Constitutional Terrorists

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by hacon1, Feb 26, 2008.

  1. hacon1

    hacon1 Monkey+++

  2. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    shocking language, the brochure isactually posted here some where.I can't believe somebody in law enforcement actually had those printed up(I'd like to see them held accountable for it.) , but then; I can't believe we've gone this far down the rabbit hole.
  3. evilgijoe88

    evilgijoe88 Monkey+++

    and the UN.....? what exactly are they playing for a role here? either the constitution was what our country was built on or it isnt. i dont see how referring to what is and should be the highest law of the land makes one a terrorist, perhaps im just and idiot can it be explained to me?
  4. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Get with the "global program man ...go "globalist" or get medicated...
    global "good",
    independantsovereign citizen American cowboy "bad"
  5. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    Not to mention that the whole point of the constitution is ti LIMIT the power of government, so to bring it up is to remind them they dont have authority to do as they please and that indded is induces terror in politicians.
  6. evilgijoe88

    evilgijoe88 Monkey+++

    ahhh, i see now. poor silly idealistic me. its almost like the enlistment oath then right? or just as obsolete in there eyes"protect and defined the constitution of the United States of America"...doesnt that make the entire military terrorists? omg !
  7. evilgijoe88

    evilgijoe88 Monkey+++

    "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
  8. MbRodge

    MbRodge Monkey+++

    Someone may wish to call the FBI and inform them that there is a rather large group of people in this country who have access to fully automatic weapons, explosives, body armor and even tanks and fighter aircraft who have sworn oaths to defend the Constitution on the U.S. against all threats foreign and domestic. Yup, we should all call the FBI and warn them of the dangers posed by the US Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force immediately so that all members can be investigated. These people are required to swear an oath to protect the constitution before they are allowed to join and then go on to receive training in how to kill and maim anyone who tries to destroy it. I think that fits the description of persons of interest in that flier.
  9. ozarkgoatman

    ozarkgoatman Resident goat herder

    I remmeber saying those words but I don't remmeber signing anything that said I was no longer under that oath. [gun]

  10. NWPilgrim

    NWPilgrim Monkey++

    I guess since it is so hard for them to find gang members, foreign terrorists, illegal aliens, kidnappers, and other people who have actually committed CRIMES, they thought it might be easier to identify people who have IDEAS that make them queasy in the knees.

    How about looking for creeps stalking little boys and girls in malls and bus stops? How about looking for one of the hundreds of tunnels underneath the southern border in which humans and drugs are transported? How about tracking down the thousands who have over stayed their flight school visas for crying out loud?!!!! [notworking]
  11. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    I THOUGHT that the oath specified '...all LEGAL (or LAWFUL) orders of the President...', was I mistaken on that? If not then it wouldnt be an issue for them since they could simply be ordered to ignore the first part of the oath about protecting the constitution.
  12. evilgijoe88

    evilgijoe88 Monkey+++

    well ucmj is only applicable to lawful orders. but either way wouldnt what is stated first be in descending order of importance? ie constitution first?
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary