Right-wing media promote, give platform to "anti-government extremist" Oath Keepers
Over the past several months, right-wing media have promoted the Oath Keepers, a group established in 2009 and identified by the Anti-Defamation League as "encourag[ing] members of the military and law enforcement to pledge not to follow certain hypothetical 'orders' from the federal government" that "echo longstanding conspiracy theories embraced by anti-government extremists." On February 17, Bill O'Reilly said that he intended to host a member of the group on his next show to "give forth their point of view."
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
O'Reilly said he would host member of Oath Keepers to "give forth their point of view"
From the February 17 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Is there one group in America right now that you guys believe is dangerous, is growing fast, and that the folks should know about?
MARK POTOK (editor, Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report): Well, let me give an example. I'm not going to say this group is dangerous and, you know, these people are going to blow up federal buildings -- that's clearly not true -- but there is a new major group called the Oath Keepers. It was started, if I recall, in February of last year. This -- it has grown fairly explosively. It's well over a thousand members. What's interesting about the group is it's composed mainly of military and law enforcement personnel, officers of the law. The thing about the group is what they say is, you know, "What we're all about is simply pledging allegiance -- or re-pledging our oaths to defend the Constitution," which of course is well and fine. But the reality about the group is that what it's really about is the fear that martial law is about to be imposed, that Americans are about to be herded into concentration camps, that foreign troops are going to be put down on American soil. The Oath Keepers says specifically, we will not obey these orders, we will refuse orders to put Americans into concentration camps. Now, is that dangerous? It seems to me the danger is that these are men and women, in the case of police officers, who are given a real power over the rest of us, sometimes the power of life and death. They make very important decisions. And if these men and women are animated by the idea that, you know, foreign forces are about to come into this country and put us under martial law and throw us all into concentration camps, I think there is a certain danger associated with that.
O'REILLY: All right. Well, it's certainly not rational.
POTOK: They're operating on the basis on crazy theories that may cause one of them to draw a gun one day.
O'REILLY: All right. You know what I'm going to do, Mr. Potok? Because it's a very interesting topic. I'm going to invite somebody from the Oath Keepers to come on the Factor tomorrow and give forth their point of view. I think it's a fascinating topic, and we appreciate your time very much.
Right-wing media promote group
Buchanan: "[T]he establishment's reaction seems more problematic for the republic than anything the Oath Keepers are up to." In his October 20, 2009, syndicated column, Pat Buchanan wrote that Oath Keepers are "are ex-military and -police who repledge themselves to defend the Constitution, even if it means disobeying orders. If the U.S. government ordered law-enforcement agencies to violate Second Amendment rights by disarming the people, Oath Keepers will not obey," adding that founder Stewart Rhodes "is headed for cable stardom," and that "if the Pelosi-Reid progressives went postal over town-hall protesters, calling them 'un-American,' 'Nazis' and 'evil-mongers,' one can imagine what they will do with the Oath Keepers." Buchanan also stated that "the establishment's reaction seems more problematic for the republic than anything the Oath Keepers are up to. For our political and media elite seem to have lost touch with the nation and to be wedded to a vision of America divorced from reality."
Beck, Drudge promoted story on group. On the October 20, 2009, edition of his radio show, Glenn Beck read from a Las Vegas Review-Journal article about Oath Keepers linked by the Drudge Report, which noted that the SPLC called the group "a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival." Beck responded: "Boy, what would our Founding Fathers say just on that sentence? ... The people saying the government is getting too big and too out of control. All they want to do is make sure you keep your oath to the Constitution of the United States."
Oath Keepers promote discredited conspiracy theory regarding "[m]ass, forced internment into concentration camps"
Oath Keepers: "We Will Not Obey" order "to force American citizens into any form of detention camp."Oath Keepers describes itself as "a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial." In its list of "Orders We Will Not Obey," Oath Keepers states the following:
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
One of the causes of the American Revolution was the blockade of Boston, and the occupying of that city by the British military, under martial law. Once hostilities began, the people of Boston were tricked into turning in their arms in exchange for safe passage, but were then forbidden to leave. That confinement of the residents of an entire city was an act of war.
Such tactics were repeated by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto, and by the Imperial Japanese in Nanking, turning entire cities into death camps. Any such order to disarm and confine the people of an American city will be an act of war and thus an act of treason.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
Mass, forced internment into concentration camps was a hallmark of every fascist and communist dictatorship in the 20th Century. Such internment was unfortunately even used against American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Whenever a government interns its own people, it treats them like an occupied enemy population. Oppressive governments often use the internment of women and children to break the will of the men fighting for their liberty - as was done to the Boers, to the Jewish resisters in the Warsaw Ghetto, and to the Chechens, for example.
Such a vile order to forcibly intern Americans without charges or trial would be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason, regardless of the pretext used. We will not commit treason, nor will we facilitate or support it.
Detention camp allegation is an anti-Obama conspiracy theory. Media Matters for America has detailed how conservatives have pushed the conspiracy theory that the Obama administration is planning to "round up American citizens" into "internment camps." In fact, the military under both President Bush and President Obama has regularly referred to "internment" and "resettlement" while discussing "detainees" and "enemy prisoners of war."
Oath Keepers called "a new player in a resurgent militia movement," linked to other right-wing fringe players
ADL: Oath Keepers "part of an anti-government extremist movement that has grown since President Obama took office." An October 2009 report by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) described Oath Keepers as "part of an anti-government extremist movement that has grown since President Obama took office." ADL further stated that "the Oath Keepers encourage members of the military and law enforcement to pledge not to follow certain hypothetical 'orders' from the federal government. These 'orders,' including one 'to put American citizens in detention camps,' and another 'to disarm the American people,' echo longstanding conspiracy theories embraced by anti-government extremists, who claim that the U.S. government is creating a police state."
NY Times: Oath Keepers "a new player in a resurgent militia movement." A February 15 New York Times article described Oath Keepers as "a new player in a resurgent militia movement," adding that the group "has been recruiting at Tea Party events around the country and forging informal ties with militia groups."
WorldNetDaily tied group to criticism of Obama. A March 20, 2009, WorldNetDaily article on Oath Keepers claimed that Rhodes said the group "is not a response to President Obama or his policies," but added, "He said the accumulation of power in the executive branch in recent years has been alarming. The fears crystallized when Obama took office and suddenly had access to the accumulated power. That, he said, is a 'powderkeg.' " The article went on to state that "WND already has reported on several members of the U.S. military who have raised concerns about the implications of Obama's possible ineligibility to be commander-in-chief."
Oath Keepers in coalition with John Birch Society, 9/12 Project branch. Oath Keepers is listed as a member of Friends for Liberty, a coalition that, according to its website, includes the right-wing John Birch Society, the Spokane, Washington, branch of the Glenn Beck-associated 9/12 Project, and Vaccination Liberation, a group that claims as part of its mission to "reveal the myth that vaccines are necessary, safe and effective."

















A bit of an over reaction, or just a slow misinformation day.
A few short years ago, this kind of organization would have been considered treasonous. Today, it's just another group trying to break into the mainstream via the anti-Obama express.
Fox is happy to present these type groups because they have a common enemy. I used to believe the enemy was the president, but I have a feeling lately it's the country.
If I had shown interest in an organization of this type when I was in the military, I'd have been thrown into the stockade and brought up on charges.
I used to believe THEIR enemy was the president, but I have a feeling lately it's the country.
See, we now know what you do - not just me, but everyone.
You didn't want us talking about how the OathKeepers don't deserve the platform to have their crazy ideas nationally exposed. You don't want us to talk about how NO legit news organization would THINK of doing something like this, but FoxNews and O'Reilly WILL do this - give this group publicity that they shouldn't get due to their traitorous intentions.
I suppose, no, I know you think the likes of the teaBAGGED olby and madcow should get national attention...
Actually I'm glad they do, even if they are by all accounts, failing actually failed. It's only a matter of time before they go down the tubes... Which will be unfortunate as they both along with the other msm provide huge doses of daily humor....
oh yeah, exactly what ideas of the "OathKeepers is "crazy"... no don't wimp out and start on the "troll" or "sockpuppet" BS... just tell us which ideas are crazy... OH defeating bho... hmmm... not crazy, self preservation....
as for an unprepared generation, what planet are you from and/or where have you been?... textbooks are the tip of the iceberg in the dumbing down of this country... we've been on the fast track to idiocracy for decades now...
as for me hating america, were you traumatized by a neocon accusing you of this and now use that a defense mechanism?...
i'm shutting it down for the night, rad... thank you for your service to our country...
That statement confused me and I think maybe confused raddave also. It seemed like you were saying that the majority of Texans don't want secession, and that you are among the minority that do. I don't think that's what you meant to say, but that is how I initially read it.
a poll taken soon after gov perry declared state sovereignty may have been as high as 90% against secession...
i would love for texas to be an independent nation, again, but the reality is if that prospect were undertaken it wouldn't be without great pain and difficulty, i'll spare you the details on what that might entail... but if i could wave a magic wand and make it so we could hit the ground running, as we are consistently in the top 20 economies of the world annually...
2 trivia bits:
texas is the only state in the union allowed to fly her state flag at an equal height alongside the american flag... we also have a provision in our state constitution to break up into as many as 5 smaller states (i think that's where a lot of people get confused and think we can just secede without any federal intervention)...
I was incredulous that someone could really say something so ridiculous.
Except of course when it comes to taking money from the federal government. Then that sovereignty thing does not seem so important to Texans.
Can you provide us with the names of these groups that were considered "treasonous"? Can you tell us how these groups were considered "treasonous", more so than the groups you're comparing them to?
Any by the way, O'bama's approval ratings are still >50% (GREATER THAN 50%).....so how does one "break into the mainstream via the anti-Obama express"?
What are you talking about? This article is about the "platform" given to a group who don't appreciate what the government is doing. NOT whether rw media has promoted the group. Jeez, get a grip on reality and whine about the topic ... if that's at all possible for you.
I mean if you want to whine about an anti-government group being given a platform by a politicized media, why don't you investigate the platform given to the black-panthers. Just because it happened "a while ago" doesn't change the fact that left-wing media adored those dangerous anti-government nutcases (and still do). And I can't seem to remember which media supported Bill Ayers when he was a staunch anti-government hater, do you remember? So, I guess mmfa discovered their own little niche for being the focus of pot/kettle comparisons.
I don't suppose you'd like to give some proof that the "left-wing media" actually adored the black panthers would you?
http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/huey.html
"Huey writes poetry? You're kidding; wow - how sensitive of him"
I would encourage you to read about the original Black Panther Party, they're not these evil bogeymen you may think. They were responsible for instituting social programs to help the poor. They established free breakfast programs in poor neighborhoods, offered classes about getting involved in politics, and encouraged peace amongst racial groups. The Black Panther Party was actually very vocal in condemning the actions of more militant, violent factions of the left, such as the Weathermen.
Wikipedia 'Fred Hampton' and read about him. A completely innocent man murdered by the FBI, basically for just having ideas they didn't like.
And no, I didn't whine about someone being off-topic when they were really on-topic.
MMFA said that some rightwing media promoted this anti-gov't radical group, and they have.
What MMFA said doesn't become untrue just because SOME of that promotion happened last year.
And whenever I am foolish enough to take your advice about when I should post or not, I'll let you know, but you shouldn't hold your breath waiting for that to happen!
dd says; "O'Reilly should NOT give airtime to this group because of their already-proven track record and their beliefs.". Yet, she has nothing to say about the "proven record" of the black panthers or Bill Ayers and the media platform they received then (and now). You guys are so hypocritical. You demand right wingers be restricted from the air waves because they promote ideals you disagree with, (and demean anyone who disagrees with your ideals) while demanding a platform to state your own opinions and demanding restriction of opinions different than your own.
The federal government was allowed to bust down the doors on private property and execute Fred Hampton. And the media of the day did nothing to stop it or to present it as it happened. Once again, wake up. You are reliving history and you are getting it wrong!
And, I NEVER said anyone should be restricted from the airwaves. NEVER. I simply pointed out that your example of the Black Panthers being given some kind of platform by the media is silly and disingenuous at best. They never were.
I guess you're right. ABC and CBS shouldn't be considered "legitimate media", should they?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/10/opinion/main4660604.shtml
Do you want more examples that prove you wrong?
mike-- They were treated as villians, even though in many cases the Black Panthers were not.
So, you're changing the subject of the conversation again? If BOR treats the Oathkeepers as villians will you apologize for the misinformation this site is promoting? I don't think the 'treatment' of guests is even being considered in this article about a platform being given to that group. But, if that's the way you want to interpret it, fine.
It's not about "coverage period". You're lying, Floyd.
The evidence of the promotion is given above in the article by MMFA.
Any group found to be as extremist as this group shouldn't get national airtime to promote their agenda. It has absolutely nothing to do with the particular political slant of those 'ideals'.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/10/opinion/main4660604.shtml
Why wasn't socialized medicine or single-payer even considered in the healthcare debate? There are plenty of polls to show that Medicare for all would have sold very well to the American masses. But, the right repeats over and over again that any idea from the far-left is extreme and should never be considered. The mainstream media accepts this and repeats it - then the village decides that it is so.
The hybrid healthcare proposals being considered now and the Cap and Trade legislation being considered now were both originally Republican proposals of compromise. Now, they have become the left-wing positions. Because the actual positions of the progressive left have been able to be marginalized as "extreme". Be careful when you allow ideas to become marginalized and never to be spoken of. Because it may just happen to your ideas next.
This is here because O'Reilly said that he'd give them a platform. This group should NEVER get a platform on any legitimate news organization to spout their nonsense.
And the fact that the promotion of this group happened a few months ago doesn't CHANGE the fact that rightwing media HAVE promoted this group and given them a platform.
How does the fact that this happened a while ago belie anything that MMFA said?
Oh, wait, it's after your quitting time, ain't it, you paid troll. So, maybe you'll come back tomorrow and throw out an insult or two, or maybe you'll ignore the fact that you were 100% wrong and disingenuous here entirely.
Your "argument" makes no sense, Weasel.
You mean like YOU do? I think you confuse him with other liberals. Facts show that liberals are the ones who cast insults freely and liberally. And, they don't wait for tomorrow to do it, they do it so frequently it can't be measured on a 'time' based scale. But, it's nice to see you actually mentioned the topic during your whine about right wingers.
I think if anyone could be considered a "paid troll" it would be you. You have a half-dozen statements (in this article) and this is the only one you actually mention the topic. However, in doing so, you show your inability to discuss a topic. How can you demand that BOR stop giving a platform to this group after whining that FOX isn't a legitimate news organization (in previous articles)? So you either admit that FOX is a legitimate news organization or it isn't. Can you please make up your mind and quit flip-flopping according to who you need to impress from day to day?
Also, the Black Panthers pushed socialism. Kinda hard to compare them to Nazis.
Actually, it's quite easy when nazi's pushed the same agenda ... socialism. Here's another commonality: both wanted the race that differed from their own to be eliminated. However, the black panthers are heros to liberals while nazis are the scourge of humanity ... hmmmm. I guess liberals aren't as honest as they claim, huh usp?
He didn't want us talking about how it's unreasonable to give an anti-government extremist group like the Oath Keepers free air-time on national shows like O'Reilly's to push their radical agenda. No legitimate news organization would do that, but FoxNews supposedly will, and so will other rightwing media sources.
BTW, mikehuck, could you check my spelling and let me know if I spelled any words wrong. Preciate it.
You haven't EVER gotten a reply on this website where anyone has acted like Obama is their Messiah. Not ever.
Right, but that is seahawks. He doesn't really mean it. He actually believes he's funny. Don't feel bad that you didn't get it, he believes a lot of things that are demonstrably false.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/mariogriffith/gGgYVP
and on this anti-Obama website, numerous examples of Obama supporters who see more than just a great president and politician:
http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/
There are some scary-weird people out there.
"You couldn't get any of the libs here to swear an oath to the constitution. It's a document that puts limits on government. Now an oath to Obama they would do in second and probably already has."
Nyuk nyuk nyuk. Moe, Larry, Cheese.
Wait, where is the pie in the face?
Well I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
Nyuk nyuk nyuk. Moe, Larry, Cheese.
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
It's so degrading for loonz to use the term "right-wingers", yet you can freely use the term "left-wingers" and that's completely "respectful", right?
Do you know what the word is for people who condemn others for behavior they themselves engage in, especially when they are engaging in the condemnable behavior within their very condemnation of it?
A hypocrite.
There is nothing inherently disrespectful of arguing. You should have been taught that long ago. It is probably too late now.
Did you go on in a post about how I am offended to be called liberal? I have no idea where you got that. You seem even more confused than usual. You can call me whatever you want to. I am not so easily offended by the ill-informed. But, do you see in your post where you go on about how liberals are sensitive just because you call them liberals and then you call them nazis? That's where your extreme partisanship and ignorance shines through. Don't you find that "amuzing"?
And, you really think you are stirring anyone up or offending anyone with this grade school nonsense? It's like playing basketball with the slow kid and watching him dribble with both hands. He's so obviously slower than the rest of the class you don't call double dribble, you let him go on and shoot the ball over the hoop. So, good shot, Floyd. You were real close on that one!
Wow! What reading comprehension! In your mind I called liberals nazi's. In reality, I called nazis nazis. I think I shot a lot closer than you did. Mine even hit the rim. Unlike some of yours where you claim Bill Ayers has never been given a legitimate media platform to spew his hatred ... ayer ball.
btw, even though you weren't addressing me, i took the oath once and have an honorable discharge to prove it...
do i see a possible circumstance?... of course, the patriot act has already greased the skids... and just because it may never happen is no reason not to be vigilant...
but you're right about the ucmj (uniform code of military justice for you civilians)...
the veep's authority is irrelevant to my point... you think generals on the take from the military industrial complex would have told lbj, again if ace historian stone is to be believed, "i'm sorry, sir, we can only commit treason on orders from the president"?...
Sarcasm turned off now. :)
And what happens after they interbreed?...The HORROR!
That's why THESE nut jobs shouldn't be given a platform by a legitimate news organization.
But I understand and appreciate your point.
Treason is
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.
Promoting sedition fits PERFECTLY with the definition above - a violation of allegiance towards one's country by violence.
Sedition is
Willfully advocating or teaching the duty or necessity of overthrowing the US government or any political subdivision by force or violence.
Another powder keg waiting to blow...
lemme get this straight... media matters and most of their like-minded ideologues here think that oath keepers are anti-government extremists and/or flat-out wack jobs because they have taken oaths to protect and defend the constitution and, hypothetically, won't take part in treason...
concern about preserving the second amendment is not a new concept, it precedes these oath keeper guys and is hardly irrational...
reporting from murderland ranch,
i'm mookie von zipper
massmurdermedia
This is what scares me about the "oath keepers" They say that they will join any group that decides a Revolution is necessary, and that in itself would constitute Treason. The overthrowing of a Government in accordance with the Constitution is not only not defending the Constitution, but is against that very document that these individuals swore to protect and therefore THEY would be the traitors.
Treason as defined by the Constitution. It mentions nothing about implimenting unpopular agendas is not mentioned.
if you're of the opinion that even the far-out scenarios from their list is not enough to justify revolt then you would have to violate your oath by not defending the constitution, and you would be the one committing treason, not them...
I just am very leary of groups that pop up only after the current President was elected claiming they are going to stand up for everyone's constitutional rights when they stood silence while some of those orders they say they refuse to obey were being carried out, such as American citizens being held as "enemy combatants" and were held in detention camps.
"I promise not to eat a baby if Obama orders me to do it."
Why would you care if anyone made that pledge?
I'm not sure what the problem is with people swearing not to carry out orders that you believe are imaginary*.
* Japanese-Americans would fervently disagree on that point. So would high school-level textbooks.
Remember the Muslim army psyc who opened fire on his fellow military brothers and sisters, and family; because he felt the war in Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal? Would you call him an "oathkeeper"?
These right-wing nuts have no problem with America maintaining the GULAG Caribbean at Gitmo. That is saying that the constitution is paramount, but we can set up a little enclave and say that this is American-controlled space, but the constitution doesn't apply there.
The "oathkeeper's" ideology is like demanding that I make an oath to stop beating my wife. The fact that I never have has no bearing on them. It just becomes a second litmus test to one's "true patriotism". I'm retired military. What if several people in my squadron were getting together and making the oath, but I didn't. Its not irrational to feel that my action would put me in danger of being an early casualty in their perceived inevitable conflict.
The Constitution wasn't very friendly to blacks either, and I think this fringe group has been upset ever since the emancipation proclamation, with Obama's presidency just too much for them to take, so they set up this fake organization in order to try to dilute his constitutional authority. (Like somebody proclaiming that they only take orders from God.)
And to the Texas guy: Get a life. Perhaps you still feel you aren't part of the UNITED States, that Texas is just an associate member or something. Is there something in the constitution or elsewhere that gives texas its "almost a state" status? I don't think so. Perhaps it should go back to Mexico, because that war wasn't too constitutional either. Does that make you a violator of the "Oathkeeper" movement as well?....or are you just picking and choosing which ones you want to agree with?
san jacinto museum of history
O'Reilly should NOT give airtime to this group because of their already-proven track record and their beliefs.
H-word = hypocrit (in case you couldn't figure it out)
Oh, and you misspelled "hypocrit". Might wanna look that up next time. Good try, though!
70 years later, after he's acted in many different ways? Yeah.
Your black and white thinking is showing, Floyd.
Ayers "proven track record" doesn't stop 40 years ago. This is not rocket science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066
This is not a defense of the Oathkeepers. I think they are shady and reactionary, but I'm pretty sure they are still entitled to 1st Amendment rights. Or are we only giving those to people we agree with now?
- According to their own list, these guys would have refused to fight in the Civil War
- They never say thay they'd refuse to put someone in a gas chamber. They never say that they'd refuse to kill innocent civilians. They never say that they'd refuse to commit any sort of war crime. Why?
The American government has put people in concentration camps before during WWII. It did pick up Muslims, after 9/11, without using the normal procedures. Do any of you remember how police stood on a bridge near New Orleans and refused to let any of the black people leave and enter their county?
One problem I see with government is that sometimes illegal orders are given. Orders to lose, hide or manufacture evidence are often seen in movies, and in the more unbelievable ones, there are orders given to kill inconvenient people. While I expect the mafia to try to kill witnesses against them, I do not expect the government to do so.
I don't believe there are camps being set up, I don't believe foreign troops are coming in, I don't believe the UN is about to take over, I don't see black helicopters, and I do see gross hypocrisy in the words of the Oath Keepers (they complain about the civil liberties Bush took away, but only got organized when Obama didn't repeal those acts).(example).
I'm not seeing these guys as scary yet. Someone have a link?
That's correct, but there is a big difference between a soldier vowing to obey all lawful orders, and a soldier inserting an unknown, shadowy organization that has to clear any order as being "OK".
A US Soldier just has to have the testicular fortitude to know when that thin gray line is crossed.
Drone strikes is an area where most any soldier understands that there is a military mission in place, and it is having success. In MAI LAI (Vietnam), most soldiers would know that killing a child is not a lawful order and he has a duty to resist if possible and report as soon as possible.
I just take grave exception to having some possibly subversive organization second-guessing and sowing distrust. There is no plce for them.
a) Sound like I think the Oath Keepers are a good idea
b) Raise a lot of questions with people that don't know history
c) Would lead to a GODWIN'S LAW response.
I went to the MJ website and apparently it is not up yet.
i've never been to this site before, but after reading this, i'd never put more than a grain of salt into any opinion given here. if the author really believed what he/she claims, he/she would've interpreted o'reilly's offer to host the oath keepers as a chance to expose them. only coward, phony or bully would have a problem with their opposition's voice being heard on an unbiased platform.
Translation: We became afraid of the chief executive having too much power when the majority of Americans voted that ni99er into the WH.
These folk have been saying that the basis of their opposition to Obama is because of his policies (for a few of them this might be true, maybe.) I have never bought into this because, since I am an older AA, I know how people like these operate. They don't have the courage to say exactly why they oppose his policies and use BS reasons as a cover for their true feelings.
The dangers I see with the Oath Keepers, over some others who may hold similar political ideas is the fact that they consist of many high ranking Officers of the Law, and those with Military background training and Special Forces being those included, and encouraged to join in this "special" group. That means not only the preference and propensity to have and use weapons, but access to the deadliest arsenals in the nation.
With their combined background, and potential control of where these weapons are kept; all the ammunition needed to supply the use of these weapons; and the training to subdue and/or eliminate anyone who gets in their way, it should absolutely scare everyone. If some American group of Muslim faith were to organize with a similar oath, do you not think they would be considered as terrorists threats? What's the difference?
Still looking for the settled case laws that define the Oath the Oathkeepers have declared they will uphold as 1) illegal, 2) treasonous. Anything other than specific LAW as an answer means the opinion of such as treasonous is conjecture and fantasy.
The media gives one of the most virulent hate group minorities, the Southern Poverty Law Center their fifteen minutes of fame to splash their fear mongering diatribe, yet it is wrong to give the target of their libelous tirade a chance to counter?
Why are the MSM and some of those in power so CONCERNED with just 1,000 former military & police upholding the US Constitution? Here is a theory. The mindless programing during military or police training hasn't imbued these people with the callousness of the people automatically being declared the enemy and all powerful government is God!
Government think tanks have been performing studies on just about every contingency in or outside the box of reality, and you can bet such a movement of strict constitutionalist military and police HAS BEEN considered and the actions needed step by step to counter such a movement. Direct government involvement, nah, use an outside flunky to do the dirty propaganda work as demonization is the very first step in winning a propaganda battle (see Saul Alinsky, noted Socialist activist who had several of our current high ranking politicians as students, read his play book and compare, lol, if you dare).
Plausible deniability is valued beyond measure in the government and military, thats not conspiracy theory, thats politics 101 boys and girls, prove otherwise.
Maybe you should review the average police academy training these days eerily similar to how a Marine Corp trainee is broken down physically first, then mentally molded to be able to function automatically without thought. Being a Marine, I know how this system of training works.
The other part of reality that government is well aware of is that since the beginning of this nation, our training system and tradition for soldiers has been such that the majority of the soldiers all the way down to privates has the training and capability of leading as well as questioning an order, or use of that person intelligence. There is a proper process for such questioning of orders in the military code of justice. Does that apply to just current military personnel or does it include retired military/police?
Another dangerous thought to the control freaks is that there are between 25-35 million retired military personnel in the US today. Hmmm, only 3 million US Military police world wide, what would be the effect or effort to recall all these forces back to US soil? Yeah, that contingency HAS been considered
Anyone here know that of the regular military forces, a Marine is considered to be one of the hardest to break or coerce when captured. Too bad for the control freaks in and out of government cant brainwash everyone under their control and that oh so many of those retired military personnel have the same capabilities of thought and decision capabilities.
The government should indeed be concerned!
Put another way, is it better to follow the Constitution or better to use violence to solve injustice?
You would think this would be an easy question to answer, but not here with the progressive idiots.
I would like to see the 16th Amendment repealed and replaced with the Fair Tax or some kind of flat tax.
To understand the Constitution, reading it is a good start. I'll bet it's been a long time since most of Congress read it.
As far as the Oath Keepers and the Constitution goes I don't think they don't seek to uphold the Constitution. They seek to uphold their interpretation of the Constitution and I don't trust their interpretation.
Progressives like to say that all of the first ten amendments grant individual rights except for the second amendment which grants rights to the government.
It's the twisting of the Constitution that has made its interpretation corrupt. I would rather have a simpleton read and interpret it than a bunch of crooked lawyers.
Maybe a 8-1 or 7-2 (either way) would give some confidence that the Constitution was interpreted correctly.
I don't see how a decision on something so plain can be 5-4.
Why would only one of the first ten amendments not convey individual rights?
It is mind boggling.
The 10th Ammendment doesn't convey any individual rights either.
And unlike me, these SC justices with their years of experience could not agree with a 5-4 split.
Their votes for the most part went along party lines. That's not the way it's supposed to work.
And on the 10th amendment, you should actually read it instead of following what other people tell you it says.
MSNBC had Orly Taitz et al. on their channel. I don't recall any mention of MMFA condemning that "promotion of an extremist group."
If you're going to ridicule or otherwise gossip about a group anyway, why not invite a member to your show?
Bill O'Reilly was told to watch out for this group, and he said that he'd give them a platform to air their views.
I submit that your are a racist.