We have seen, within just the last week or so, a growing media awareness of the Oath Keepers, a group--consisting mostly of police officers and military service members--who have vowed to disobey any illegal, unconstitutional orders they may be given. With this growing awareness, we are also seeing growing consternation among those who, apparently, find the idea of troops and police officers who refuse to take part in crimes against the American people alarming.
David Codrea noticed the media's discovery of the Oath Keepers, and discussed some of the anti-Oath Keeper (pro-Oath Breaker?) hysteria (I put in my two cents, as well).
The next day, David talked about MSNBC's "Hardball," with Chris "Furrowing Up His Leg" Matthews, and Southern Poverty Law Center spokesman Mark Potok ganging up on Oath Keeper founder Stewart Rhodes. You can watch the whole (10 minute) show here, but if you're in a hurry, at least take eleven seconds to watch Rhodes deliver a beautiful zinger on Matthews:
More media hysteria: the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker characterizes the Oath Keeper movement as being "Red Dawn"-inspired fantasy.
On the other hand, there are moments when the paranoia of the wingnuts is almost comical. A new group called Oath Keepers has pledged to keep the feds from violating the Second Amendment by confiscating weapons.David also alerts us to a supposed "Conservative Republican," and "career infantry officer" who despises the Oath Keeper movement (to the point of describing the Oath Keepers as "malignant").
[ . . . ]
Hey, people believe what they want. That’s what makes this a great country. But, really, folk, the government has nuclear weapons and F-16s. If by some convoluted Manchurian takeover, the feds wanted a dictatorship, would your hunting rifles stop them?
Mike Vanderboegh directs our attention to the Southern Poverty Law Center's (or, as Mike much more honestly calls them, Southern Preposterous Lie Center's) latest collection of libels against the Oath Keepers (and militias, and patriots). Here, they lament a seeming lack of authority within the military to suppress the Oath Keepers:
[Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col Les] Melnyk provided the specific Defense Department regulation regarding prohibited extremist groups, and it clearly is aimed more at groups that discriminate based on such things as race, ethnicity or religion. Simple conspiracy theorists, for now, might get a free pass. The regulation reads as follows:I think my "favorite" pro-Oath Breaker piece, though, was found by Thirdpower. In this one, written by someone named Jeff Mushall, we're told of the "alarming" intersection of Oath Keepers and Three Percenters.
“Prohibited Activities. Military personnel must reject participation in organizations that espouse supremacist causes; attempt to create illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, religion, or national origin; advocate the use of force or violence; or otherwise engage in efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights. Active participation, such as publicly demonstrating or rallying, fund raising, recruiting and training members, organizing or leading such organizations, or otherwise engaging in activities in relation to such organizations or in furtherance of the objectives of such organizations that are viewed by command to be detrimental to the good order, discipline, or mission accomplishment of the unit, is incompatible with Military Service, and is, therefore, prohibited.”
But on to their veiled threats against the current leadership. There is a photo posted here that shows a soldier in Iraq wearing what appear to be uniform patches saying "OATHKEEPER"Mushall is, of course, referring to this picture. Mushall takes the rhetoric to a new level, saying, in the blurb describing his piece:
AND "THREE PERCENT" as though they were military issue. Of course, they are not. Read some of the comments and understand what some of these "Oathkeepers" are really about.
The person who sent the photo references the so-called "Sipsey Street Irregulars" which boasts to be "the gathering place for a merry band of Three Percenters" Apparently, "Three Percenters" are people who pledge to take up arms against any attempt at gun control.
Read about the Sipsey Street Irregulars here and learn what right wing paramilitary activity looks like when it in formative stages. One quote on the page says "All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war." - Billy Beck, August 2009.
The "Oathkeepers" Need to Be Put in Check - NowMushall is serious about wanting the Oath Keepers "put in check":
It's not that far of a leap to go from vigilante Constitution enforcer to right wing death squad.
Already, the group plans on mass mailing kits to active duty military outlining what they are about and seeking recruits. It's not a violation of free speech to suggest military commanders do not allow that. Just because a person is in the military or on a police force doesn't give them the right to arbitrarily interpret laws and act according to what they perceive as threat.Despite the hideous, libelous lies, I see this as a positive development. I want the statists to realize that the combination of Three Percenters and Oath Keepers is a serious threat to any agenda of subverting the Constitution. I want them to fear the patriotic resolve of a resurgent Constitutional Militia movement. I want, basically, for them to realize that there will be no "Green Zones" for them, if they push too far.
Below is possibly the worst photoshop job ever done, featuring, from left to right--my versions of the Cowardly Lion, the Scarecrow, Dorothy, and the Tin Man--played by Jeff Mushall, Cynthia Tucker, Chris Matthews, and Mark Potok, respectively.
Oath Keepers and Threepers and militias, oh my!Yeah--I know the "Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!" thing came right before the Cowardly Lion joined them--sue me.
UPDATE: David has another must-read
Stumble it!
21 comments:
greetings from Wyoming,
as a self proclaimed 3%er , i belive and adhere to its tenents , and as a person whom took the OATH 3 times , i think that warm tingly feeling that the statists are feeling at the moment isnt a thrill, ill let the reader venture a guess as to what it may be.the article asked , what good hunting rifles are against nukes and f-16s, naive little statists all i say is look to history , this countrys early history and westward expansion, so that leaves , what about the laws?
i say , they can legislate whatever they want, it only shows their true intentions , compliance is never guarenteed, because some people will never agree with you, and enforcement? its impossable without bloodshed against those that have already decided that they wont go along , so yes , i think that warm feeling tinkling down the statists legs now , isnt a warm fuzzy.`
AlphaWolf
III
I think you and I see things in just about the same way, AlphaWolf--and I'm proud to consider myself to be on the same side as you.
I'm glad you told me who was in the photoshop picture. I only recognized Po-dunk. And that, from seeing him on the Chris Matthews show against Rhodes.
Thanks
B Woodman
III-per
Yeah, I didn't think many would recognize Tucker or Mushall (it took me a bit of searching for a photo of him)--so I knew I'd need to provide an explanation.
Ha! I love that f-16 and nuke comment. Hysterical.
A famous quote comes to mind, being very precious to Caligula: "Oderint dum metuant" or, roughly translated, 'Let them hate, so long as they fear'
Indeed.
And another quote came to me the other day in relation to these posts about OK as of late..
Yamamoto: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
I'll be blogrolling you post-haste
Thanks, Tangalor--the blogrolling will be mutual.
Howdy, AlphaWolf! Good to hear another voice from Wyoming. I'm here in the NE corner - an old lady, but I can shoot straight, every time!
By the way, Tangalor--you made me think of something--thanks.
I demand their respect as the free man I am. I demand their respect for the Constitution. If they withhold either they are indeed prescient in fearing me.
I will offer no consequence for their thoughts, but if they turn them to action to display that disrespect of either of the issues above noted, they will rue that day.
Hi Kurt. Well-said, as usual.
It certainly seems that the PSH is stepping itself up a notch, dunnit?
Beyond the normal assaults on human dignity and individual sovereignty (and lots of Chicken Little waving the bloody shirt) that the liberty-loving have had to endure since before any of us were born, what I notice is specific upticks in conflation and similar semantic sophistries, and this suggests that the control freaks are starting to sic their (ahem) "better" propaganda artists on the task.
I hope that's as good a sign as it appears to be, because as frustrating as these eggheads can be, they're not that good, and try as they might they don't have any answers, as long as we don't get distracted from the right questions.
It may be useful to point out the irony of the hysterical assumption that individual people banding together in common peaceable purpose--that is, assembling and speaking--must somehow necessarily imply malicious intent (even though nothing seems to have happened yet), while at the same time discounting out of hand the notion that forcing prior restraint upon ALL the peaceable at the hands of the government's armed goon squads, with a provable history of real abuse, murder, theft and fraud, has happened, is happening now or is even conceivable.
That is: how is it that the government's thousands upon thousands of cases of abuse of power, breach of contract, crimes against humanity, clear contempt for the rule of law itself (to say nothing of equal protection thereunder), and nearly every other general and secret malice a body can think of, documented by a diversity of parties so vast as to include mutual mortal enemies, somehow be less worrisome than a tiny "opt-in" group publicly promising nothing more than restraint against unlawful orders?
It sounds ridiculous even saying it, but that's the attitude we're confronted with. Since we can't reason with it, at least we can throw the hypocrisy into stark relief for anyone to see.
Another thing that we might want to underscore here--and this is what makes OK intriguing to a libertarian mindset--is that this is evidence of individuals asserting their individuality literally within the belly of the beast. The state has no interest in advertising that it is composed of individuals--that is an embarrassment to the idea that it acts as one entity, from the top down, with no questions. (We'll see what sort of official reprisals that OK members have to deal with, once Leviathan recovers from having been caught off guard with a pretty nice play.)
The prime value of OK is thus not in any sort of "organization" at all, despite the drooling drivel from the control freaks and their hitmen. (The Threepers make that point very well, although their point is different. OK simply refuse to follow illegal official orders; Threepers are more about promising a private response to aggression.) With no offense intended to Rhodes, the name and the leadership is purely of marketing value.
In the end, too, we can always lean back on this concept with the control freaks, a concept which Vanderboegh makes brilliantly: the instant that the law fails to protect us from the state, making it null and void--that being the whole point of that charter-document thingy, after all--it also no longer protects the state from us. And for anyone who whines about the current dialogue being "uncivil", what with people speaking frankly and displaying a willingness to resist: remember, these are the people who want to talk. These are the nice guys. It might be prudent not to shut them down, lest others start to pop up. Anyone who thinks that won't happen is, as the saying goes, whistling past the graveyard of history.
Yeah, this has me wound up a bit. :-)
Thanks, Kevin--that's as lucid a description of the situation as I'm likely to find anywhere.
Nex ut Tyrannus
Paladin
As if they would use nuclear weapons. *rolls eyes* And they say we are irrational?
F-16s and nukes.... and us fighting back with hunting rifles? Where dos this guy get the material for his scenarios???
Oath Keepers will COUNTER the "F-16s and nukes" with weaponry of their own. NO LAW, NO ORDER, CAN DUTIFULLY BE FULFILLED WHEN TARGETED AGAINST THE CITIZENRY!!! I want to scream that up one side and down the other..
Still, in the off chance that an oath-breaker SOB does get passed his honorable brethren, he most likely will not find a target with his F-16, or be able to single-handedly launch a nuke against 1 combatant and 1.5 million non-combatants. He'll have to come in at ground level, where deer rifles, hog guns, Sat specials, "butter knives", ball peen hammers and a Barret or 5 will meet him with a new set of orders.
GO TO HELL
OK, bro, let's get to the REAL question everyone is afraid to ask. In your photo - exactly WHERE is Potok's right hand? And WHY does Matthews have a bigger crap eating grin than usual? Finally, what is running down his leg? Is THAT what he calls a thrill??? Eeeew!!!!
Now, Para--you wouldn't have me reveal the trade secrets of my . . . unique PhotoShop "skills," would you?
Kurt,
I was outraged too outraged for words that people who are pleging to act patriotically are called anti-American. Indeed, when I read this yesterday, I too overwhelmed to comment.
Funny story, when I was explaining the story to my wife, I said "Chris Matthews said" so and so and before I could get another word out she asked "Who's Chris Matthews?" Priceless.
Regards,
PolyKahr
Hey PolyKahr, does your wife read romance novels? If so, maybe she would recognize Chris Matthews by his picture ;-).
RE your 8:42 photoshop -
on target, fire for effect!
BTW - just has a Tweet fromn Chrissy Matthews - can you supply him with 8 x 10s? You also have a query here from Keith Olberman asking if oyu could make a poster of him being ravaged by James Carville?
The reason the powers-that-be are sending their top propagandists to attack 3-pers and the Oath Keepers is self-preservation--and fear.
They realize in order to shove their unconstitutional and unlawful demands down our throat, they will depend on law enforcement and military to do their bidding. However, if this force is rightfully telling them to "go pound sand," the powers-that-be are suddenly emasculated, set up for ridicule, unable to enforce their unconstitutional laws--and open to face the same fate as the Romanian leadership, c. 1989.
They know their eventual fate if they keep trying what they are doing--they aren't stupid--and thus will try to smother any movement that denies them this power, and do it as quickly as possible. And use any means necessary that they can get away with.
It won't work, of course, but the present media attention shows that they are taking notice and are afraid of this noble concept.
Good. We're in it for the long haul. And we intend to win.
--PB, NoVa
On target as usual. To think that Mathews et al believe that the Constitution should be ignored speaks volumes. Any that do that and claim that they are just following orders will be putting forth a Nuremberg defense, and should get the same treatment that the Nazi's did at Nuremberg.
Looks like Wyoming is going to be a target, what with all of us speaking out against oppression as of late. I'm in N.E. Wyoming as well.
Post a Comment