in the U.S. military that officers should not participate in politics. They should follow the orders of the president and the wishes of the Congress no matter who was in power. 

<snip>

Military members swear "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States." One of the more successful aspects of that document is civilian control of the military.

You call yourselves oathkeepers? Really?

I believe this is the US military oath of service:

This is something on the Police Oath of Office

The police oath of office is not one lightly taken. Pledging to defend the peace of a nation is important, and the oaths that beginning policemen swear are created to encourage that feeling of importance.First and foremost, a police oath is to protect the laws by which a nation abides - not the PEOPLE of that nation, as so many civilians seem to think, but the laws under which those people live.

Whether or not the law is a good one that protects the people or a bad one that harms them is not for a policeman to decide, though they are human and would of course prefer to defend both their fellow man and the law.Secondly, the police oath involves defending the peace. This is where the police sometimes stray, as their goal of making everything peaceful and harmonious can and does conflict with the freedoms of individuals, sometimes violently.Last but hardly least is a pledge to remain impartial in the execution of their duties. Despite any personal feelings of anger or disgust at a possible criminal's actions, a policeman is to act as an instrument of the law rather than upon their individual emotions. They are a part of the justice system, not the whole of it; their duty is to find those who violate the laws and bring them before the courts to receive sentencing without prejudice.

A sample oath of a United States police pledge may read as, "I, (state name) do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of (insert state). I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties of police officer of the (insert name) police department to the best of my ability. So help me God."

In other words, they don't make the law, they enforce it.

They need to move to politics if they don't like the laws they enforce.

Free Speech or Sedition

Joe Klein wrote a wonderfully succinct post on Swampland.

On the Chris Mathews Show Sunday, I said that some of the right-wing infotainment gasbags--people like Glenn Beck etc.--were nudging up close to the edge of sedition. This has caused a bit of a self-righteous ruckus on the right. Let me be clear: dissent isn't sedition. Questioning an Administration's policies isn't sedition. But questioning an Administration's legitimacy in a manner intended to undermine or overthrow it certainly is. A rally like this yesterday in South Carolina is a good example of seditious speech. It's not illegal--unless actions are taken to overthrow the government in question--but it is disgraceful and the precise opposite of patriotism in a democracy.

This is something that keeps coming up. Where is the line between patriotism and treason? We looked at it when we discussed the Oath Keepers, and it came up in a big way in the Adkisson case.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Mudrake on the Threepers and Oath Keepers

Man with the Muckrake posted an article the other day about the Threepers and Oath Keepers. The post included a picture of an American military man with patches on his uniform. We've talked about these guys before.

What I think is that this soldier and many of his comrades in arms were easily duped into believing the propaganda that the Bush White House and the Pentagon fed them. Simply, they were victims of an excellent and pernicious propaganda campaign foisted upon them by a knot of political ideologues who gathered together in the White House: the Neocons. It was the Neocons and the PNAC group who had, not the interest of the American people in mind, but rather a narrow self-serving political agenda and used the Armed Forces of this nation to complete their cunning plan.

In fact, this political agenda is exactly what the Three Percenters and Oath Keepers rail against in their credos. Amazing! Absolutely amazing, yet it is clear that propaganda techniques, when wrapped around the flag and Patriotism, will move many to, in fact, obey orders that are clearly not in the interest of this nation at all.

What's your opinion? How could these so-called patriots accept the lies and chicanery which got us into Iraq in the first place? Isn't that contrary to their beliefs, as Mudrake asks?

Please leave a comment.

The Oath Keepers

Laci posted today about the Oath Keepers. I was wondering when this one would come up.

In their Orders they will not obey (3) they say:
"We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal."

Would this mean that they wouldn't be able to detain John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban?

There are other questions that beg asking when reading their "non-exhaustive" list of orders they will not obey. But, what do you think? Are these the true patriots?

Critics might call them treasonous, but what occurred to me is the mercenary aspect of the web site. Prominently displayed are ways to "donate." Could it be nothing more than a slick con which appeals to so many? The paranoid self-aggrandizing characters whom I often say suffer from "grandiose victimism" probably number in the millions. I'll bet that site is a money maker.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.