Posted on 06/11/2010 7:03:43 AM PDT by marktwain
Along with the tea party, .44 Magnum-owners, and fluoridation opponents, Sharron Angle, Nevada's Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, has another hot-button association: to the Oath Keepers. The organization is made up of former members of the military, police and firefighters, and while Angle has never been any of those, she does claim to be a member.
The Oath Keepers, with chapters in every state, are one of those fringe groups that share an ideology with the prototypical villain from the show "24." They're self-described "patriots," who have pledged to uphold the Constitution (just like the president!) if it's threatened. There's a list of 10 orders that they have sworn never to carry out. "They won't, for example, conduct warrantless searches, enforce martial law, or put Americans into concentration camps," writes Salon's Gabriel Winant. "It's not that surprising a code of conduct or even, in itself, entirely indefensible. (Though you do wonder where these guys were, say, five or six years ago.)" They're also big fans of the Second Amendment and preach the values of an armed citizenry, as did Angle, recently, as she commented on brisk ammunition sales around the country in the Reno Gazette-Journal:
"That tells me the nation is arming. What are they arming for if it isn't that they are so distrustful of their government? They're afraid they'll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways? If we don't win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?"
In March, the liberal magazine Mother Jones ran a long feature on the Oath Keepers. "In the months I've spent getting to know the Oath Keepers, I've toggled between viewing them either as potentially dangerous conspiracy theorists or as crafty intellectuals with the savvy to rally politicians to their side," writes author Justine Sharrock. "The answer, I came to realize, is that they cover the whole spectrum."
The Oath Keepers say they are prepared to take up guns against the government, though there's been no instances of violence yet. Of course, were Angle to win her race, she too would be part of the federal government that the Oath Keepers find so nefarious. What will she say then to Oath Keepers like Pvt. 1st Class Lee Pray, who tells Sharrock: "If the government continues to ignore us, and forces us to engage, I'm willing to fight to the death."
Has Paul resolutely refused to read any history? Has he ignored all the articles about Venuzuala and Hugo Chavez? Does he think that the domestic enemies mentioned in the oath of office are simply place holders because the person who wrote the oath wanted to make it more wordy?
It is hard to read the article, which tries to be sarcastic and fails miserably, without thinking that the oathkeepers are a very nice thing to have around today.
I have my CHL and I am a proud member of Oath Keepers.
Full court press here huh. So obvious. Should have caught Maddow last night it was disgusting.
They will not ever understand what this is about.
What the heck is this maroon talking about?
He is talking about the leftist fantasy that George W. Bush was a threat to the Constitution.
If you caught Maddow last night you were probably the only one.
Article 90, UCMJ
“Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his office; or
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer; shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.”
The Oath keepers is a great idea, but ‘if you choose wrong grasshopper, you will pay dearly’.
There is a difference between an illegal order and a manifestly illegal order. An illegal order can be in contravention of general legality, such as orders to make improper use of facilities, go beyond the speed limit in a military vehicle. A manifestly or patently illegal order applies to the protection of persons (civilians, prisoners, medical personnel and clergy), medical facilities, places of prayer, monuments, etc. (this list is not exhaustive). The US distinguishes a patently illegal order as one which orders someone to commit a crime.
My brother is an Oath Keeper, he was absolutely horrified by what happened in NOLA after Katrina.
So people dedicated to the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms and who are prepared to take on a criminal, tyrannical state are now “fringe” according to this writer??!! Well THAT sounds just about right! The US was founded by a bunch of fringe KOOKS, wasn’t it!!
Thanks for the link... Just added to the defeat Reid kitty...
HA!
Wow, I must be some kind of nut. I hope Jack Bauer doesn't come after me.
“I am a proud member of Oath Keepers”
Ditto..... committed, prepared, unshakable and very PROUD.
If you're going to do the normal journalistic sleight-of-hand with logic, you'll need to practice more. They don't object to the existence of the federal government. How could they, all they say is that they won't do anything violating the Constitution and the Constitution specifies the existence of a federal government. What the OK object to is any attempt by the government to claim or to use more power than granted by the letter and spirit of that document. For any government that intends to fulfill the roles outlined there using no more than the powers it grants, you'd think that would be a completely non-controversial position.
You are absolutely correct from a “progressive” viewpoint.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.