• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Boycott Bill OReilley Fox News

old dog

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
396
Location
, ,
imported post

My understanding, and it may be fallacious since I am not a lawyer, is that martial law merely allows troops in the streets to maintain order and under certain circumstances military courts (i.e. drumhead trials) which might have served beautifully against New Orleans street gangs.

But a more important consideration is this: Are subordinate jurisdictions allowed to cherry-pick the Bill of Rights? Methinks not, for there lies chaos and this is really what the Chicago case is all about.

Also, don't forget that O'Reilly and Beck are at bottom showmen playing to an audience. While they often make good points it is all about entertainment.
 

buzzsaw

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
189
Location
Sneads Ferry, ,
imported post

Also, don't forget that O'Reilly and Beck are at bottom showmen playing to an audience. While they often make good points it is all about entertainment

Great point Dog. If the ratings drop the guy on stage gets the hook. May be about time for that to happen.
 

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

There is no such thing as "martial law" in the United States anymore. Unfortunately, there was conversation in the Bush Administration about actually creating martial law in the United States. The Defense Authorization Act of 2006 was pretty damn close and gave the government way too much power to use the army.

Most theorists base any idea of martial law on A1S9: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Martial Law was declared during the Civil War, as it was an example of rebellion where the citizens declared themselves no longer part of the Union, and thus the theory is that they were no longer Citizens and just enemy combatants. I'm not sure about this theory, but that's it.




old dog wrote:
My understanding, and it may be fallacious since I am not a lawyer, is that martial law merely allows troops in the streets to maintain order and under certain circumstances military courts (i.e. drumhead trials) which might have served beautifully against New Orleans street gangs.

But a more important consideration is this: Are subordinate jurisdictions allowed to cherry-pick the Bill of Rights? Methinks not, for there lies chaos and this is really what the Chicago case is all about.

Also, don't forget that O'Reilly and Beck are at bottom showmen playing to an audience. While they often make good points it is all about entertainment.
 

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

Beck is at the very, very bottom. The man doesn't even believe what he says, and his books and speeches often are completely contradictory. I understand that he appeals often to people that view him as a "hero" but the man is the worst kind of coward in my opinion: he preys on people's fears and then makes money from it.




buzzsaw wrote:
Also, don't forget that O'Reilly and Beck are at bottom showmen playing to an audience. While they often make good points it is all about entertainment

Great point Dog. If the ratings drop the guy on stage gets the hook. May be about time for that to happen.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

Pace wrote:
There is no such thing as "martial law" in the United States anymore.
Legally, you're correct. Practically, you're incorrect.

When the chief of police of a major U.S. city declares that no one other than police will be allowed to have a gun during an emergency, and then police and military work together to search out and confiscate guns door-to-door, especially now that police act as, and are treated as, a paramilitary force, it's disingenuous to say "there is no such thing as 'martial law'" in America today.

I realize you're using the narrow definition of "martial law", where military law applies to all citizens, and they may arrest and subjected to military courts solely on the military commander's orders.

That is a technical distinction, not a realistic one. When National Guard troops from other states wear the U.S. Army uniform and break down your door and demand your firearms, under punishment of arrest, then for all practical purposes we have military law. It doesn't really matter that they turn you over to civilian police and courts rather than the military justice system. Other than posse comitatus, that is... but that's already widely ignored.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

RockyMtnScotsman wrote:
...O'Reilly, it's clear he trust the government more than he trusts individual liberty and that he's incredibly naive when it comes to rights.
Fixed it for you.

O'Reilly is an arch-statist.


Tomahawk wrote:
IIRC this isn't really new, O'Reilly has been noted for his anti-gun, pro-police stance before, perhaps it was during Katrina.

But these guys count on their audiences having short memories. Not long ago Glenn Beck was calling Ron Paul supporters "domestic enemies" and his guest, David Horowitz, accussed them of being "in bed with the islamofascists".

Now Beck parades around with the Tea Party-types as if he's not an establishment tool and people cheer him.
Also, good post Tomahawk. Far too many people give Beck far too much credit for his watery "pro-liberty" stance.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Dreamer wrote:
What most of you are missing is that this whole "Right/Left" paradigm is a smokescreen.

There is NO "Right". There is no "Left". They are both just different sides of the same filthy coin. Both "sides" are working toward the same goal, just using different tactics and coming from different directions.

As the American public wakes up to this, and starts to attempt to take back gontrol og their government (with candidates like Ron Paul and Deb Medina), the tactics and rhetoric of the "puppet masters" will become more and more frenzied and their actions will become more extreme and desperate.

They know they are losing their grasp on our society, because people are waking up. They are going to start doing and saying some VERY strange and desperate things...

Twelve Months ago, Beck and O'Reilly were all for the Tea Party. They were saying it was a great thing, and that States Rights candidates like Ron Paul were going to "take back America from the Radical Left". Now that this very thing is happening, Becka and O'Reilly are demonizing the Tea PArty and States Rights movements, and are insinuating that these movements are full of dangerous, domestic terrorist-type people.

In that Oathkeepers interview, O'Reilly essentially comes out and says that he thought confiscating the firearms of law-abiding citizens, and beating up grandmothers who had legally-owned revolvers was a good thing. I think I actually threw up in my mouth a little during O'Reilly's remarks...

Which is it, Glenn and Bill? Are you FOR freedom, or AGAINST it?

The day after Deb Medina was on Glen Beck's show, both Beck and Chris Matthews (who is supposedly Beck's "Polar opposite" on MSNBC) were saying EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS about Medina--they were both accusing her of being a "911 "Truther", and having associations with radical Tea Party elements. Its like both Beck and Matthews were reading off the same teleprompter! Several of the statements they made were nearly IDENTICAL, down to the pace and phrasing they used. It was actually sort of creepy to hear the EXACT same messages coming from Fox's "far right" AND MSNBC's "far left".

Mark my words, O'Reilly and Beck are BOTH going to come out in the next few months for stricter gun laws, for increased regulation of General Aviation, and for stricter controls of the Internet. I guarantee this. The only thing I'm unsure about is how they are going to justify those positions as being "conservative". But I'm sure they will come up with some creative "doublespeak" to cover their butts.

You'd better damn well believe that the States Rights and Tea Party movements are dangerous. They are dangerous to people like Beck, O'Reilly, Matthews, and Olberman, because when the American People realize that they are nothing more than shills and whores for the people who are REALLY "pulling the strings", and that the "Right" and "Left" are just two sides to the same dirty coin, these pathetic, whorish talking heads will be out of a job, and standing in the unemployment lines like 20 percent of the American Public...

Wake up people. There is no "Right vs. Left" Don't let the media turn the People against themselves. Do NOT let them "Balkanize" the People. Do not let them conflate false tensions in the "States Rights" movement. Do NOT let them convince you that these movements are working against liberty. Don't fall for the smokescreen. We must press ahead, calmly, peacefully, and lovingly. We must hold fast to our families, our communities, and the Law of the Land. We must call these fake "journalists" out--publicly--for the whores, shills, and liars that they are.

But we must ALWAYS keep love in our hearts, peace in our minds, and the truth on our lips. The only thing these evil control-freaks hate more than our freedom is being exposed in their own lies and treachery.

Most of you out there have DVRs. Learn how to use them. Record BOTH "sides" of the news, and then watch them both. You'll be surprised to see that, these days, the "Right" and the "Left" are saying the EXACT same things on most issues, and their main message is that the American Public can't be trusted--with the 2A, the 1A, the 4A, or their computers.

Wake up, folks--you're being had. And the further they bend you over, the easier it is for them to blow smoke up your a$$...
While the statist Right as been attempting to co-opt the Tea Party movement (with some success), the gist of this post is right on the money.

So, +1. Excellent post.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

buster81 wrote:
government "has the right" to take action
Government has no rights.

It has only authority, with a hard limit defined by the sphere of individual rights.

Or that's how it was supposed to be.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Pace wrote:
Obviously no one read what I wrote: that there is a reason for a state of emergency, but that the government uses it way too often.
Your logic is inherently flawed. Your position is self-defeating.

This is what happens when you give government power. Any power. It doesn't matter how "reasonable" it may seem under some incredibly unlikely scenario.

It's only wise to give government power you'd be happy with it exercising right now today.

Courts are good. I can't imagine much else.
 

buster81

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

marshaul wrote:
buster81 wrote:
government "has the right" to take action
Government has no rights.

It has only authority, with a hard limit defined by the sphere of individual rights.

Or that's how it was supposed to be.
Easy. Your post makes it look like you are quoting my thoughts. That is what Billy O said, not me.
 

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

I agree, why you preaching to the choir?


marshaul wrote:
Pace wrote:
Obviously no one read what I wrote: that there is a reason for a state of emergency, but that the government uses it way too often.
Your logic is inherently flawed. Your position is self-defeating.

This is what happens when you give government power. Any power. It doesn't matter how "reasonable" it may seem under some incredibly unlikely scenario.

It's only wise to give government power you'd be happy with it exercising right now today.

Courts are good. I can't imagine much else.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Pace wrote:
I agree, why you preaching to the choir?


marshaul wrote:
Pace wrote:
Obviously no one read what I wrote: that there is a reason for a state of emergency, but that the government uses it way too often.
Your logic is inherently flawed. Your position is self-defeating.

This is what happens when you give government power. Any power. It doesn't matter how "reasonable" it may seem under some incredibly unlikely scenario.

It's only wise to give government power you'd be happy with it exercising right now today.

Courts are good. I can't imagine much else.
Well, I'm glad we agree. It seemed like you kind of vacillated on this issue. At first, I got the distinct impression that you were claiming there must be some emergency bad enough to justify suspending the RKBA.

I'm glad we agree that there cannot possibly be such an emergency.

Anyway, choir-preaching is fun.
 

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

In theory, the only case I can think of, would be like the Civil War, where people choose to leave the union, abandoned their citizenship and became enemy combatants.





marshaul wrote:
Well, I'm glad we agree. It seemed like you kind of vacillated on this issue. At first, I got the distinct impression that you were claiming there must be some emergency bad enough to justify suspending the RKBA.

I'm glad we agree that there cannot possibly be such an emergency.

Anyway, choir-preaching is fun.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Pace wrote:
In theory, the only case I can think of, would be like the Civil War, where people choose to leave the union, abandoned their citizenship and became enemy combatants.
Whoa!, another can of worms, there, but since you opened it: An armed civilian in enemy territory is not an "enemy combatant" unless he is fighting against you.

Keeping a gun in his home is not "fighting".

And if you invade his country and suspend his rights, treating him like cattle, you deserve what you get, anyway.

Being in a uniform under orders doesn't give you any moral authority over people who choose not to associate with you and want to live their lives free of your meddling.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

Pace wrote:
In theory, the only case I can think of, would be like the Civil War, where people choose to leave the union, abandoned their citizenship and became enemy combatants.
Whoa is right Tomahawk. Lincoln actuallydeclared martial law and suspended habeus corpusduring the War of Northern Agression. You should ask him how that turned out. No need, I'll go ahead and tell you.

SCOTUS said it was unconstitutional. Enough said?
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

rodbender wrote:
Pace wrote:
In theory, the only case I can think of, would be like the Civil War, where people choose to leave the union, abandoned their citizenship and became enemy combatants.
Whoa is right Tomahawk. Lincoln actuallydeclared martial law and suspended habeus corpusduring the War of Northern Agression. You should ask him how that turned out. No need, I'll go ahead and tell you.

SCOTUS said it was unconstitutional. Enough said?

Correct. And the reason it was unconstitutional is because the only time the president can legally suspend habeus corpus is if there is no functioning judicial system. The judicial system was functioning just fine throughout the war.

Lincoln used his power to imprison judges who ruled against him and those who opposed him politically.

He is universally cited by statists today who hold him up as an example of how to use power, even though his actions were ruled illegal.

And for the record, I'm no CSA sympathizer. I just call it like I see it, and the way I see it, a politician was using a crisis to abuse and enlarge his power, which is exactly what happens when you give them a chance to to declare "emergencies" and ignore the law and the rights of their own citizens.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
And for the record, I'm no CSA sympathizer. I just call it like I see it, and the way I see it, a politician was using a crisis to abuse and enlarge his power, which is exactly what happens when you give them a chance to to declare "emergencies" and ignore the law and the rights of their own citizens.
+1 You said it, friend.
 
Top