Regarding the "Oath Keepers"

Let's not let this go the way of Tea Party threads past, shall we?

Here

It was while volunteering for Ron Paul's doomed presidential bid that Rhodes decided to abandon electoral politics in favor of grassroots organizing. As an undergrad, he had been fascinated by the notion that if German soldiers and police had refused to follow orders, Hitler could have been stopped. Then, in early 2008, SWAT received a letter from a retired colonel declaring that "the Constitution and our Bill of Rights are gravely endangered" and that service members, veterans, and police "is where they will be saved, if they are to be saved at all!"

Rhodes responded with a breathless column starring a despotic president, "Hitlery" Clinton, in her "Chairman Mao signature pantsuit." Would readers, he asked, obey orders from this "dominatrix-in-chief" to hold militia members as enemy combatants, disarm citizens, and shoot all resisters? If "a police state comes to America, it will ultimately be by your hands," he warned. You had better "resolve to not let it happen on your watch." He set up an Oath Keepers blog, asking soldiers and veterans to post testimonials. Word spread. Military officers offered assistance. A Marine Corps veteran invited Rhodes to speak at a local Tea Party event. Paul campaigners provided strategic advice. And by the time Rhodes arrived in Lexington to speak at a rally staged by a pro-militia group, a movement was afoot.

Rhodes stood on the common that day before a crowd of about 400 die-hard patriot types. He spoke their language. "You need to be alert and aware to the reality of how close we are to having our constitutional republic destroyed," he said. "Every dictatorship in the history of mankind, whether it is fascist, communist, or whatever, has always set aside normal procedures of due process under times of emergency...We can't let that happen here. We need to wake up!"

He laid out 10 orders an Oath Keeper should not obey, including conducting warrantless searches, holding American citizens as enemy combatants or subjecting them to military tribunals (a true Oath Keeper would have refused to hold José Padilla in a military brig), imposing martial law, blockading US cities, forcing citizens into detention camps ("tyrannical governments eventually and invariably put people in camps"), and cooperating with foreign troops should the government ask them to intervene on US soil. In Rhodes' view, each individual Oath Keeper must determine where to draw the line.

The crowd was full of familiar faces from patriot rallies and town hall meetings, with an impressive showing by luminaries of the rising patriot movement. There was Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff who had refused to enforce the Brady Law in the mid-'90s. Also present was Mike Vanderboegh, whose Three Percenter movement styles itself after the legendary 3 percent of American colonists who took up arms against the British. Rhodes singled out Marine Charles Dyer, a.k.a. July4Patriot—whose YouTube videos advocate armed resistance—as a "man of like minds." When Rhodes finished, Captain Larry Bailey, a retired Navy SEAL, Swift Boater, and founder of the anti-antiwar group Gathering of Eagles, asked the crowd to raise their right hands and retake their oath—not to the president, but to the Constitution.

I see your crazy and raise you a loon.

Apparently a Lt. Colonel just refused deployment to Afghanistan because he believes any order from Obama is illegal since, you guessed it, he wasn't born in the US and can't be President.

I'm presuming that Lt Colonel Asswiper was happy that the orders to pay him every month were legal.

The military and the courts decided this issue over a year ago, so yeah, the good Lt. Col. is going to spend some quality time as a guest of the US government in Kansas.

As for the oath keepers, it's well to remember that the original Revolution took action against actual harms, not paranoid fantasies.

Again, I can't help but point out the irony that these folks seem to object most to powers granted the Executive branch by Bush and yet were almost universally insistent that such powers were necessary for the prosecution of the "war on terror" when a white neoconservative was in power.

I honestly hope they all die in a hail of gunfire.

Interestingly, some of my "China is the best government ever" Leftist loony friends (anarcho-socialist, I think, is what they call themselves) are pretty big supporters of the Oath Keeper movement. I had just assumed it was an outgrowth of some of the more extremist demonstrators in anti Bush rallies, who believed more in blowing up whaling vessels than in slandering a black President.

Thanks for the link, Prederick.

afterthought -- what the hell is an anarcho-socialist other than a walking oxymoron.

Paleocon wrote:

Again, I can't help but point out the irony that these folks seem to object most to powers granted the Executive branch by Bush and yet were almost universally insistent that such powers were necessary for the prosecution of the "war on terror" when a white neoconservative was in power.

that article wrote:

Most of the men's gripes revolve around policies that began under President Bush but didn't scare them so much at the time. "Too many conservatives relied on Bush's character and didn't pay attention," founder Rhodes told me. "Only now, with Obama, do they worry and see what has been done. Maybe you said, I trusted Bush to only go after the terrorists.* But what do you think can happen down the road when they say, 'I think you are a threat to the nation?'"

yeah. The racism isn't even thinly veiled anymore.

THAT SAID. Obama's still alive after over a year in office, beating Chris Rock's prediction.

Seth wrote:

yeah. The racism isn't even thinly veiled anymore.

THAT SAID. Obama's still alive after over a year in office, beating Chris Rock's prediction.

And a lot of that has to do with the contribution of truly dangerous men like my friend Jim who works for the US Secret Service. Trust me. You don't want to give him an excuse to make you bleed.

I used to say folks like that simply lacked a sense of humor, but I've discovered how wrong I was. He definitely has a sense of humor, but it is a cruel and nasty one. The kind that thinks its funny to see a grown man weeping uncontrollably because his arm twisted unnaturally.

I'm glad that your friend is protecting our president.

I realize that the following statement might risk getting me thrown in with loonies, but I actually went and read the "10 orders an oath keeper should never obey." And I have to admit -- I actually agree with eight or nine of them. I'll post them here:

Oath Keepers wrote:

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects -- such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

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

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

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see any problem with *any* of these ideas, on paper. In fact, without the military fatigues and "y2k" bunker syndrome, these are mostly all ideas that I 100% agree with (the property one is the only one I would question forcefully, since it's got an implicit order against any taxation).

EDIT: Oh and #5. That's the worst one there. Way to slip in the chance for another Civil War, oath keepers.

But -- if you strip away everything else -- the guns, the paranoia, the birther stuff, the truther stuff -- this sounds like a pretty darned docile group. It's like declaring that if the sky ever fell, we would fight it.

Question. Why are they so worried about the military breaking the law now? Why not the previous eight years of kidnapping, murder, rape? Is it because that was just brown people?

Oath Keepers wrote:

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

I'm a big fan of guns, myself, but have to wonder if this fascination with "disarming the American people" is anchored in any kind of reality. The constitution is pretty clear about the right to bear arms belonging to all legal residents of the United States. The only exclusive rights of citizens are the right to vote, the right to residency without immigration status, and the right to protection as a citizen whilst outside of the country. In that light, I think the whole "right to overthrow the government guaranteed in the constitution" business is a hell of a stretch.

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects -- such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

They didn't seem to object too loudly to this when Bush was in charge.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

Then free Jose Padilla.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

Well, good for you. But if South Carolina decides to fire on federal troops again, I intend to burn it to the ground again. This time, though, I'll make sure the leaders are all rounded up and hanged.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

Sigh. Again with the civil war reenactors... Seriously, no one cares about your trailer unless you're violating the law.

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

Still sore about burning down Charleston, huh?

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

But secret Navy brigs are a-okay.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

I'm no big fan of foreign troops either, but the irony of this is just hilarious. These are folks who have no problem invading (unprovoked) a sovereign nation and being a force of occupation and object to the presence of foreign troops even in a time of hypothetical need. I suspect in their wild, paranoid minds that even the presence of a British naval hospital ship during a natural disaster would be evidence of some kind of "one world government black helicopter conspiracy".

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

But zero tolerance forfeiture laws are a-okay.

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Oh, like the "free speech zones" behind barbed wire and chainlink fencing that Bush made so famous?

Seriously. I knew this sort of hypocritical whining about the loss of rights from the lunatic right-wing fringe would happen the moment Bush left office, but I had really hoped it wouldn't.

KingGorilla wrote:

Question. Why are they so worried about the military breaking the law now? Why not the previous eight years of kidnapping, murder, rape? Is it because that was just brown people?

Ever seen the movie Roots? There is a fantastic part in there where a white man says "they have no right to treat a white man like a n*gger". That pretty much sums it all up.

Seth wrote:

I'm glad that your friend is protecting our president.

I realize that the following statement might risk getting me thrown in with loonies, but I actually went and read the "10 orders an oath keeper should never obey." And I have to admit -- I actually agree with eight or nine of them. I'll post them here:

Oath Keepers wrote:

Crazy X 10.

I don't see any problem with *any* of these ideas, on paper. In fact, without the military fatigues and "y2k" bunker syndrome, these are mostly all ideas that I 100% agree with (the property one is the only one I would question forcefully, since it's got an implicit order against any taxation).

EDIT: Oh and #5. That's the worst one there. Way to slip in the chance for another Civil War, oath keepers.

But -- if you strip away everything else -- the guns, the paranoia, the birther stuff, the truther stuff -- this sounds like a pretty darned docile group. It's like declaring that if the sky ever fell, we would fight it.

The only problem I have with these lists is, as you said, they are completely unnecessary, and get people riled up for no good reason. People have no reason at all to expect that an Obama administration would ever ask these things of our soldiers, on our home soil.

SallyNasty wrote:
Seth wrote:

I'm glad that your friend is protecting our president.

I realize that the following statement might risk getting me thrown in with loonies, but I actually went and read the "10 orders an oath keeper should never obey." And I have to admit -- I actually agree with eight or nine of them. I'll post them here:

Oath Keepers wrote:

Crazy X 10.

I don't see any problem with *any* of these ideas, on paper. In fact, without the military fatigues and "y2k" bunker syndrome, these are mostly all ideas that I 100% agree with (the property one is the only one I would question forcefully, since it's got an implicit order against any taxation).

EDIT: Oh and #5. That's the worst one there. Way to slip in the chance for another Civil War, oath keepers.

But -- if you strip away everything else -- the guns, the paranoia, the birther stuff, the truther stuff -- this sounds like a pretty darned docile group. It's like declaring that if the sky ever fell, we would fight it.

The only problem I have with these lists is, as you said, they are completely unnecessary, and get people riled up for no good reason. People have no reason at all to expect that an Obama administration would ever ask these things of our soldiers, on our home soil.

+1

The whole "we promise not to cooperate with a government that will ass rape chickens" deal is all about trying to get folks thinking that the government has secret plans to ass rape chickens.

Paleocon wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Question. Why are they so worried about the military breaking the law now? Why not the previous eight years of kidnapping, murder, rape? Is it because that was just brown people?

Ever seen the movie Roots? There is a fantastic part in there where a white man says "they have no right to treat a white man like a n*gger". That pretty much sums it all up.

I think the whole movie Roots is a fantastic part. That being said I think it has more to do with the not Bush fact than the black fact. But I'm an optimist.

The thing that upsets me, living in the Midwest, is these assholes actually get traction with this sort of rhetoric. Most people are not savvy enough to realize that Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck are just talking heads, and have no "journalistic code" that requires them to be accountable (i.e. give sources, fact check) for the "facts" they present. It is frightening in this age of the internet how little people educate themselves.

Now, let's see - which fair and balanced media outlet and it's talk-radio and talk-show kindred discussed the following?

FEMA concentration camps.

Disarmament of populations by dictators as a means of control.

Constitutional rights don't apply to foreigners (ie, can't declare US citizens enemy combatants, although for others it's fine.)

State's rights over Federal, including secession.

Subjugation of the US to UN authority through economic or military agreements.

Speculation that Democratic leaders (Bill and Hillary Clinton) would fail to hand power over to the next President via torturous proclamations, and set the country on the path to dictatorship.

Gee, I just *can't* figure out where these guys got their list of 10 Scary Fantasies.... Basically, a series of fantasies strung together by "just harmless entertainers" and "serious political analysts" with for-profit shows has attained reality. If someone says it often enough, it must be true.

Paleocon -- I was trying not to use the "where were you jerkwads 4 years ago" defense because like I said previously several of my full bore e.l.f leftist friends are supporters of the oath keepers -- and they were the ones equating bush with Hitler in protests during the last administration. In other words, some of the oath keepers WERE there 4 years ago.

Actually come to think of it, "friends" is too strong of a word. "People I went to school with" is more appropriate.

But yeah those are all really good points re: those statements. I knew someone would be able to set me back on the right path.

Paleocon wrote:
Oath Keepers wrote:

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

I'm a big fan of guns, myself, but have to wonder if this fascination with "disarming the American people" is anchored in any kind of reality.

Obviously it's been a sentiment simmering for a long time, but what really got it back on the radar was the reports of systematic disarming of civilians during the aftermath of Katrina.

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

Still sore about burning down Charleston, huh?

Just a note for historical accuracy. While Charleston was shelled repeatedly during the war it escaped relatively unscathed, and Sherman bypassed the city (some say because he had a lady friend there, but most likely because he didn't want to take forever crossing all of the marsh land between Savannah and Charleston.) and marched to Columbia instead.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
Oath Keepers wrote:

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

I'm a big fan of guns, myself, but have to wonder if this fascination with "disarming the American people" is anchored in any kind of reality.

Obviously it's been a sentiment simmering for a long time, but what really got it back on the radar was the reports of systematic disarming of civilians during the aftermath of Katrina.

I saw this report here, and what makes it galling (if accurate) is that Blackwater and other guards for rich people and corporations WERE ABLE TO KEEP THEIR GUNS. However, Louisiana state law provided for the guns to be confiscated. So it's not like it was the federal government at work in that case. Also, the time to raise the issue is BEFORE the big flood.

Funkenpants wrote:

I saw this report here, and what makes it galling (if accurate) is that Blackwater and other guards for rich people and corporations WERE ABLE TO KEEP THEIR GUNS. However, Louisiana state law provided for the guns to be confiscated. So it's not like it was the federal government at work in that case. Also, the time to raise the issue is BEFORE the big flood.

Oh yeah, it was the local cops who did it. I'm just saying the incident is what got people really charged about the topic. Before the flood, I imagine they didn't know about the law or didn't think it would ever happen.

I am seriously conflicted about groups like these. On the one hand, they have a point. We can't just assume that America cannot possibly end up somewhere very dark. We shouldn't just stand by while the Constitution is rewritten by fear and propaganda.

On the other hand, when you start talking about "Hitlery" Clinton and mixing in all the BS anti-Obama nonsense, it becomes less about defending America and more about defending one's fringe view of what America ought to be. Less about honoring the Constitution and more about honoring the version of the Constitution you like best. In short, these guys begin to resemble violent religious extremists. Their text of choice is just a secular one.

And so, in their passion, they do immeasurable damage to their cause. They make people who believe in the Constitution look like gun-toting lunatics. Their silence during the Bush years and sudden outrage during the Obama years - not to over-generalize - make them look like hypocrites who are using the Constitution as a shield or smokescreen. While I'm usually the first to point out that hypocrites aren't always wrong, it's hard to believe their loyalty to the Constitution is genuine when it's glaringly inconsistent. Of course, as Seth pointed out, these guys are not all right-wing nutjobs.

The real tragedy here is that the Constitution is a wonderful thing that deserves protection and it has been under attack for a long time. Idiots like these make it really hard to stand up for the Constitution without looking completely insane.

davet010 wrote:

I'm presuming that Lt Colonel Asswiper was happy that the orders to pay him every month were legal.

This is my usual reaction to the people who refuse to deploy. Even that mother a while back who was so upset that she'd be separated from her child. Heart wrenching story, but I doubt she was tearful when she deposited the checks.

I guess I just wonder who is trying to destroy the Constitution? All the changes proposed, left and right, are all bound by the legal constraints set by the Constitution, which is a completely MALLEABLE document. It was built to be changed (people need to look up the word amendment). If we went more socialist or more autocratic - as long as the changes were voted on and supported by the majority - it would be completely legal and constitutional.

SallyNasty wrote:

I guess I just wonder who is trying to destroy the Constitution? All the changes proposed, left and right, are all bound by the legal constraints set by the Constitution, which is a completely MALLEABLE document. It was built to be changed (people need to look up the word amendment). If we went more socialist or more autocratic - as long as the changes were voted on and supported by the majority - it would be completely legal and constitutional.

It can be changed and does contain provisions on how to change it. But that's not the same as passing laws that violate it but are upheld and enforced. After all, it's just a piece of paper. It's not magic; it requires people to follow it and enforce it. Properly changing it is a pretty huge undertaking and requires widespread support.

I am seriously conflicted about groups like these. On the one hand, they have a point. We can't just assume that America cannot possibly end up somewhere very dark. We shouldn't just stand by while the Constitution is rewritten by fear and propaganda.

On the other hand, when you start talking about "Hitlery" Clinton and mixing in all the BS anti-Obama nonsense, it becomes less about defending America and more about defending one's fringe view of what America ought to be. Less about honoring the Constitution and more about honoring the version of the Constitution you like best. In short, these guys begin to resemble violent religious extremists. Their text of choice is just a secular one.

Lobster, I've tried to point out above that the "ten points of fear" these guys listed are fantasies. They don't exist. These people are mobilizing based on imagined chains of events, misinterpreted laws and the ravings of infotainment superstars. This has *nothing* to do with the Constitution, in real life, and everything to do with a truly paranoid interpretation of modern politics.

I'm all for "protecting the Constitution", but when that in practice means "fighting the Federal government based on imagined threats", well, I'll wait for the real threats to show up again. Even Bush, who actually oversaw some of the things these people fear, was nowhere near the full suite they cite. And Obama is even further away.

There's a good piece in the WaPo today by an American Enterprise Institute author, listing the reasons that Obama is a center-left or even center-right President. I'll dig it up later today if no one starts a thread on it. It illustrates the dead craziness of people like this and the rhetoric they've adopted.

The most worrying thing about all of this is that the propaganda worked. All that money that Scaife and Murdoch and others have shoveled into the right wing communications sewer has actually fertilized some twisted "trees of liberty", and the fruit will be strange indeed.

I could write a doctoral thesis on how Bush, Reagan, and Eisenhower pissed all over the constitution and executive precedent. I could do the same on FDR, Wilson, and many others.

I think the big problem America faces today is we have a legislator and a judiciary unwilling to even threaten action against a president or his office. Even new executives will not investigate actions of the past administration. Bush did things 10 times worse than FDR or Lincoln in the name of war and safety, but nothing has been done.

The last serious impeachment was over adultery.

Brought to you by the same people fanning the flames over health care reform and the tea parties.

KingGorilla wrote:

The last serious impeachment was over adultery.

Well that was scandalous. Also, no Republicans involved. Not to say only the Right pulls this kind of move. Neither side will investigate a wrong-doing if it could hurt their own party, and most wrong-doings are refreshingly bi-partisan.

Obama didn't want to look to the future and build bridges and all that nonsense. He just didn't want the world to look close enough at Bush's scandals to see the Democrats involved.

I should also note, at times of great strife the free press actually, you know gave facts n' sh*t. Kronkite and ER Murrow come to mind, Daniel Webster come to mind.

KingGorilla wrote:

I should also note, at times of great strife the free press actually, you know gave facts n' sh*t. Kronkite and ER Murrow come to mind, Daniel Webster come to mind.

William Hearst would disagree with you.