Oreilly with SPLC tool and Oath Keeper Steward Roades

[Uriel999]

YouTube - Bill O'Reilly Interviews Mark Potok About Far-Right Tea Party Threats (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNf3ZtiKAD8)

YouTube - Bill O'Reilly Interviews Oath Keepers Founder Stewart Rhodes - 02/18/10 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Po8LLjIlDw)

[Uriel999]

Mark Potok is slimy slimy shill

[catdd]

The problem with discussing an issue like this with Oreilly is that he doesn't care about the constitution so he blows off every point you make in that regard. It's just an irrelevant piece of paper that often gets in the way of enacting violence upon the human race.
His interview with Rhodes just reminded me of why I had my cable shut off 2 years ago.

[Chester Copperpot]

is it just me.. or does Mark Potok look like the Wolfman or that guy from XMEN with the blades that come out of his fingertips?

[Immortal Technique]

Steward handled himself well

[Chester Copperpot]

http://www.hispanicmpr.com/images/2008/hmprMarkPotok.jpg

http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/w/wolverine3.jpg

http://www.hollywoodoutbreak.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/wolfman-jack.jpg

[dannno]

Great interview.

[VegasPatriot]

is it just me.. or does Mark Potok look like the Wolfman or that guy from XMEN with the blades that come out of his fingertips?

I think he looks more like Foster Brooks.
http://gravybread.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/fosterbrooks2-crop.jpg
http://www.hispanicmpr.com/images/2008/hmprMarkPotok.jpg

YouTube - Foster Brooks roasts Ralph Nader (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwW_3BVJQo)

[Anti Federalist]

Love the Oath Keepers project.

But in light of some remarks on other threads on other topics, I'd just ask this:

What are the Oath Keepers prepared to do to keep their oath?

When government sticks a loaded gun in the face of some Constitutional Sheriff, and demands that they follow orders, what are they prepared to do at that point?

[jmdrake]

Great job Stewart Rhodes! I'd love to see him debate that SPLC scum straight on!

[purplechoe]

http://www.insidesocal.com/tv/oreilly.jpg

[WaltM]

That's what separates a Constitutionalist with a person who looks at circumstances.

I'm surprised Bill didn't cuss & yell, he was quite calm and respectful.

[WaltM]

http://www.insidesocal.com/tv/oreilly.jpg

the truth is, it was Flavor Aid that Jonestown drank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor_Aid

[Matt Collins]

I'm surprised Bill didn't cuss & yell, he was quite calm and respectful.YouTube - Bill O'Reilly Flips Out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY)

[purplechoe]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/51147.html


The Two Magic Words that “Justify” Tyranny and Oppression
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on February 20, 2010 01:04 PM

During his interview with Stewart Rhodes last night, Bill O’Reilly strongly objected to Rhodes’s statement that bad weather is not a reason for suspending the Constitution. Rhodes referred to how the “authorities” went door to door disarming every last little old lady in New Orleans who was trying to protect herself in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

With his vintage bulging forehead vein, O’Reilly responded by speaking the two magic words that every neocon thinks will justify any act of tyranny the state could ever devise. These two words are “Abraham Lincoln.” “Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus!”, O’Reilly roared. (All together now, let’s sing: “Mine eyes have seen the glory of the . . . bla, bla, bla, bla, bla . . .”) This of course is supposed to end the debate. Case closed. Get lost Mr. Rhodes, you pinhead! O’Reilly wins another one!!

Yes, Lincoln did ILLEGALLY suspend Habeas Corpus, as the chief justice at the time, Roger B. Taney, explained in a court opinion. In response to Taney’s opinion, Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for the chief justice rather than appealing the opinion, which he could have done. He proceeded to imprison tens of thousands of Northern critics of his administration without any due process.

O’Reilly also screeched something about how the Supreme Court has also issued a “ruling” on the matter. Well, yes it did, Bill, but the ruling does not support your position. In 1866, after the threat of being imprisoned by King Lincoln was over, the U.S. Supreme Court said this in Ex Parte Milligan:

“The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and it covers with its shield of protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of men that any of its great provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of Government” (emphasis added).

The court ruled that no one — neither the president nor Congress — could suspend Habeas Corpus as long as the civil courts were operating, which they were in the North for the duration of the war. In other words, the Supreme Court said that it is precisely in times of national emergencies (even including hurricanes, Bill O’Reilly) that civil liberties must be defended and protected most forcefully. If not, then governments will be given incentives to constantly create crises, or perceptions of crises, and declaring “official states of emergency” in order to grab more and more power and money and destroy more and more liberty and prosperity.