Hatewatch Tweets
Hatewatch is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Report, an investigative magazine published by the Alabama-based civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center.
Oath Keepers Say They’re on Patrol in Iraq
Oath Keepers, the militia/“Patriot” extremist group made up of law enforcement officers, military personnel and veterans, has posted a photo on its site showing (it says) “an active duty Oath Keeper in Mosul, Iraq” wearing two Velcro-attached “tabs” or patches, one saying “Oath Keeper” and the other “Three percent.” The flag patch beneath them is also an insignia of the “Three Percenters,” an informal alliance of hard-line gun owners.
The Oath Keepers figured prominently in a recent special report by the Southern Poverty Law Center on the resurgence of the antigovernment militia movement. The report described the group as “a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival.” Oath Keepers is fully on board with all the standard right-wing conspiracy theories, as evidenced by its official list of 10 “Orders We Will Not Obey,” in which it vows to resist any government efforts to “disarm the American people” or turn cities into “giant concentration camps.”
In July, the SPLC also presented Congress with growing evidence that extremists are infiltrating the U.S. military and urged Congress and the military to take steps to ensure that the armed forces are not inadvertently training future domestic terrorists.
A spokesman for the Defense Department, Lt. Col. Les Melnyk, confirmed that the uniform shown in the photo is an Army combat uniform, the kind worn by soldiers in Iraq. Army regulations stipulate that any uniform item not expressly authorized for wear is prohibited. But Melnyk noted that a Velcro-attached tab can be put on quickly for a photo-op and just as quickly removed. We’re guessing that not many soldiers are really parading around Mosul or anywhere else with these things on display.
Oath Keepers has scheduled a national conference this weekend in Las Vegas, hometown of the group’s founder, Stewart Rhodes. The Las Vegas Review-Journal profiled Rhodes and the organization in a story on Sunday. The story included this quote from the SPLC’s Mark Potok: “I’m not accusing Stewart Rhodes or any member of his group of being Timothy McVeigh or a future Timothy McVeigh. But these kinds of conspiracy theories are what drive a small number of people to criminal violence. … What’s troubling about Oath Keepers is the idea that men and women armed and ordered to protect the public in this country are clearly being drawn into a world of false conspiracy theory.”
Rhodes and Potok also faced off last night on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews.”
And how does the Pentagon feel about Oath Keepers? “I don’t have a formal assessment of Oath Keepers for you,” Melnyk, the Pentagon spokesman, said in an E-mail. He noted that it is “a fairly new group” and said the Defense Department would defer to the judgment of the Department of Justice and the FBI. “Certainly if they were on an FBI list of gangs or groups espousing hate, DoD would find this a compelling reason for prohibiting membership.”
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:
“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.”
As the SPLC noted in its July report, however, the military services’ track record when it comes to disciplining or purging extremists in their ranks has been spotty. Here’s a story from Stars and Stripes, the independent military paper, based on the SPLC report.
on October 21st, 2009 at 11:50 am
Wow. It’s a sad day for America when somebody that vows to uphold the Constitution is spoken of as an ‘extremist.’
on October 21st, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Yep, declaring you will not participate in fascism is now “evil.”
So, since it is now evil to resist fascism, what was the problem with Mussolini and Hitler?
What an Orwellian world!
on October 21st, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Yup. Guess this site thinks confiscations and concentration camps are a good thing…Double plus good!
on October 22nd, 2009 at 12:54 am
The SPLC appears to be ran by communist Jewish supremacists. Unfortunately for them they are doing more to build up hatred against themselves than anyone else. Their posts get nuttier by the day. They claim to be against hatred and in favor of diversity yet they hate anyone who has a diverse opinion on a subject. Total hypocrites. Unlike the hate groups they point out, the SPLC claims to be against hate. At least the hate groups are upfront with their racism and hatred. The Oath Keepers NOT being an example of such a group either!
on October 22nd, 2009 at 4:16 am
Hmm…let’s see here- these people claim to be upholding freedom, yet they bear arms for the government they claim is corrupt and trying to take away their freedoms, all the while imposing a far greater tyranny on other people. It’s enough to make you wish that all their nutty conspiracy theories WOULD come true, just so they can be on the receiving end of what they dish out in Iraq.
on October 22nd, 2009 at 4:17 am
Also, I’d still love to know how Obama’s supposedly betraying the constitution.
on October 22nd, 2009 at 4:18 am
When you so proudly claim that “SPLC contacted Janet Reno years ago” before the Oklahoma bombing to try and warn her with your “great advice”, I wonder where you were when Janet Reno decided to “cowboy up” and burn all those kids, while driving the National Guard tanks through their small compound at Waco, TX?
Who was the terrorist there? I knew there was something wrong with that picture, and could feel it in my gut, and I was only in my early 20s.
Couldn’t just wait them out peacefully until they’d eventually run out of food and water, and “detain” them as you’d call it, one by one when they went into town for supplies?
I mean, after all, they were nothing more than a small group of polygamists who most likely would never have done anything except give up eventually, but hey, call in the U.S. Calvary!
on October 22nd, 2009 at 9:53 am
You jerks at the SPLC are going to push and push and persecute until you get the kind of mayhem and violence you predict. I think it was about time someone officially labeled you as the hate group you are!
on October 22nd, 2009 at 10:52 am
When they enter the military they make a oath to defend the Constitution. How in the world can that perceived as fringe? I use to consider the SPLC as useful in keeping an eye on wacko supremacy groups, but now I know this is not true. Shame on you for this.
on October 22nd, 2009 at 11:07 am
These Reich Wingnut whackos have their own flag.
Just like the Reich Wingnut whackos who took over the US in the book and movie “The Handmaid’s Tale”.
These guys are not patriotic Americans. They do not support the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
They want to replace them with a dictatorship.
on October 22nd, 2009 at 11:17 am
It’s Cavalry, not Calvary, you ignorant meat sack.
Calvary is a hill in Palestine where the fascist government, with the support of local clergy, nailed up a rabble-rousing blaspheming enemy of the state about 2000 years ago..
Cavalry used to be soldiers on horses. Then, the Poles found out 70 years ago that soldiers on horses don’t do very well against tanks and machine guns.
Nowadays, the cavalry is Airmobile. The US 1st Cavalry Division (large yellow patch shaped like a shield with a black horse’s head on it) don’t ride horses into battle anymore, they ride in helicopters.
on October 22nd, 2009 at 11:20 am
What about “Keeping an eye on the radical Left?” or does that play into your skewed world view? You digust me!
on October 22nd, 2009 at 11:49 am
Fascinating irony in the Oath Keeper’s “Ten Orders”:
“2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches”
The Bush regime okayed this!! Law enforcement was allowed to do warrantless “snoop and poop” house searches under “national security letters”. How many of these Oath Keepers worked for LEA’s (law enforcement agencies, a bit of cop lingo) which did “snoop and poop” searches?: How many Oath Keepers actually DID these warrantless searches??
“3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.”
Again, Chimpy Bush actually DID this, to at least 2 US citizens I know of. Yusef Hamdi and Jose Padilla were both detained without due process in military prisons for years before they finally got before a federal judge. Again, how many Oath Keepers were involved in this?
“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 Bush Reign of Error pushed through legislation and executive orders that made it much, much easier for the President to do exactly this. Thanks to Bush, Obama could declare martial law without any input from states.
“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”
When Chimpy Bush ordered “free speech zones” and other tactics that CUT OFF FREE SPEECH, how many Oath Keepers were on the police forces in most US cities enforcing these infringements on free speech?
Reich Wingnuts are now allowed to carry guns to Presidential appearances. Under the Bush regime, they would have been jumped on by a pile of police officers.
This is all hypocrisy and double standard. Posing and posturing with tough talk about the Constitution from a bunch of cops and grunts who eagerly BROKE these rules while serving under the Chimpy Bush Reign of Error.
on October 22nd, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Oathkeepers are NOT about racism,extremism nor are they gun fanatics.Every race, color and creed are members. What the SPLC needs to do is get their facts straight and stop spreading hate and fear. Oathkeepers are about word of mouth, and defending the Constitution and the Americans, yes even those that are trying so hard to destroy America.
on October 22nd, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Rhodes and Potok faced off last night on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews”.
Really?
Potok didn’t “face off” with anyone so much as try to deny and continue the incendiary & absurd accusations he made previously that Rhodes immediately called him on.
In a 2 on 1 match, Matthews played the primary name caller, making absurd accusations of “vigilantism”, putting people on a “war footing”, and “preparing to challenge the government.”
Rhodes pointed out that the Oath Keepers aren’t about challenging the government, but about upholding their oaths to the Constitution, not to a bunch of politicians (regardless of how jolly they make Matthews) who can’t be bothered with the fact that they took the same oath.
The Oath Keepers want to PREVENT a dictatorship from ever happening in America, and seek to do that by refusing to be the enforcement arm of whatever wannabe tyrant shows up.
Dictators don’t wave guns, they wave flags. Dictators RELY on guns that are held and used by the military &/or police forces who are tasked to enforce their decrees.
The Oath Keepers simply refuse to be those enforcers, meaning that if politicians and/or groups want to take over the nation, then they will have to do it themselves, not by proxy through a bunch of armed “useful idiots”.
THAT is what really makes people like Matthews & the splc furious.
on October 22nd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
The oath keepers are just another nut-job fringe group with far too many fans. What a sorry state we find our nation. When did we become a country full of whinners and cowards?
on October 22nd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I am sickened that someone could write such hateful things about our heroes in uniform.
It is obvious the author of this article simply listened to Matthews interview and ignored the facts on the matter…this is NOT a hate group, to say it is is disgusting.
Rob Waters why dont you make sure of the facts before writing again…
on October 22nd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
TITLE 18 U.S. Code – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I – CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 – TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
Sec. 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally
(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
on October 22nd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Did I miss the memo? Last I knew there was only one race – ‘human.’
on October 22nd, 2009 at 1:41 pm
SPLC has done many great things and played an important role I think, in slowing the development of fascism and its basis in “hate” groups.
Oath Keepers is no such group and is not even vaguely discriminatory. In fact, if the premise of SPLC and its allies is “never again” (referring to the destruction of minority groups in the holocaust of Nazi Germany) then it’s very wrongheaded indeed to go after, without any other basis than “these guys appear to be extremists”, a group of patriotic military and police who openly state their intentions to enforce the Constitution and its guarantees, and to refuse (as the law clearly provides for) illegal orders to the contrary.
Impatience with the rule of law is partly how we got into the mess we are in as a country. The Constitution is often completely ignored. But one or two crazy sheriffs who abuse their authority in defiance of a lenient federal immigration policy does not mean the Constitution is failing us. The solution is not to put unlimited power in the executive just because he presided over a “terrorist” surprise attack on domestic soil, or that “conspiracy theorists won’t take the vaccine”, or that he is now being “attacked” by racists.
Oath Keepers may share various “alternative” views of government (reminder however fellow Oath Keepers, that every single extra-Constitutional presidential directive power Obama has had handed to him has come mainly from Reagan-Bush and Bush II, indicating that left-right party politics is clearly part of the illusion being spun to fool us) and its members may frown on its extra-Constitutional powers and how they “could” one day be employed, but this itself is no reason to label them “extremist”or “dangerous”.
The fact is, there were similarly principled military leaders in German history who refused to take up the Nazi cause, who in in their principled stand at least made what were the only hopeful attempts to stop Hitler and the holocaust and its stain on the German reputation. This is in no way to compare any president we have or have had with Hitler, but to say that citizens depend on a principled military to resist any formation of a police state, which in a time of severe national distress, thanks to the actual and real Presidential Orders (look them up – they are in fact extra-Constitutional and therefore, alarming in nature to any citizen) mentioned above, may at any time become a temptation for unrestrained extra-Constitutional government right OR left – democrat OR republican.
The Constitution is the Constitution. It is the law of the land. If it doesn’t measure up to protecting minorities (although personally I think it has done an acceptable job), well, then it has its own provisions for amendments and that is where SPLC needs to direct its energies.
I for one, proud as I am to support the SPLC, admire and respect those who organize to protect the Constitution, even if some of those members aren’t “politically correct” or get caught up in “conspiracy theory”. I frown on this kind of attempt to marginalize good (in the vast majority) soldiers and police who take their Constitutional oaths and duties seriously.
Mark Potok, if he hasn’t already, needs to study history and read our Constitution and do a little closer investigation of the facts. I’ve seen OathKeepers attacked at least twice here without drawing any credible links to any serious hate-connected leadership. We can expect some crazies to join up with ANY organization – but unless it ever develops a significant membership of haters, or devolves into a forum for hate rhetoric, what is the problem?
Really – “investigation before the fact”, which this appears to be, invites witch hunts like this one. It just begs for them.
Other like-minded SPLC members, need to also draw the line here, lest valid and valuable citizens intelligence groups monitoring hate (SPLC, SWC) fall into indulging more of this kind of misguided “politically correct” propaganda we see here.
Most of the work SPLC does is based on real facts which help law enforcement to put a stop to actual criminal activity. This is no such example.
Leave the political bashing to the republicrats and racism to the klanners and gangbangers and lets get back to being “good Americans”. Vigilant Americans – even to the point of employing and upholding the second amendment – standing for liberty and justice for ALL individuals of whatever race.
It’s perfectly alright meanwhile, for groups like SPLC, to monitor groups enjoying our liberties to such an extent that they may one day take them away and who actually engage in hurting others. These are criminals and criminal groups and smoking them out and turning them over to justice is a vital service. But throwing in groups and individuals (like Fritz Springmeier) by association, who are not in any way engaged in actual criminal activity, is an abuse of this duty.
Finally, if Potok or the SPLC knows something we don’t – something truly alarming connecting known hategroups and their criminals to OathKeepers – then let’s have it come out. Otherwise, this looks like and just may be, “leftist” paranoia that if permitted to stand, will very likely play into the wrong hands and hurt innocent people.
The above my friends, are the reasons I claim membership to both groups. There simply should not be any conflict here. What I and most likely other OathKeepers want to see SPLC doing, is monitoring and reporting on any actual proven haters or criminals who might move up the ranks of OathKeepers so they can be investigated and dealt with. There is nothing at this writing about the OathKeepers purpose and activities even vaguely in violation of the “Prohibited Activites” detailed in the above article.
If we are as some OathKeepers fear, at the brink of fascist dictatorship in this country, BOTH groups – the SPLC and OathKeepers – play a vital role in pulling us away from it and therefore deserve our support.
on October 22nd, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Y’all ought to stick to topics pertaining to the South, poverty, and law, as opposed to criticizing people who are trying to preserve this country.
on October 22nd, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Thanks to this article, I watched the “hardball” vid and read up on Oath Keepers.
(1) They were founded BEFORE Dear Reader’s election – hence they were initially reacting to developments during the Bush Administration.
(2) They’re not “conspiracy theorists” – in fact they’re THE VERY ANTITHESIS thereof, and an ANTIDOTE thereto. You fear the Government seizing all guns? You should be GLAD for the oath-keepers, and want every soldier and civilian cop to join! Likewise for the other 9 “unlawful orders.” Not only do you have nothing to fear from Oath Keepers, but so long as they’re in the majority in our military and police you can be sure you have nothing to fear from them either.
I found all this in about an hour – but then I had an open mind, not a pre-conceived conclusion.
Lastly, SOCIALISM is a LEFT-WING ideology. The Nazis were national-SOCIALISTS, hence they too were/are left wing. In reality, “big government” of all types is “left” and NO government (anarchy) would be “extreme right.” We – a REPUBLIC – would rightly be well to the right of center – walking the balance of “as little .gov as possible.”
When did the SPLC – once a great organization – become a tool of The Left and the DNC? You claim to represent minorities – are you not aware that Lincoln was a Republican and most in “the south” were Dems?
Even during the 60′s, Dr. King was a REPUBLICAN, and all the racist hate-mongers were DEMOCRATS! It’s all a false paradigm,,.
Lastly, why do you not feel it necessary to watch “the radical” or “extremist” LEFT?!
Hmmmm…
God help us…
on October 22nd, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Wow, extremists in the military. People who say they will uphold the Constitution. I’m truly frightened. My God you morons, the military should be full of these people. After all, each and every one of them takes an OATH to uphold the Constitution. Why should this concern you?
I am more worried about the influx of gang bangers into our military who are receiving special weapons and tactics training and then getting out and going back to the streets with their former home boys.
Neal Ross
III
on October 22nd, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Here we go again with the (SPLC) you guys need to get a life or a real job at the very least. Go out have fun, meet your neighbors, learn to love your fellow man. Oath keepers is right on! If we where all Oath Keepers in our own personal way our country may not be in such turmoil as it is today. I notice the same bloggers snorlax and company are always on here spreading hate and disinformation. Question? are you guys college kids payed by the SPLC to blog this crap in your dorm or something, does the Mossad provide you a script to work from or what. O’ NO! I said the Mossad I must be an anti semite, or a white terrorist or whatever you call it nowadays….but wait I’m actually Jewish, lived on 6 of 7 continents and speak multiple languages and my girlfriend is from India. ….Ok, good just checking my diversity meeter, I don’t want to end up on some HATE MAP of yours….
on October 22nd, 2009 at 11:47 pm
If the SPLC is right, then the problem is significant. If the Oath Keepers are right, then the problem is significant. Either way, vigilance makes sense.
Rather than call the other side names, it seems wisest for both sides to check their facts, check their members, and keep all their activities on the up and up. On the other hand, if the fearful and hate-filled take over either bunch, we’re all in trouble.
on October 22nd, 2009 at 11:50 pm
L & M,
The law you cite deals with advocating rebellion, which is completely different than refusing to obey an unlawful order. Disobeying an unlawful order is completely legal, and expected of every serviceman. If you were one of Lt Calley’s soldiers, or a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, would you have just followed orders?
We as Oath Keepers pledge to disobey an unlawful order, which would consist of any order that violates the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. THAT IS IT. Nothing more. Our organization will not be a party of those who perpetuate another holocaust because they were just following orders.
on October 23rd, 2009 at 12:16 am
OMGoodness, ROFLMBO!!! Leftist extremists… you must be joking! LOLOL. Most of you Oathkeeper supporters have got to be kidding.
Don’t you know that you are being “watched” and “listened to” as you speak?
Oy vey…and I’m not even Jewish, lolol. The cavalry vs. Calvary is still the best post I’ve seen here. And we’re supposed to take you guys seriously… c’mon now!!! Unnnngh!!!
on October 23rd, 2009 at 4:12 am
Still waiting for that explanation as to how Obama violated the Constitution. He took an oath to defend the Constitution too you know.
on October 23rd, 2009 at 6:13 am
Wow, Snorlax, you are one sad, angry little person! You talked an awful lot, but never made a single valid point. Well, except for pointing out the cavalry/Calvary grammatical error. And even there, all you accomplished was to point out how a government 2000 years ago killed a good man who did nothing to them but point out the evil and corruption that existed within the political system.
As for your misguided, uninformed, ridiculous opinion that these “Reich wingnut wackos” are communists that do not support the Constitution or Bill of Rights, quite the opposite is true. If you did even the smallest amount of research before spewing your nonsense, your narrow field of vision might have been opened enough to see that.
Our founding fathers not only recognized political dissension, they encouraged it. Thomas Jefferson had this to say on the matter:
“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then.”
“Dissent Is the Highest Form of Patriotism”
“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Now for your arguments about george w. bush. (lower case letters intentional) You would be hard pressed to find even a handful of Three Percenters that would have anything favorable to say about him. The patriot act was the most unpatriotic act that has ever been signed. You won’t find many, if any Oathkeepers that would support him or his thinly veiled attemt to impose the government’s will upon the people.
And again with the misinformation. Nobody carried a gun to a presidential appearance. The event you speak of was not even the same place where the chimp-in-chief was speaking, but at a completely seperate location where a protest occured. The people carrying firearms that day were completely within their rights under state law to carry firearms where they were. The Federal Government had no say in the matter. Our right to keep and bear arms was never about defending ourselves against other individuals that would do us harm. It is about defending ourselves from a tyranical government. Remember, the federal government answers to the states, the states answer to the people. Not the other way around.
One final point. I have no problem with our government. We have a wonderful system of government, the best in the world, in fact. My problem is with the people who are in office right now, and in the past, who are abusing or have abused the authority granted to them by the people who elected them.
It’s time to feed the tree.
on October 23rd, 2009 at 9:09 am
Look at this from their list of orders:
“5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.”
In otherwords, some of these morons in the military already broke that oath. Funny, they just happened to pop up and get so concerned about this when Obama was elected, not when Mr. Shred the Constitution was in office.
on October 23rd, 2009 at 10:56 am
The Constitution of the United States IS The United States. Without it we are a lynch mob seeking another victim. Anyone who seeks to undermine the constitution is a traitor to the nation and should be treated as such.
To the oath keepers, I would ask, “Where in the US Constitution will we find the words authorizing Congress to allocate funds to defend the citizens of another nation from their own government?” Absent the words, those under oath in Iraq have already broken their vow. Congress itself, writing law for which it has no authority, has committed treason.
To those calling Oath Keepers subversive, I would submit that anyone attempting to obey an oath in the face of violent opposition is truly a hero.
on October 23rd, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Huh??!!
To those calling Oath Keepers subversive, I would submit that anyone attempting to obey an oath in the face of violent opposition is truly a hero.
___________________________________________________
How is that again??? Maybe in your mind, but not in the majority of law and order people! Oathkeepers, my foot!!!
Cheeeesch!!!
on October 23rd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Ok Jakobson, I’ll bite- those attempting to follow an oath are heroes? So the Crusaders who butched thousands of women and children, many of whom were Christians- were heroes? The Islamic suicide bombers who attack civilian targets are heroes? The SS men and Einsatzgruppen, all of whom took oaths- were heroes?
The Constitution, perhaps unfortunately, places the President in the position of Commander in Chief- head of the military. It says very little as to precisely what the President can and can’t do with that military.
Here’s the problem I have with the Oath Keepers- first, why are they so vocal now that Obama is president? Where were their voices during the Bush regime? Even if they didn’t support him- and I do believe that, why not get so outspoken back then?
As for their claims about the Constitution- it’s nothing but a lot of barracks lawyer BS, bad history, and conspiracy theories combined.
on October 23rd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
I’m a life-long Democrat and fully support Oath Keepers. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with what they’re doing. To paint them an extremist group is proposterous. Honestly, it makes me question the SLPC’s credibility.
on October 23rd, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Ohhhhhh Ruslan!!!
Thank you!!!
I wish I had thought of what you said. Can’t add anything to a perfect post!
I have a couple of Marine friends… you’d think they’d died and gone to Heaven after being made MAR-iiiiiines. Such baldersh*t!!! Ugh!!!
Kudos to you!!!
Dakotahgeo
on October 24th, 2009 at 2:45 am
Come on Tony, who do you think you’re foolin?
on October 24th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Comrade Amirkhanov,
Good. You bit. Thought you might.
To their people, the folks you mentioned were heroes. To you they were criminals.
Who is to say you, alone, are right? On what basis do you say so? On what basis may we condone the butchery of 2 million Vietnamese or a million or so middle easterners by those calling themselves oathkeepers?
As I understand it, the constitution gives the President the role of commander-in-chief only after war has been declared. Ain’t seen one of those since 1941. Under the color of treaty, he may deploy troops for that purpose only–which is why Washington warned us to beware of foreign commitments. Ain’t seen a ratified treaty in Iraq, Afghanistan, or many other countries in which POTUS has deployed troops. Have you?
Can’t argue with you about Herr Busch. Ain’t a dime’s difference twixt him and Comrade Obama or the legislators supporting them. Follow the money.
on October 25th, 2009 at 12:50 am
I’m at a loss to understanding the SPLC’s criticism of Oath Keepers. SPLC’s argument should be IN FAVOR of what Oath Keepers are trying to accomplish by virtue of their convictions. The US Constitution in its purest sense is blind to race and economic standing; it grants government limited fiduciary power to protect life, liberty, and property on behalf of its Citizens–We The People. Abuse of that power in any form is criminal and deplorable.
The only justifiable critique is whether OKs exist in large enough numbers, and whether they are in fact following through with their stated principles.
SPLC and others may find William Grigg’s discourse on police plunder through misapplication of asset forfeiture laws sobering:
http://freedominourtime.blogsp.....epers.html
on October 25th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Calling the Oath Keepers an extremist group is ridiculous. I read your stands on your about page but it seems as that is just nice talk. Your stance on the Oath Keepers sounds racist to me. Personally I don’t care the color of skin. But if you call yourself anything but an American I will take issue with you. That means you should not add White, Black, Irish, Latina, or anything in front of American.
The Oath Keepers pledges are simple and just.
I, John Brandt 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; 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. So help me God.”
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control.”
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
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.
But if the President is trying to tear the constitution apart my loyalties are to the constitution first.
Tell me if you really think this is extremist, if you do, then you need less of the Obama indoctrination and more of American history. Freedom means that if you choose to not work and you choose to not be produce, that you choose to starve to death, all of that is your own choice. We all have a choice to do the right thing. Your goody two shoes attitude will keep the poor down where the government wants them. This country only started to fail when groups such as yours have made handouts a way of life. Your organization is the Bain of poor people they just can’t see it. It’s not the Christian way either. Teach a man to fish…
on October 25th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Do not think for a second that my disagreement with the constitutional interpretation of the oath keepers is an endorsement of the US government’s politics and policies. However, realistically, the Constitution is nothing but an old piece of paper, and ultimately governments do pretty much whatever they want because they have a monopoly on the use of force.
on October 26th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Jakobsson:
“As I understand it, the constitution gives the President the role of commander-in-chief only after war has been declared.”
Your understanding is incorrect. Commander in Chief is one of the duties that devolve upon the president automatically upon inauguration:
“Article II, Section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
Don’t let the 18th-century punctuation fool you: That last clause just means that he’s commander in chief of the militia (i.e., National Guard) only when it’s called up for duty by the U.S., as has been the case, for example, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Otherwise, no conditions or qualifiers: The president is commander in chief, period.
Jay Stang:
“The law you cite deals with advocating rebellion, which is completely different than refusing to obey an unlawful order.”
Read the statute again and tell me where it says anything about rebellion. The law is quite specific about what it prohibits. I guess it’s not just liberal activist judges who interpret the law according to things they only imagine are in it.
As for refusing to obey an unlawful order, that’s something that’s explained to every Army recruit during basic training. Yes, there can be institutional pressure to get soldiers to carry out illegal orders, and the result can be war crimes. But that’s “completely different” from refusing to follow orders just because a soldier happens to disagree with a policy of the civilian administration that has Constitutional authority over the military.
That’s the biggest danger with something like Oathkeepers: that they will foment an elite-military attitude like we’ve seen in so many Third World countries, where the civilians hold office at the whim of the military. The framers of the Constitution, who were pretty historically knowledgeable, placed the military under civilian control precisely because of that kind of risk.
on October 26th, 2009 at 10:33 am
The scary thing about this group is that each individual is allowed to determine what constitutes an unconstitutional act or unlawful order in their own mind. In the alternative, the members determine what is unlawful or unconstitutional based on the leaders of the organization.
It would be very interesting to find out whether these individuals feel that a member should have refused to waterboard a prisoner at Guantanamo.
At minimum, the military and police departments that employ these people should note their membership in the organization and make sure that they are not in critical leadership positions.
on October 26th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Jakobsson,
I read the statute again. I bolded the words that are synonymous for rebellion.
advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States
This law is talking about fomenting a rebellion. We are not doing that. Some of the posters here are in favor of following orders no matter what. Any order given that violates the constitutional rights of American citizens is an unlawful order. Any order given that violates Posse Comitatus is unlawful.
What order would you consider to be unlawful? Completely hypothetically, If a USAF missile operator is given the order to launch a nuclear missile at an American city, would that be an unlawful order? We aren’t talking about not wanting to field day your room. We are talking about refusing to violate our oaths to the Constitution.
on October 27th, 2009 at 6:59 am
It is a sad rainy day when peace officers and servicemen are ridiculed for reaffirming their oaths to never harm their countrymen.
on October 27th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Then i will stand gleefully in the rain.
I’m sorry. but i actually believe the Oath i swore as first a peace officer then a soldier means something.
on October 27th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Jay,
Let me try again. You don’t deny that Oathkeepers are committing themselves to disobey orders. What you’re claiming is that you’ll only disobey illegal orders. But you’re giving yourselves or your leaders the authority to decide what orders are legal or illegal.
I would suggest you make sure you’ve memorized the Uniform Code of Military Justice (U.S. Code Title 10, Chapter 47), especially Subchapter X, “Punitive Articles,” which spells out what kinds of orders are illegal and what the penalties are for disobeying orders that are not illegal.
It also provides further details of what distinguishes mutiny from sedition, which you lump together along with insubordination as “rebellion.” Only sedition really constitutes rebellion; the others are offenses that tend to disrupt military discipline and the effective performance of military duties and missions.
What it boils down to is a couple of things my drill sergeant said when I was in basic training many years ago: The Army is not a democracy. And: Who the @#$% told you to think?
on October 27th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
L and M,
But you’re giving yourselves or your leaders the authority to decide what orders are legal or illegal.
Of course we are. during “Basic”, or “Boot Camp” we are all taught about the Law of War and what is and is not permitted. The responsibility is on each serviceman to uphold that law, and not break it. You are held individually responsible for transgressions against that law.
What I think you are saying is that there is no circumstance under which a serviceman could legally refuse an order, because he is not supposed to even consider if an order is unlawful. Please give me an example of an unlawful order. Are you saying that every order, no matter how specious on its face, should be obeyed? What if you were given an order to slaughter women and children?
Each serviceman is responsible for his own actions. The Nazis at the Nuremberg trials were held accountable. Their protestations of “Befehl ist Befehl” were not regarded.
on October 27th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
thank god to the sane responses to this totally slanted story. uphold the second amendments and our rights.
on October 27th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
What it boils down to is a couple of things my drill sergeant said when I was in basic training many years ago: The Army is not a democracy. And: Who the @#$% told you to think?
————————————————————————————-
Sadly, the day may either be here or shortly arriving when military GIs with a conscience will say, “Oh Yeah??? Says Who?!” And there goes your cohesive unit, You must have served “MANY” years ago. Times have changed when even the government waffles on what to do. Oh well…what’s another 4-5K deaths………..
on October 28th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
The problem with Oathkeepers is that people that re in law enforcement and the military shoukd not be able to decide IN THEIR OWN MIND what constitutes a lawful order.
on October 28th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
The problem with Oathkeepers is that people that re in law enforcement and the military shoukd not be able to decide IN THEIR OWN MIND what constitutes a lawful order.
Left Wing Patriot,
The problem with your statement is that you leave the door open for an atrocity like My Lai or the Holocaust. Taking your statement to its logical conclusion, a la reductio ad absurdum, a platoon commander could order his platoon to rape all the women in a town, or herd everyone in a small town to the town square in the summer and keep them there with no supplies or sanitation for as long as the platoon commander wanted (That actually happened in the Civil War).
Using your statement neither of these actions could be disobeyed, because the individual soldier would not be able to say “NO”.
on October 29th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Let me just say that I am a member of SPLC. I believe the center needs to realize most soldiers and most law enforcement officers have spent their entire life defending the Constitution of the US. If they are worried about it being undermined lets listen to how that is so. I see nothing wrong with the oath, it just strengthens the an individuals awareness of what is unconstitutional. But the concentration camps for americans is more perinea.
With that said if a group has sworn war on the US or threatens a person or public official they are crossing the line from be a Patriot or constitution supporter to an outlaw.
A Terrorist refers to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal, and deliberately targets or disregards the safety of non-combatants.
So when we condemn a group or label them terrorist and they do not fit into the given definition of terrorist were is our tolerance for that group.
on October 31st, 2009 at 5:36 am
“The Nazis were national SOCIALISTS, hence they too were/are left wing.”
This reich wingnut talking point has been completely debunked by finer minds than mine.
The Nazis were not lefties. They sent a lot of lefties to the gas chambers.
The reich wingnuts do not have any facts on their side, so they must resort to baldfaced lies such as this one.
on November 1st, 2009 at 12:43 pm
“The Nazis were national SOCIALISTS, hence they too were/are left wing.”
This reich wingnut talking point has been completely debunked by finer minds than mine.
The Nazis were not lefties. They sent a lot of lefties to the gas chambers.
The reich wingnuts do not have any facts on their side, so they must resort to baldfaced lies such as this one.
So, the official name for the Nazis, the NSDAP, or in English, “German National Socialist Workers Party”, doesn’t mean they are leftists? Or Socialists?
on November 2nd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
“The problem with Oathkeepers is that people that re in law enforcement and the military shoukd not be able to decide IN THEIR OWN MIND what constitutes a lawful order.”
Really?
This was the excuse offered by all the Nazi’s at Nuremberg and you guys did not accept it then.
Why would you accept it now?
Consistency, thou art a gem.
on November 5th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
To reply to report. It is stated.
“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….”
With careful examination i do not see anything on Oath Keepers that rule out anyone because of race, creed, color or religion. As a mater of fact their oath to defend the constitution of the US also insures to guarantee every ones civil rights. SPLS conflict with the oath on the basis that it is based in conspiracy theories is a rise for concern, let me say TO SPLC put your fears aside and practice some Faith. Follow my reasoning, “If the conspiracy theories are untrue than they will not have to violate any orders, But if they are true then sleep safe tonight in the knowledge that their are Military Service men that will not violate the constitution resulting in our civil rights and liberties are protected.
On another note In the military their are Blacks, Whites Hispanics, Women, Men, Gays. Their are also arian brothers, KKK, Blood’s, Crips, Latin Brothers, and the list can go on for all sorts of gang members that are in the military. THIS rule as well as may others only leave the Chain of command to say and think “Their Are No Gangs in The Military” Just like their are no alcoholics or drug addicts. Why? because the regulations make no acknowledgement of Addition…. It is a control/discipline issue. The military is a totalitarian society. It has very little room for sociology.
These are the facts.
on November 5th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
NOTE TO “The Left Wing Patriot” Learn how to spell.
Not only is your spelling a telltale sign of your lack of intelligence, your statement confirms it.
Do not fight with a pig, if you do you both get muddy and the pig enjoys it.
For the rest of you keep putting in the facts. And thanks for your service.
on November 6th, 2009 at 10:13 am
I love the way Retired Soldier admonishes Left Wing Patriot on his spelling, yet does not know the difference on how to use the word, “there” vs. “their.” Thou dost protest too much.
Please introduce yourself to a refresher course in english, grammar, spelling, and grammar usage, and we MAY give you some credit for YOUR intellectual abilities.
Or were you recruited or enlisted when they started lowering their educational/intellectual standards in the military.
I do not tolerate military blowhards well, especially arrogant ones!
on November 7th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Oath Keepers exist for the protection of the citizens. The mission is quite simple reach, teach, and inspire those in uniform whether Law enforcement or Military to nonviolently stand down in the face of an unlawful order.
What is an unlawful order?
The obvious answer is violating civil rights protected under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, violating the Rules of Engagement during War time, and violating the Articles of the Geneva Convention.
Until the constitution is completely shredded (not quite there yet) as some are trying so hard to do the it still remains the supreme law of this Republic.
Master Sergeant, USAF, (ret)
on November 7th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Dakotahgeo thank you for the correction. I have taken that refresher course.
Sorry, you don’t like military. However to refer to me as arrogant is “The pot calling the kettle black”
on November 7th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Greetings all.
I recently formed a group called Veterans Against Police Abuse and soon after was made aware of the Oath Keepers by a friend. I am still researching the Oath Keepers and haven’t yet decided if I would like to join or not. I am truly undecided.
I am a military officer who has spent a little over two years in Iraq and Afghanistan since those conflicts started. I am passionate about the Constitution and liberty and I am alarmed by what I see as the subtle erosion of our freedoms here at home. I absolutely agree with the stated goals of the Oath Keepers and passionately believe our armed forces, military and civilian, and elected officials must treat their oaths as more than traditional words to be muttered on the way to a paycheck. There is a fine line between “citizens” and “subjects” and it’s not a conspiracy theory that educated and concerned citizens must keep their government in check if they are to maintain freedoms. Look around the world as see how “freedom” flourishes. It is not something to be taken for granted and is only purchased and maintained by the very best among us and at a very costly price.
I have come to this website seeking legitimate verifiable evidence that the Oath Keepers have illegal, immoral, or unspecified goals. I watched the Hard Ball program and saw no evidence offered. I have reviewed their website. I do not want to put my support behind a group with bad intentions. If somebody here has actual evidence and a good argument why I should not join this group, please post it here. If you do not, please don’t muddy the waters with your reply.
A little about me. I consider myself libertarian but have voted Democrat my entire adult life (I’m in my mid thirties). I not only voted for Obama but traveled to attend his inauguration. While he hasn’t achieved all I wished he would and I disagree with some of his decisions, I am very glad he is in office. I am not at all religious and I am certainly not racist or homophobic. Many consider me “liberal” while I consider myself “conservative.”
My guess is the Oath Keepers attract a lot of right wing people who I would not personally like. I see some of their posts on that website and I’m sure I would disagree with many of them on a wide range of issues. BUT, I am not concerned with defending the rights of people who think like me on everything. I am interested in working with people who defend the liberties that allow us all to think differently and disagree with one another. That’s the point of our liberties. As long as the group has a live and let live attitude and will defend my freedom to believe in God, or not, and to be liberal or conservative and to partake in the democratic process without using the machinery of the government against me…then I support this group.
If anybody here has evidence to suggest the group wishes not to preserve liberty for all people but rather to enforce their own views upon me, please post that information here.
At this juncture, the fact they very rightly admonish the previous President for his many failures does not convince me they are anti-Obama. Their quotes of Jefferson (a non-Christian “liberal” by most standards) also makes me think they may be narrowly focused on liberty; it is interesting to invoke Jefferson as he was a non-Christian who worked with Christians like Roger Williams for the freedom to precisely be different and disagree on important matters.
Again I’m here to ask anti-Oath Keepers who have something worthwhile to contribute to please do so. I haven’t made up my mind but I find nothing in this thread to suggest they don’t deserve my full support. Thanks for your time.
on November 9th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Retired Soldier, Whatever! I base my opinions on the many examples of some officers who come out of their military experience and cannot let go of their past power over people. You are worthy of mention in that respect.
On the other hand, read and digest thoroughly the above posts of Rob and especially VAPA!!! I could follow these
men in a New York second! I may disagree with some of their opinions but I see nothing of arrogance or a “I can fix everything” attitude.
I am thankful for the good posts on this thread. I am beginning to change my mind also regarding the Oathkeepers but at least rob and VAPA are giving me the opportunity to listen to a calm and reasonable response. Thank you to you both.
Dakotahgeo, M.Div. Pastor/Chaplain
on November 11th, 2009 at 10:40 am
So that’s it? I was hoping for some real evidence.
Happy Veterans Day to all who have served and to their families.
on November 13th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
The problem with oath keepers to me is summarized by a persons inability to grasp that what Nazis called their party and what they actually did. What the oath keepers say they stand for and what they actually do may be the same in their own minds but that don’t make it so. The reason groups like this make people nervous is that they often take turns off of the roads they start down. If you want to join the military then join. if you want to join the oathkeepers then join. But joining both makes you a spy for one.
on November 13th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
I’m not sure I follow your logic.
What the group says it stands for and what it does may be different. True. It also may be the same. Do you have evidence for the former?
Groups “like this” turn off the road they started on. I imagine this is true of many groups. What evidence do you have that this group has a propensity to do this any more than any other group? And if it does turn from the road it’s on, don’t you think people who joined for the original road would leave it?
Joining makes you a spy for one? I don’t understand what you’re talking about. So as an ACLU member am I a spy for one? How do you possibly come to that conclusion?
Is there anybody on this website that has any concrete evidence to suggest this organization is bad? Anybody?
on November 15th, 2009 at 6:09 am
Attn: Snorlax
I am sorry, but I can not take the opinion of someone named after a Pokemon seriously; after all, that makes it seem like someone is in his teens.
Sincerely,
Patrick M. Fahey
Honorably Discharged Lance Corporal
on November 17th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
If this post from the Oathkeepers’ forum does not stink of anti-semitism, what does?
Comment by Tom Rankin on October 26, 2009 at 10:59am
Hello All,
I am a new member from Morgan City,
LA. I am not sure which region I am in.
I have recently sent the following email to every one I know:
Friends of Liberty,
Is there anyone here that does not understand the agenda of the “powers that be”?
New World Order (UN) with one World Money (IMF)
Audit the Fed = End the Fed
Hr-1207 and S-604 should not be added to any other bill or watered down in any way. Hr-1207 & S-604 should stand alone.
End the Fed = End NWO (New World Order)
Below is the list of the owners of the 12 Central USA Banks that run the Federal Reserve System:
– Rothschild Bank of London
– Rothschild Bank of Berlin
– Lazard Brothers of Paris
– Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
– Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
– Warburg Bank of Hamburg
– Lehman Brothers of New York
– Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
– Goldman, Schs of New York
– Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
In all, there are about 300 VERY POWERFUL, partly foreign individuals that own the 12 Central Banks of USA.
Their Agenda is:
New World Order
One World Money
Lets all get on the same page. The root of our problem is the Banking Cartel. It has an agenda to control the world and its money. When you have an unlimited supply of money that cost you nothing but space on a hard drive you can buy all the government you want.
on November 19th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
John Stone
Are you for real?
I fail to see any hate speech whatever in the person’s post to the Oath-Keepers site (and it doesn’t necessarily mean it is an “Oath-Keeper” who is posting either!)
Do you want to share with us your inside knowledge of how the revelation of Federal Reserve system owners equals anti-semitism (I assume you are referring to this list, since there is nothing else in that post except for “Jewish-sounding” names that appear on the list)
Are you trying to equate the disapproval of a world banking system and the publication of the names of its interested parties, with “anti-semitism”? Because there is no logic to it.
Listen, I’ve been an SPLC contributor and supporter for a long time, and I trust we’ll get over this mistake eventually, but this attack on “Oath-Keepers” is way over the top.
Yours is another in a series of poor efforts to position Oath-Keepers with something “bad” with no evidence.
Your “evidence” is a post by someone on an Oath-Keepers site by someone who is obviously opposed to the Federal Reserve banking system, revealing that it is a privately-owned system, and exactly who the owners are. He doesn’t advocate violence, now does he? He seeks support of a law which would reveal more of the secretive inner workings of the Fed and maybe even set these conspiracy theories to rest.
If the information was false then many book authors especially, and bloggers would have been sued a long time ago. If the families mentioned have “jewish-sounding” names (I gather that is what you are alluding to) and they are owners of the Federal Reserve banking system, then that’s the way it is – or no? you have evidence to the contrary?
I know of many instances of Jews speaking out against this kind of muzzling of criticism, allowing these same prominent banking families to hide behind charges of “anti-semitism”. Harry Makow comes to mind, for one.
And as for muzzling criticism, David Icke has been a target of “anti-semitism” charges despite having enrolled thousands of Jewish supporters in his crusade which is not “hate-based” but more correctly, “love-based” and decidedly non-violent!
Fritz Springmeier, an author of books revealing links between blood-line ruling families (some Jewish, most not – but never, never disparaging Jews) was set up and wrongly convicted of “federal crimes” and despite never having advocated violence or expressing hate, appears unjustly on the SPLC list recently published of “dangerous individuals and groups”. I have politely asked SPLC to conduct further investigation since his wife has developed quite a defense of his innocence (google for it) and Fritz (now serving hard time) has NEVER advocated hate or violence.
Compare that to about 90+% of convicted haters continuing their campaigns from prisons.
SPLC and its supporters should take more care in separating genuine, sincere and specific criticsm, from the real and hateful generalities that have guided the formation of hate groups since long before the first publication of Mein Kampf.
I also know that SPLC is up to their necks in genuine hate-groups and criminals who ARE targetting Jews and synagogues and it does their valuable task no service whatever to pull them into a patently “leftist” paranoid “watch” of a new group that is NOT hate-based or violent.
Those of us who support or are skeptical about this tasteless “witch-hunt” are still waiting for the first shred of evidence that this “Oath-Keepers” group is actually involved in “hate” and is likely to become a problem. SPLC must not be used as a forum for politically correct character assasination by shouting “conspiracy-theorist” as if that really does equal “right-wing racist hater”.
And finally, please, I would like more SPLC members and supporters to do their own research and help guide this organization back to its stated purposes. Any other approach will make enemies where there are none.
on November 19th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
John Stone….hmmmmm.
Are you a Washington Times blogger wannabe? You’re scary! I have more faith in SPLC every day but like all blogs, we get our share of right wing nutsos that pose as patriots.
Let’s move on and rid ourselves of these fearmongers. They don’t seem to scare themselves… why should we let them scare us! MMmmm…I don’t think so. Thanks, SPLC for all the good you do.
on December 3rd, 2009 at 1:17 pm
I think you have this a bit wrong….These Men are merely affirming they will not obey unlawful orders. they aren’t SUPPOSED to obey unlawful orders…Hello?
on January 10th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Ruslan Amirkhanov said, “…realistically, the Constitution is nothing but an old piece of paper, and ultimately governments do pretty much whatever they want because they have a monopoly on the use of force.”
And that’s OK with you? You find it preferable to sit quietly, while the federal government (and it’s not just Bush or Obama, or even just the existing Congress that are stepping on the Constitution, and bringing in a totalitarian government) takes away your rights, one or two at a time, in the middle of the night, until they’ve stripped you of everything, including your self-respect? And now you claim that’s your only objection to Oathkeepers? That the government has the advantage of force? Don’t you understand, that’s what Oathkeepers is working to PREVENT???
on March 31st, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Our constitution was writen to protect us,but it is being changed to hurt us. If this is ok with you your not a real american and I bet your not worried about martial law,chemtrails ,morgellens disease,102,000 trains with shackles,detention camps all over the us, several security clearences higher than the presidents. To challange a group that protects your rights without violence as a means makes you the real problem . WAKEUP Oath Keepers is your real friend. God please help the uninformed and those too lazy to be. Byron
on February 23rd, 2011 at 11:58 am
The Oathkeepers claim to exist to uphold the excellent principles outlined in their ‘Ten Orders we won’t Obey’.
Seems logical and even noble, if you just skim the headers and don’t bother to look any closer.
But in reality their entire motivation derives from the false notion that they’ll ever be asked to do these things, and particularly that those orders are going to come from the current administration, or any other non-right administration.
The backstory behind this is easily obtained by listening to people like Glenn Beck or Alex Jones, who take old John Birch Society conspiracy theories and dress them up in modern drag.
It’s clear from not only their own words but those of their followers, including those that have posted comments here, that OK is purely a front group for organizing an armed right wing revolution in the US.
Know then, Threepers, that you are far from being the only armed citizens in this nation. You won’t just be fighting the non-OK (ie, the vast majority of) police and military, you’ll be against your own neighbors, many of whom will rise to help stop you, either directly or indirectly. If that’s what you crave, continue down your chosen path. You will find all of us there.