Mutiny in the making at Ft. Drum?
The left-leaning Mother Jones magazine's fascinating cover story this month profiles a growing militia-style group on the right called Oath Keepers. The twist is that Oathkeepers are largely active-duty members of the military who are preparing to disobey their Commander-in-Chief.
The story features Lee Pray (not his real last name), a private based at Fort Drum:
In Pray's estimate, it might not be long (months, perhaps a year) before President Obama finds some pretext—a pandemic, a natural disaster, a terror attack—to impose martial law, ban interstate travel, and begin detaining citizens en masse. One of his fellow Oath Keepers, a former infantryman, advised me to prepare a "bug out" bag with 39 items including gas masks, ammo, and water purification tablets, so that I'd be ready to go "when the shit hits the fan."
When it does, Pray and his buddies plan to go AWOL and make their way to their "fortified bunker"—the home of one comrade's parents in rural Idaho—where they've stocked survival gear, generators, food, and weapons. If it becomes necessary, they say, they will turn those guns against their fellow soldiers.
As the article points out, the Oath Keepers are closely linked to civilian right-wing groups from the Tea Party to Birthers to 912ers.
Aside from the intra-military implications of rank-and-file troops vowing to disobey - and take arms against - their highest commander, here's what really interests me. If you read Oath Keepers' list of orders they will not obey, they're not much different from what a lot of people on the Left most feared during the Bush Administration.
Fort Drum folks out there: do you know any Oathkeepers? What do you think you've sworn an oath to - the Constitution? The Commander-in-Chief? Both? Are they vigilant, patriotic soldiers or a threat to chain of command so integral to a functioning military?
posted by David Sommerstein @ 3/11/2010 11:35:00 AM
55 Comments
55 Comments:
Remember Lt. Kendrick in "A Few Good Men"? He said "I have two books at my bedside, Lieutenant, the Marine Corps Code of Conduct and the King James Bible. The only proper authorities I am aware of are my commanding officer Colonel Nathan R. Jessup and the Lord our God."
It wouldn't surprise me if we had serving soldiers that do not see the importance of the US Constitution.
No profanity here. If you want to wrestle with the arguments and ideas, do so intelligently.
--Brian, NCPR
Wolverines!
Just when I think I've seen it all.
Funny, I've been following Oath Keepers since it's inception. Your view is about 180 degrees from mine. The concept of "What do we do if we're ordered to fire on US citizens" has been around since long before Obama came to office. That's the concern that started OK as far as I know. A corrupt gov't ordering the military to perform an illegal action is a very real possibility. Consider if a Republican, lets say The Most Evil Dick Cheney was Prez. Lets say there was a rumor circulating on The Kos, Slate, Democrat Underground. etc. that Evil Dick was going to have the military do something clearly wrong here in the good ol' USA. Would you consider a soldier questioning an illegal order wrong? Oh, yeah, that'd be a little different wouldn't it?
I'm just going to sit back and see what kind of frothing at the mouth leftist trash gets aired on this subject.
Mr. Sommerstein asks three questions of “Fort Drum folks” at the end of his posting:
1. [D]o you know any Oathkeepers?
2. What do you think you've sworn an oath to - the Constitution? The Commander-in-Chief? Both?
3. Are they vigilant, patriotic soldiers or a threat to chain of command so integral to a functioning military?
As I am an active duty soldier at Ft. Drum, I’ll attempt to fulfill his request…
But first I’ll provide the context missing from this hysterical bleg.
Enlisted military members take the following oath: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (Note: National Guard enlistees also swear or affirm to support and defend their individual state constitutions and to obey orders from that state’s governor)
Officers take a similar oath: I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. (Please note the absence of any reference to the President in the last oath)
Articles 90, 91 and 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) all require soldiers to obey LAWFUL orders. And as even Mr. Sommerstein should know, soldiers are not only not obligated to follow, but are PROHIBITED from following UNLAWFUL orders (see US v. Keenan, et al).
--- continued ---
--- continued ---
Now, what orders do Oathkeepers say they will not obey? The following ten classes of order this organization states are all ILLEGAL orders and are grounded in the United States Constitution. So, let’s review them:
1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people. (2nd Amendment)
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. (4th Amendment)
3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal. (14th Amendment)
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. (10th Amendment)
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. (Doubtful, yet the door is still left open after Texas v. White [1869])
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. (Article 1, Section 9, 8th Amendment, ex parte Milligan [1866], et al)
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. (4th Amendment, 14th Amendment, Civil Liberties Act of 1988, et al)
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. (Something just never considered as possible, so never really addressed)
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. (14th Amendment)
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. (1st Amendment)
So, Mr. Sommerstein, now that the reader has some context, I’ll answer your three questions:
1. [D]o you know any Oathkeepers?
Answer: No.
2. What do you think you've sworn an oath to - the Constitution? The Commander-in-Chief? Both?
Answer: We have all sworn a oath to the Constitution. Enlisted members have sworn to uphold the [LAWFUL] orders of the President (or Commander-in-Chief). There is not one person in the military who has ever been required to swear an oath to the officer of the President of the United States. Please do a little reading.
3. Are they vigilant, patriotic soldiers or a threat to chain of command so integral to a functioning military?
Answer: I’ll provide an answer in the form of a question… Except for the debatable points raised in numbers five (5) and eight (8) from the Oathkeepers list of ten (what they consider) illegal orders, what is so threatening about upholding the rights of the citizenry guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States? Do you consider this a threat?
You sir, are an hysterical drone.
From the OK website-
What We Are Not
We are Not advocating or promoting the overthrow of any government whether local, state or national. We want our governments to return to the Constitutional Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution defined and instituted.
We are Not advocating or promoting violence towards any organization, group or person. We are determined to Keep our Oath to support and defend the Constitution.
We are not advocating or promoting the removal of any person from his or her elected office. We want all elected persons to live up to their Oath to “support and defend the Constitution” as it is written or to leave of their own volition.
We are not advocating or promoting that anyone in the Judicial Branch be removed or replaced. We want the Justices in the Judicial Branch to follow the Constitution as written without interpretation.
We are not advocating or promoting any particular form of government other than the Constitutional Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution defined and instituted.
We are not advocating or promoting the rewriting of the Constitution nor are we asking for an Amendment thereto. We are insisting on the Constitution being Enforced as it is written.
We are Not advocating or promoting any act or acts of aggression against any organization or person for any
reason including, but not limited to; race, religion, national origin, political affiliation, gender or sexual orientation.
We hope for a return to a Constitutional Republic free from fear and hatred. We hate only tyranny.
We are Oath Sworn Americans who want the Constitution returned to its legal and rightful place, intact, as the ultimate Law of the Land.
Boy, that's some scary stuff....
Bret -
In my post, I basically pose the exact same scenario as you do - this is what lefties were saying/fearing about the Bush Administration.
Chief Kujo -
Thanks for posting the oath.
My questions are intended to provoke discussion *about the article*, not to be a "hysterical drone". Certainly you can make your case without name-calling.
"what is so threatening about upholding the rights of the citizenry guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States?"
Nothing, if there were actual reasons to have concerns that rights are being taken away. Other than the rights Bush took away and Obama has reaffirmed (such as Habeas corpus).
What is odd to me is that it seems concerns about concentration camps, disarming Americans, blockading American cities etc. have arisen since Democrats, who happen to be led by a black man with a funny name, came into power.
Remember, American citizens have been shot by American soldiers. It happened at Kent State University on May 4, 1970 (under Republican President Richard Nixon). I wonder what today's "Oathkeepers" think about that incident?
It seems to me the "OathKeepers" could have the same effect by joining the ACLU. But then they would have no reason to have guns, ammo and survival supplies hidden away in Idaho.
David, as far as I know, "lefties" did not form vigilante groups when they had concerns about the Bush administration undermining the Constitution. They hoped our democratic form of government (ie. Supreme Court) would intervene to protect our Constitution.
Anon 2:12 -
"We are Not advocating or promoting the overthrow of any government whether local, state or national. We want our governments to return to the Constitutional Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution defined and instituted."
Sure, sounds simple enough. Isn't this what Supreme Court justices spend their entire careers trying to figure out?
Do you really want Oathkeepers to make their own constitutional intepretations of presidential actions/orders?
It seems to me if the Oath Keepers are a devout, law abiding, and innocent organization, then they should do a little message control with their members.
Having a member brag about building a weapons cache in Idaho, being ideally trained to engage in combat with fellow U.S. troops, and getting paranoid about concentration camps on Fort Drum, all in a national magazine - regardless the political tilt - hardly seems the way to build a mainstream movement.
This post has been removed by the author.
David (sorry, fixd), perhaps drone was too strong a noun. How about “bandwagoneer?”
“What is odd to me is that it seems concerns about concentration camps, disarming Americans, blockading American cities etc. have arisen since Democrats, who happen to be led by a black man with a funny name, came into power.”
PCS, you threw the race card down, not anyone else. Why?
“Remember, American citizens have been shot by American soldiers. It happened at Kent State University on May 4, 1970 (under Republican President Richard Nixon). I wonder what today's "Oathkeepers" think about that incident?”
PCS, they were shot by Ohio National Guard troops, activated under orders from the state governor in the legal exercise of his police powers. This case does not apply here, as we are discussing federal issues. Maybe you should have mentioned Hoover, MacArthur, Eisenhower and Patton and their routing of the Bonus Army instead.
“It seems to me the 'OathKeepers' could have the same effect by joining the ACLU. But then they would have no reason to have guns, ammo and survival supplies hidden away in Idaho.”
PCS, what do you have against the free exercise of constitutional rights? Who is really the threat here?
You're so right David. What we want from our soldiers and police is blind obedience to their orders. The fact this article is written with absolutely no slant by a reporter from a magazine with absolutely no agenda who managed to find a couple of real rocket scientists at Drum is all the proof we need to pass judgment on the concept and concerns of those involved.
Good open minded, unbiased reporting as always.
And why shouldn't the "race card" as you call it be thrown down. Have you seen the pictures of our President at some of these conservative rallies? Aren't many "oathkeepers" also "birthers"? Are you claiming race has nothing to do with this phenomenon? Of course it does.
"PCS, they were shot by Ohio National Guard troops, activated under orders from the state governor in the legal exercise of his police powers."
Didn't National Guardsmen take the oath to uphold the Constitution back in those days? Are you saying if another incident like Kent State occurred that the Oathkeepers would refuse the order to shoot? Sorry, but I've heard enough rightwing hate and fear-mongering over the last ten years to be concerned that the "oathkeepers" wouldn't mind one bit if us lefty-socialist-liberals were rounded up into concentration camps.
"PCS, what do you have against the free exercise of constitutional rights?"
Absolutely nothing. I support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights without question. I also have faith in our form of government that "Oathkeepers" do not seem to have.
"Who is really the threat here?"
I'd have to say the guy with the .50 CALIBER Bushmaster bolt action rifle is a bit of a bigger threat than....well whoever the oathkeepers think are going to herd people into concentration camps.
This post has been removed by the author.
Ed, please note that the very conservative website "little green footballs" also seems to have very little regard for "oathkeepers".
PCS, never heard of Little Green Footballs before. Big whoop. One obscure blog that doesn't like them, wow. I can find 100 blogs that diss Obama, is that proof that they're right?
The larger question is it right for our police and servicemen to consider themselves more than automatons bound to follow apparently illegal orders that subvert the law and Constitution? I see nothing wrong with it. But, as my good friend says, I imagine it's in your perspective, others may find it troubling.
it is true that members of the armed services are both required to obey lawful orders, and required to disobey unlawful ones. However, the comments show why we should not allow individual members of the armed forces to on their own make these determinations.
1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.
Does this mean that US Military in Lousiana will not order an armed looter or bandit to surrender his or her weapon? There is a difference between disarming an American PERSON and the American people? Also, what about those who violate gun laws -- is this "disarming?"
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.
The 4A prohibits UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. There are many more warrantless searches in the US than those with warants. The military would not "pat down" a suspect, search with consent of the homeowner, install a metal detector at a federal facility, etc. under this "oath."
3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal. Does this mean that the Fort Hood shooter -- who will be tried by a lawful military tribunal -- is subject to the "oath?"
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. The Constitution expressly allows Congress to impose martial law. Ex. parte Milligan.
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. "State" meaning sovereign nation? So no WWII, no Germany, no Iraq, no war at all. State meaning political subdivision of the US? Didn't the Union WIN the Civil war?
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. Try Korematsu.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. Korematsu again. Supreme Court upheld as constitutional the Japanese interrment.
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. Um.. Koscioscu and Marquis deLafayette? Both foreign troops who were assisted by Americans against Americans who were "loyalists"
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. 14th A requires "due process" for confiscation. Is not taxation 'confiscation of property?"
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. First Amendment is not and has never been absolute. See Alien and Sedition Acts.
If the current socialist CIC tries to force the military to accept perverts, I can see a lot of this happening. Tolerance is one thing acceptance another.
Ed, Actually it says a lot for you that you don't know about little green footballs. You should be glad you never read it. LGF is not some little known website. It is (was) one of the largest politically conservative websites on the internet. Oddly enough, Charles Johnson, the person that started LGF is currently making at least a 90 degree turn in his political views.
3:50- Your attempt at somehow making the case that precedent establishes proper actions has only enforced the Oath Keepers position. Look at all the things you listed that have been found to be wrong, illegal or morally and Constitutionally unjust and incorrect. Take #7- At the time the Court upheld the decision. Do you think that todays SCOTUS would uphold the idea of rounding up all Moslems in the US and imprisoning them? #1- Post Katrina actions by police in La. are precisely the reason this is included in the list. There is video footage of police forcibly slamming an elderly woman into a wall while confiscating her gun- her only means of protecting herself and her property. She was denied her 2nd Amend. rights, her property and her ability to pursue "life and liberty", to say nothing of happiness.
It's time we recognize that in stressful times, and in some not so stressful times, improper and even illegal orders are given. Shouldn't we expect more of our police and soldiers than mindless adherence to orders? Wasn't that the defense of many Nazis who participated in the Holocaust? Do we want that type of thing to happen again?
The scenario of Martial Law or some unthinkable disease putting the USA into the position where someone makes a horrible, but seemingly necessary, decision may be science fiction to some people. But those of us who have studied history know it can and does happen repeatedly throughout time. I don't find survivalists and preppers anywhere near as disturbing as those who completely ignore the possibility our system could crash, that what we consider "normal" could become a distant memory. Things are a bit too frail today to assume things will ever return to "normal".
Cyberjust:
“However, the comments show why we should not allow individual members of the armed forces to on their own make these determinations.”
Um, yes, we do. And if they choose wrong, they are punished.
To save space:
1. Yes , correct, as in “…, the right of the people to keep and bear…”
2. Um, no… See 18 USC 1385; “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
3. MAJ Hasan is not an unlawful enemy combatant. Your point does not exist.
4. You are strictly correct. I didn’t write them, and this (along with several others later on) is too broadly written. I assumed they were addressing non-congressionally authorized habeas corpus suspensions, but that’s a leap on my part.
5. Small “s” state. My comment stands.
6. Yes, even though the States District Court for the Northern District of California later overturned the conviction and Korematsu is still technically “good” law, the Executive and Legislative branches have corrected it.
7. Same.
8. Your two military dandies were prior to our “constitutional form of government.”
9. The last time I looked, there was no provision for the military to collect taxes.
10. Note they were either repealed or allowed to expire and are not in effect.
To PCS and his observation on LGF.
Crazy Charles hasn't turned 90 degrees; he's gone off the tracks completely.
Frankly we have broken the uniform military code already in how we have executed certain parts of the "war on terror".
We have already denied our constitution by having two wars on the mandate of the President alone, only Congress according to the constitution, can declare war.
So is this just about Obama?
Mervel:
Do a search on "AUMF"
Was the AUMF a declaration of war? Aren't conservatives arguing that the Constitution isn't being followed? Has the Supreme Court ever ruled on the constitutionality of the AUMF? When was the last time Congress actually declared war?
Yeah I think AUMF is an attempt to cover the issue, but it is not what the constitution says.
Who gets to interpret the constitution, this is the issue.
"When was the last time Congress actually declared war?"
WW2, but AUMF had been used in various forms since the countries inception. Jefferson sent the Marines to kick the Barbary Pirates into submission, The Seminole Wars, all the Indian Wars I think, Haiti and the Dominican Republic (The Banana Wars), Korea, Vietnam, the Balkans, etc. I forget if it was Hoover or FDR that had Marines guarding the US Mail trains. Nothing new here.
Right so we have a bunch of times when this group if it followed its own bylaws should have revolted.
The constitution is interpreted by the Courts with the Supreme Court being the final interpreter, not random groups of people who have their own take and THAT is the system we live under.
Mervel, I think the bigger question is just how much interpretation do we need to use with the Constitution? Much of the Constitution is plainly written and it's only when "interpretations" get into the mix that there are problems. For instance- Throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights the phrase "...the people..." means the whole of the population, except (according to many)in the 2nd Amendment where "...the people..." is suddenly supposed to mean the National Guard or Regular Army or "the Militia". It doesn't take a lawyer or Supreme Court Justice to question interpretations like that.
Extra Constitutional powers have been a problem since day one of the country. Any serious student of American history and the Constitution and Bill of Rights can expound at length on the various problems the Founders had in coming to agreement on the wording of the documents. The famous "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." was originally "life liberty and property" but the slavery issue was in play even then and the very wise men that wrote those words changed it to avoid giving the pro slave states a footing for a guarantee of human ownership. The chose the words carefully and interpretation should have it's limits. That is the problem we come to today, where we have Justices referring to foreign law to base their decisions on, activist judges who "interpret" laws to say what they wish it to say, when myths like the "separation of church and state" are so ingrained in modern society that trying to explain the idea isn't in the Constitution or BoR is fruitless. Tell people where the phrase came from and it does no good. We've "interpreted" a prohibition against a State sponsored religion to mean religion can have no place in a public building or on public grounds and even the words "In God we trust" are now in question.
I could go on for hours. No need. Suffice it to say that many people feel, rightly in my opinion, that we've corrupted and twisted the Constitution and Bill of Rights to a point where good men may have to say, "No, I won't do that." A troubling thought, and one I pray we never see come to pass.
Yes I think good men may at some point have to say that, I agree with you on that.
I just think that if you really feel that we are close to that point right now, close enough that there is a need to form a group now to be ready to not follow orders, then you should not join the military or draw any government check. We have that option right now we can act on our convictions and one way of doing that is not being on the payroll of this government which may be corrupted beyond repair. Lets get real, civil war is serious business, not something to play around with.
So now is the time to leave, not when you are faced with the situation.
If I recall correctly that's what the two "rocket scientists" in the article were talking about- if things go bad they'd leave (setting themselves up for arrest knowingly) rather than open fire on American citizens or herd "rebels" into camps. Not something I would think someone would do on a whim.
Tell me, do you think what is being said here is rather similar to what might have been said back in 1774/75/76? Lets hope we never have to let history judge who was the patriot and who was the criminal.
Have any of you ever known someone - a family member or close friend - who suffers from paranoia or delusions?
At the risk of dismissing his views (or, in my opinion, the very real danger that individuals like the one in this story pose), this poor guy is almost text book. I am surprised the author didn't pursue this further, but I suspect she too was trying to avoid dismissing the more important point of her story.
He has all of his conspiracies covered. From birther, to truther, to thinking the CIA is listening in on him, and tracking his email (but note, facebook is ok - which of course makes no sense. this is another classic symptom. delusions are often rationalized and selective, rarely complete and air tight), to substance abuse problems - which unfortunately is so often present in an individual with these problems - to black unmarked cars tailing him...
I feel for this guy on so many levels. Living with these types of thoughts is not easy and can be extremely consuming and disruptive. I've unfortunately seen it up close.
So where does this leave the two law enforcement officers at Fort Hood who shot Maj Hasan?
A soldier cries ALLAH AKABAR, or LONG LIVE THE OATH KEEPERS - and opens fire on a group of US citizens (hint: this includes military members!!) -
You are an MP active duty, and you draw down, and you supervisor who just arrived on the scene tells you "don't shoot him/her..."
what would you do.
There is no black and white answer. Each circumstance requires a different response.
You can't just state "we won't obey"
And Officer are commissioned by the President - and as such swear/affirm unwavering loyalty to the position:
I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.
That means you follow orders unless blatantly illegal, unlawful, unethical, or immoral.
In my opinion every proud legal US citizen white,black,red and mixes should join the oathkeepers! I don't fear their retoric I applaud them. Common sense and history says we should fear a government that fears us. After all they are supposed to be of us. I have never cared much for politics but you have to admit something is going wrong with the USA. The riots in greece on tv may be happening right here very soon. We are not above bankruptcy. What will our govt do? What will the people do? It's a sure thing our taxes are going up pushing many on the edge off. This may be the breaking point between government and the people. I can tell you myself being a small business owner dealing with the public people are pissed! And nothing is wrong with being prepared for what may come. I am going to join the oathkeepers right now!
The only oath I've taken is to protect and defend The Constitution.
Nothing but death can release me from my obligation and I wouldn't have it any other way!
"David Sommerstein said...
"In my post, I basically pose the exact same scenario as you do - this is what lefties were saying/fearing about the Bush Administration."
Yes,except the left screamed "fascism" when the Bush admin was going after FOREIGN TERRORISTS, while the Obama administration has PUBLICLY STATED THAT U.S. VETS & CONSERVATIVES are "terrorists".
"Certainly you can make your case without name-calling."
You mean as opposed to your lead SLANDERING of the Oathkeepers?
" The twist is that Oathkeepers are largely active-duty members of the military who are preparing to disobey their Commander-in-Chief."
You know, for a "journalist" sucking on the taxpayer funded teat of NPR, maybe you should learn how to do ACCURATE OWN RESEARCH.
"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." Abraham Lincoln, Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois (January 27, 1838)
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts
DSM- before you label anyone in the Oath Keepers a paranoid, delusional head case, consider for a moment that as usual the reporter searched out and found 2 (alleged) soldiers who were about as close to post card misfits as you can get. I wouldn't judge an entire group based on the examples she exhibited. The Pray kids background shows he's got problems beyond anything connected to OK, and I'm pretty sure I could find people that sound just as nuts on the opposite end of the spectrum. Look at the ALF or Earth First! for instance. From my view point ALL of them are nuts.
I wonder how exactly the reporter "searched out" the two misfit soldiers? Did she go to some meeting of the oathkeepers and ask to interview their two craziest members or what?
I agree about ALF however. But I would go further. Every member of ALF is a terrorist as far as I'm concerned.
PCS- I would think she searched Facebook pages till she found what she wanted. It's an old ploy- ever see an anti-gun piece where the "pro-gun" guy isn't a fat slob in bib overalls, greasy hair, with 3 teeth and who can barely string a dozen words together? Or a pro-choice piece where the pro-lifer isn't a frothing at the mouth religious zealot wearing bib overalls, with greasy hair....etc.? If you want to do a hatchet job you don;t look for the reasonable, articulate, intelligent person who can state the issue clearly. Instead you look for the disgruntled guy with the tattoos, bib overalls.....
Bret,
I wasn't labeling anyone as paranoid and delusional other than the person I was talking about... The poor guy at the center of that story.
It is my opinion though, that groups like the Oath Keepers attract a certain set of personalities that are prone to these types of delusions. It is a classic positive feedback loop. If you are susceptible to paranoid thoughts, joining a group like this feeds your tendencies.
If you were to take this Pray kid and put him in the Chess club, instead of some anti-government militia, would his delusions express themselves? I don't know. But groups like the Oath Keepers do strike me as self selecting for people with these types of problems. This is no different than any extreme group on either side of the spectrum... religious, political or otherwise.
Radical Islamists, for example.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious, but it cannot survive treason from within." - Cicero (-106 to -43)
Joe Hadenuff said:
"You know, for a "journalist" sucking on the taxpayer funded teat of NPR, maybe you should learn how to do ACCURATE OWN RESEARCH."
Actually, NPR doesn't get taxpayer funding; station's like North Country Public Radio do. NPR is funded via station program fees, national underwriting sales and private foundation support. In 2009 North Country Public Radio got 14% of its $2 million annual budget from federal taxes and another 4% in tax funds from New York State. The other 82% of our budget comes from member contributions, local underwriting sales, support from foundations and the university that holds our license, etc. You can see the whole pie (chart) at "Who Funds NCPR?"
To all of the young rebellious punks serving in the present day military--remember your oath at the time of your enlistment. REMEMBER U VOLUNTEERED, MAYBE YOUR SORRY ATTITUDES NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM THIS COUNTRY, GO IMMIGRATE TO IRAN, MAYBE U WILL FIT IN BETTER.
To all of the young rebellious punks serving in the present day military--remember your oath at the time of your enlistment. REMEMBER U VOLUNTEERED, MAYBE YOUR SORRY ATTITUDES NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM THIS COUNTRY, GO IMMIGRATE TO IRAN, MAYBE U WILL FIT IN BETTER.
Bad enough he uses capitals to "scream", but on top of that he can't spell. Another one who can;t see the problem is with the Congress overstepping it's authority and bureaucrats overstepping the law. It's about the Constitution and Bill of Rights...
Oh cut it out Dale. Do you think we're that stupid. Without support from the federal government you would not be able to provide the programming you have so therefore would not be able to employ staff to fill in slots between car talk and fresh air. why don't you take a rest and let people comment. don't be so defensive about everything or is your wife also running for office somewhere.
DSM, my impression is that kid isn't exactly a Rhodes scholar, and that's precisely why she picked him. No doubt he has very real concerns, as do I, but there's a difference between a 19-24 year old kid's perception of reality and that of a 50 year old man who's been around the block a few times. I will freely admit I agree with some of what he seems concerned about, but how you state things can make all the difference in how your position is perceived by someone who isn't familiar with that issue. Look at the pics of hit tats and read his quotes. She draws the picture of him precisely the way she wanted to. No doubt he probably said some things that were far less "fringe" but why bother trying to give the kid any semblance of rational thought when you can easily portray him as a blithering, paranoid idiot? Or more accurately- which will sell more copies of your article?
Beyond the Pray kid lays the larger issue- just why are so many people so concerned about the US Gov't acting in an illegal manner? It's quite simple to blame it all on a paranoid delusion. Or you can look at things like Ruby Ridge, Waco, experiments done on unsuspecting servicemen, various CIA and other alphabet agency operations that were clearly wrong, if not outright illegal, The Patriot Act, WMD, Katrina, various and sundry activities by police officers around the country that I'm ashamed to say were clearly illegal, perverted and wrong and yet which were not only endorsed but covered for by their superiors and even by politicians in some cases. As a former Marine and retired police officer I find things like that very, very disturbing. As a parent and taxpayer I find much of it nauseating. As an American citizen I find it unacceptable. And while I'm not a member of Oath Keepers, I can certainly sympathize with those who fear they may one day be put in the position of having to decide on doing what they're ordered to do or turning in their shield or refusing an order and facing a Court Martial. None of this is a joking matter and when you're the one who may be put in that position it's more than just a mental exercise.
Bret, with all due respect I think you are a bit paranoid. So you think individual oathkeepers have facebook pages? Pages that actually identify who they are? Pages where they make delusional rants like those of that Pray kid? Really? Would you want a soldier like that kid in your Marine Corps? I know I wouldn't stand for him in my Navy.
Man, do I ever have to eat my words. Oathkeepers actually do identify themselves on oathkeeper facebook pages! Personally, I couldn't find a single person that didn't seem at a minimum delusional. Did you know the USA is actually being run by the Rothschilds family? (Did you know they were Jews!!!!) Did you know Abe Lincoln actually was very supportive of slavery in the USA? Did you know oathkeepers claim to be nonpartisan? Unfortunately, the only people we need to fear happen to be President Obama and Nancy Pelosi {and sometimes Jimmy Carter). Oh yeah, there is a good rant on how Henry Ford built a car completely out of hemp (seriously)! Don't forget about the UN troops that will soon appear in our towns. It would be fun to go on, but I leave you with this. The rapture is coming soon!
I have to agree, it is very, very easy to find "post card misfits" on the oathkeeper facebook pages.
Yes PCS, and if you search most any group of any type you'll find the same post card misfits. I know several Navy vets that make the Pray kid look like a genius. In fact I worked with one who was fully in favor of eugenics. And I'm familiar with several Navy Oath Keepers, so you may have them whether you want them or not.
These "paranoids" seem to exist across the spectrum. I have a relative with years of college and her own counseling practice who buys into the whole "flouride in our water" thing and thinks the Bushs run the world along with all the other "Skull and Bones" members. I know of a very respected medical doctor who is a hardcore racist when he has a few too many drinks. Most people, you excluded of course, seem to have their weak spot in one area or another. The "God Worship" some people feel for Obama and the unreal powers and judgment attributed to him are just as kooky as some of the conspiracy theories you'll hear across the internet from both right and left wingers.
Now, how about addressing some of the problems I mentioned? Would you say things like shooting an unarmed mother, holding her child, in throat and killing her because someone was ordered to should be a the norm? Should the gov't be free to monitor your phone and email conversations? If you as a US Navy sailor were ordered to open fire on unarmed Americans, would you do it? In the same light, would you participate in rounding up certain groups of Americans- Oath Keepers or VFW members, maybe SEIU members or Asians or homosexuals or NRA members? Would you open fire on protesting US military veterans? All this has happened in one form or another in our past, maybe the groups were different, but at the time it seemed like a good idea.
So would you do something clearly wrong because you were ordered to?
No, I wouldn't obey unlawful orders. But I have enough confidence in my government and President (whether they be Republican or Democrat) that such orders would never be given. What bothers me, is I get the feeling that these so-called oathkeepers would have no problem what-so-ever pulling the trigger on liberals, progressives, citizens of color etc. I am sick to death that individuals in our military are forming these hate-groups. And, after visiting the oathkeepers facebook page, it is pretty hard to deny that they are a hate-group.
Not a single Oath Keeper I'm acquainted with is anything like what you describe. I think you're looking for what you want to see. The LAST thing any of the guys I know are is hateful. Incidentally, none that I know of post on Facebook. In fact I'm fairly certain these 50+ YOA men don't know Facebook exists. So I wouldn't draw all my conclusions from that site.
So you would disobey that order, that puts you right in the same boat as the OK. What about my other questions? Do you "have enough confidence in my government and President (whether they be Republican or Democrat) that such orders would never be given" even though those orders HAVE been given in the past? You're avoiding the primary issue- wrong has been done, laws have been broken and they will be again. Why do you find it hard to see why those who will be put on the spot have decided to let their Gov't or bosses know that they aren't mind numbed robots willing to do the wrong thing?
Post a Comment
<< Home