The Hatewatch blog is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.

Oath Keepers Pushing Oregonians to Resist Gov’t Concentration Camps

By David Neiwert on October 18, 2013 - 12:15 pm, Posted in Antigovernment, Extremist Propaganda, Patriot Groups

A statewide organization of conspiracy-peddling Oath Keepers has been gaining traction in small-town Oregon by convincing a series of county-level officials that they need to speak out against the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act by passing official resolutions defending the constitutional rights of their citizens.

Among the concerns that these county officials cite is the alleged threat, raised by the Oath Keeper activists who promote these resolutions, that federal authorities are planning to round up American citizens and incarcerate them in concentration camps.

 

The resolution passed by the Klamath County board of commissioners on Sept. 24, for example, warned that “Whereas Klamath County is not a ‘battlefield’ subject to the ‘laws of war’,” the county commission was declaring that “it is unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful for any person to … arrest or capture any person in Klamath County, or citizen of Klamath County within the United States, with the intent of ‘detention under the law of war’ … or subject any person to targeted killing in Klamath County.”

Most of these resolutions are the handiwork of Tom McKirgan, who heads up the Oregon chapter of the Oath Keepers from his home in rural Coquille. He first convinced the Coos County commissioners – after months of activism – to pass a resolution in late July opposing the NDAA because of its supposed violations of the Fourth Amendment’s requirements for due process. (The national Oath Keepers organization also promotes NDAA-related conspiracy theories on its website.)

McKirgan has been working in tandem with activists from the state chapter of People against the National Defense Authorization Act (PANDAA) to promote the resolutions. And while PANDAA’s portion of the presentations have remained within the realm of the rational concerns about civil liberties related to the bill, when the Oath Keepers have spoken up, it has veered into the wildly conspiratorial.

Among the dire warnings these commissioners heard during the process were allusions to the Oath Keepers’ oft-stated belief that the NDAA creates the legal pretext for federal authorities to begin rounding up right-wing citizens and placing them in concentration camps, or that they might begin labeling Tea Party leaders “enemy combatants” and start assassinating them. At times – particularly in Klamath County – it seemed some of the commissioners shared those fears.

The same warning showed up on the Oath Keepers website in a discussion of the Oregon successes around the NDAA issue. A commenter named “D. Bertrand” explained: “One reason for the NDAA, (or maybe two reasons) is because, at some point in the near future, a massive round-up of any particular group and/or activists/journalists, would be so many that DUE PROCESS would be virtually impossible and would clog the legal system. The other reason would be … These massive arrests would be un-constitutional without legal probable cause, and a violation of 1st and 4th amendment rights, therefore….they will just go for it !!”

“Bertrand” then explained that, out of eight levels needed to reach that dire stage, “we are currently at Level Five,” adding: “Unfortunately, most Americans slept through Levels One thru Four and the NDAA is creeping through the back-door. Oregon Oath Keepers, and California, are going head to head with the NDAA. If when the NDAA goes live…that means WE ARE IN A WAR.”

McKirgan has weighed in on local issues in the Coos County area with a similarly conspiratorial perspective. When local night-sky watchers in the coastal town of Bandon promoted an ordinance to regulate residents’ lighting, he warned in a letter to the editor: “This is another avenue exploited by the [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] to greatly expand their ulterior motive of turning the entire Coquille Valley into a massive mosquito bog unfit for human habitation.”

At an Oath Keepers gathering in Reedsport, he warned: “We are living under a soft form of martial law.” He also dismissed President Obama’s authority: “Obama is not a president,” he said. “He is nothing but a communist trying to usurp his power and bring us under the United Nations banner.”

“We’re trying to nullify, actually the Constitution nullifies it, we’re trying to reject and repeal section 1021 and 1022,” McKirgan told the Reedsport City Council. “Oath Keepers is not a militia. We are an organization of education. We reach, teach and inspire others to follow the oaths of office that they swore to uphold the Constitution. This is an unconstitutional act that places America on the battlefield, where everybody inside that battlefield are subject to the rules of military law.”

However, both the Reedsport and the Coos Bay city councils did turn him away in his efforts to get them to similarly endorse his conspiracy theories. But McKirgan has turned his sights to other precincts, with Douglas County next on his list, he says. And he promised: “We have other counties in our cross hairs.”

In the meantime, the Oath Keepers may not yet be calling their operations militias, but they are functionally becoming one: President/founder Stewart Rhodes recently announced that Oath Keepers were “going operational” with the formation of “Civilization Preservation Teams.” Last week, the organization announced it was forming an “honor guard” at the nation’s war memorials to prevent their closures during the government shutdown.

  • Gregory

    @ NORMAN HAUPTMAN:

    Are you suggesting that we are on the brink of another Holocaust?

  • Aron

    The Oakies aren’t associated with the Tea Party? Are you sure? (http://m.dailykos.com/story/20.....rts-doomed)

  • TheSapient1

    Dear Larry,

    Why it is not a stereotype to say that members of a political organization all share the same beliefs:

    Because that IS the defining feature of a political organization…

  • TheSapient1

    I say give these anarchists exactly what they want. They want isolation, they want non-interference? LET THEM HAVE IT. Wonder how long they would last without the global civilization of the 21st century allowing for their cozy, ignorant lifestyles. Without the cheap energy, the imported electronics, without the government maintaining the infrastructure, subsidizing transportation and food, and without the security, necessary for trade, provided by those organizations that they so hate like the federal government, NATO and the UN. Give it two months and these idiots would be eating each other.

  • Bob Markum

    If hate is a crime, then the soliders who died to defend offensive speech (!st Amendment) are guilty of hate acts.

    That they are not guilty is obvious. What is obvious is the danger to freedom loving Americans by the “Hate The Constitution” speech by SPLC.

  • NORMAN HAUPTMAN

    As a peaceful Jew,, American, fire fighter with no arrest record. I respect Oath Keepers, which respects the Constitution, taken by immigrants, judges, military, politicians. If Steward Rhodes were active in pre-war Germany, could he have prevented the destruction of European Jews, Gypsied, disabled and others?

    SPLC: your money will not keep you forever strong. Your agenda will eventually backfire.

  • Kiwiwriter

    Actually, Larry, I don’t think you’re going to be gone for very long.

    In my lengthy experience, I have found that the people who make big speeches on forums that they are leaving invariably are back quite soon, initially to see if anyone begged for them to come back, but mostly because moths are drawn to flames.

    I don’t think you have met that many stereotypes in your life. You’ve projected them, denounced them, are enraged by them, but you haven’t really met them.

    As for the “hypocrisy,” I would point this out: You claim to be outraged by authority violating the Constitution, but your organizations didn’t come into existence when George W. Bush was waging an illegal and stupid war in Iraq, nor when he started throwing people in Guantanamo Bay, nor when they passed the Patriot Act.

    We didn’t see “Oathkeepers” explode over Watergate, Billygate, Irangate, or Monica-gate.

    We didn’t see “Oathkeepers” protest over Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon creating and expanding a secret war in Vietnam, and lying blatantly about it.

    We didn’t see “Oathkeepers” complain about COINTELPRO, FBI “black bag jobs,” or J. Edgar Hoover.

    We didn’t see “Oathkeepers” complain about McCarthyism, the House Un-American Activities Committee, or the persecution of suspected Communists.

    And we didn’t see “Oathkeepers” complain about the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans in World War II.

    No. Only about Barack Obama. And just the other day, I read about Orly Taitz’s latest idiotic lawsuit to remove President Obama from the White House. She argued her case before a California Appellate Court for half an hour, bringing up “Roe v. Wade.” Among her 26-odd supporters were 20 men wearing “Oathkeeper” t-shirts.

    Why were they there? What were they doing? What “Oath” were they upholding by supporting Ms. Taitz’s endless, seditionist, insurrectionary, ignorant, fanatical crusade to remove the duly elected President of the United States from his seat?

    At the same time, you have been taken to task for your website allowing vicious insurrectionary and racist comments to appear on it.

    Now, quite rightly, you have pointed out that you have no control over what people say on a website, and that your pages lack a good deal of moderation. And you probably had no control over people donning “Oathkeeper” t-shirts to wear to a trial.

    However, once an insurrectionary or racist comment appears on your website, your colleagues should have the ability and power to have it removed, moderated, or cautioned. Your staff should be able to contact the writer and put them in moderation, ban them, or warn them.

    At the same time, when your organization hears that like-minded supporters have wrapped themselves in the “Oathkeeper” mantel to support “birthers,” your colleagues should be capable of taking steps and measures, and making statements to distance your crew from these insurrectionists, to affirm your support for the duly elected President of the United States (confirmed by the Constitution), and caution these supporters that what they are doing is bad for your campaign.

    But you don’t. The fact is: folks like these ARE your supporters (which you have slightly stated above), and having “lone wolves” and rabid backers gives you an appearance of possible danger, which attracts media attention and other supporters, who think that backing the Oathkeepers will be a means of supporting the glorious revolution that will overturn the political system, put these nihilists in power, and enable them to become local Standartenfuhrers, dispensing bonhomie and brutality in their communities, persons of power, settling old scores against their enemies. They are your supporters, and they are your strength.

    No…Oathkeeping is not an old adherence to the Constitution, nor even an older adherence to the Articles of Confederation, or any other half-digested political theory (beyond, perhaps, the works of Ayn Rand, who happily took Medicaid and Social Security as she was aging and dying).

    It is anger, fury, and despair against a sea of recent historical and political changes in the United States that you and other folks are simply refusing or unable to adapt to. Rather than find ways to simply cope with it or find rational and lucid arguments or alternatives to it, you are simply finding a way to demand the overthrow of the system, and a reversion to a non-existent time for which you have foggy nostalgia. That mythical “good old days” that 70-year-olds of all ages wish for.

    They never existed.

    40 years from now, 70-year-olds will be calling these days “the good old days.” It is a common failing of humanity, to see the past as a gilded age. It isn’t.

    As for calling us “PC Liberal Hypocrites,” that is not a new addition to any list, either…we’ve heard that all before, repeatedly. You have not broken new ground here.

    And as for stereotyping Oathkeepers…I am not “stereotyping” them. My colleagues and I are expressing concerns about their philosophy and behavior. You can have all the philosophy you want, and live your life as you wish. I have little argument with people who want to preserve the finer aspects of American traditions and uphold the law. I do it myself every day as a civil servant, with duty and honor.

    But when we see people calling for violence, insurrection, and removal of the elected President on specious grounds, hurling racial insults, and doing so in a manner that only heads in a single direction, we are concerned, worried, and we have a right — and perhaps a duty — to call them out. As we have done.

    Anyway, I have very little doubt that you’ll be back. You have your own passion and sense of duty, misguided though it is, and your adherence to that cause will probably make you return — perhaps to this very thread — and again argue your cause.

    I just wish that a man with your passion and energy could devote that passion and energy to a better cause. It’s a shame and a waste that you have attached yourself to something so pointless, divisive, and reactionary.

  • Aron

    And as Erika wrote, until your last post, Larry, you were no Brock Henderson. Now you are. And he is some ESTEEMED company.

    (And since I’m almost positive you’re reading this, Brock, hi there! I hope you’re actually learning something in school. And you have decided to grow up and join the real world.)

  • Aron

    Larry, that wasn’t bragging. I inherited them from a relative. My purpose in telling you that was to show you are hypocritical for assuming we are opposed to the Second Amendment simply because we are opposed to the OkieDokies.

    I make very little money. If I wanted to, I could sell my collection and in addition to my financial windfall, I would save six hundred dollars on my annual tax stamp. But that would be insulting my uncle’s memory. So I won’t.

    You just don’t get it. And you never will. But your day of reckoning is approaching. Bet on it.

    (And Aadila, I am far more likely to put ‘Honk if you don’t exist’ on my bumper than anything about Molar Labradors. Even though chocolate labs are just so adorable.)

  • Mary

    Still again if you actually read the NDAA sections 1021 and 1022 and happen to be a bit educated you would see it does apply to American citizens. Also if you read the ACLU explanation under there anti-ndaa tool kits for local state and county legislation it clearly states;

    2. It prohibits state/local employees from aiding the federal armed forces in any investigation, arrest, detention, or trial of any person within the United States under the NDAA.

    So everyone that is still making some ignorant claim that it doesn’t apply to American citizens are wrong.

    I commend the efforts of the Oath Keepers, they stand for civil rights and the constitution and their efforts in Oregon are appreciated.

    Here is what (D) Sen. Jeff Merkley in Oregon has to say about the NDAA 2012. This should clear it up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arcNSbf7BBs

    Sen. Jeff Merkley has also commended the efforts of Oregon’s activists movement saying.

    ‘Thank you for your advocacy in fighting for our constitutional and civil liberties. A constituent contacted me sharing your efforts to make Oregonians aware of the indefinite detainee provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).’ -U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

  • Gregory

    The Martyrdom of Saint Larry. I guess we can kiss western civilization good-bye.

  • aadila

    Larry,

    The Oath Keepers don’t need anyone to stereotype them. You manage that all on your own. You have a freaking death’s head for your symbol.

    Give it a rest.

  • Erika

    lary, larry, larry, you really don’t want to go out like that.because unlike the last Articles of Confederation fan who showed up you at least have manners and really do seem well meaning (while being horribly misinformed).

    at least you did until this latest “i’m going to take my ball and go home declaring victory” tantrum of yours.

  • Larry

    I will leave as requested, but I would like to say one final thing.

    You folks are hyprocites.

    Why?

    I’m sure you all abhor stereotyping, yet it is just fine to stereotype Oath Keepers however you like. “But we have read the crazy comments on your website!” you will say. Yup. You are right.

    For every stereotype, there is a REASON. I have known enough saggy-pantsed gangstas, miserly Jews, smart Asians, drunk Irishmen, dumb blondes, flaming homosexuals… fill in the blank… to justify those stereotypes as well.

    Yet you would doubtless find all those stereotypes offensive — AS YOU SHOULD, and as do I.

    So now we have another to add to the list: The PC Liberal Hypocrite.

    Congratulations, and farewell.

  • Larry

    “Larry, you claimed my friends would think I owned ‘an arsenal.’ I was simply telling you that I don’t, when compared to yours, presumably.

    Please leave now. You’ve been beaten. I know your ego demands you keep responding, but you have worn out your welcome. Head on back to your private little forum with all your Oak-headed buddies. Shoo!”

    “Presumably” indeed. Once again you assume WAY too much. You hardly have room to talk about “ego” after bragging about your over-priced gun collection.

    Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

  • aadila

    Aron, I had no idea you were such a weapons expert! If anyone catches you with a Molon Labe death’s head on your car, I will ask Rey to increase the brussels sprouts quota.

    And technically, even though Larry didn’t score any goals, he didn’t really “lose”. After all, everyone who plays wins at soccer.

  • aadila

    And, Larry, if you do get put in a FEMA camp, you can count on me to continue my liberal activism against torture and solitary confinement in detainment, to re-establish effective habeus corpus in America, and to ensure that you are not mistreated but given a chance to rehabilitate, reform, and acquire a new sense of self; one of dignity, one of promise, and one of peace.

  • Gregory

    Erika,
    Remember the last RWNJ who professed an enthusiasm for the Articles of Confederation and littered the thread with self-contradictory comments?

  • Aron

    Larry, you claimed my friends would think I owned ‘an arsenal.’ I was simply telling you that I don’t, when compared to yours, presumably.

    Please leave now. You’ve been beaten. I know your ego demands you keep responding, but you have worn out your welcome. Head on back to your private little forum with all your Oak-headed buddies. Shoo!

  • aadila

    Larry,

    While I appreciate this frank exchange of views, I recognize certain limitations.

    Foremost it seems you have distanced your thinking from any criticism of the Oath Keepers. Those who question the Oath Keepers are the enemy and traitors and we need to embrace your way or face the consequences of an angry armed rabble.Though you claim this is not so, behind every statement, action, and symbol of the Oath Keepers is the implied threat of violence.

    You have allowed yourselves to believe, erroneously, that you are qualified, as a militaristic class used to walking in lockstep with leaders who do your thinking for you, to interpret the Constitution as individuals who can do what you please if the Nation disagrees with you, and who can cast aside the basic institutions of our country as it suits you. For you, the Judiciary is merely the corrupt arm of a corrupt executive and that now the country has just “forced your hand”, so to speak, to draw a line in the sand which pushed beyond, you will resort to using your guns and implied violence. There is nothing in this country which you will accept if it does not conform your narrow and extreme views. This is the folly of your path.

    Seeking to sweep away over a hundred years of history and believing in a romantic, mythical past that has little similarity to the doctrines you preach, when applied to the contemporary reality of geo-politics, technology, and the state of affairs in our country, you have chosen to reject rather than accept this country is viable as a going concern.

    I won’t get into the minutae of the many absurdities you bring up, because I have done so at length and to little avail. While I do admire your willingness to engage on these topics in a somewhat respectful and productive manner, unfortunately your mind is filled with intransigent notions and stubborn refusal to see what is right there before you.

    The Oath Keepers are not the only military or police organization in the country. It is however, the only one which draws such extremist supporters. Even far right thinkers, who are your allies, such as Pat Buchanan, have recognized that the birth of your movement is despair at losing historical privileges as a preferred (i.e. “white”) class of citizen, and added to this is the arrogant insistence upon a special qualification because of the powers and immunities as military and police, that you have mistakenly assumed as hero status.

    Sadly, what I think is going on, is that most of your members simply cannot let go of what amounts to deep delusion about your role in society. This is not to pick on you or cast aspersions on the many sacrifices made by police and military, nor to minimize this role, but quite frankly, you have taken yourselves way too seriously. There are many, many ways to serve society, and yours is but one form. You are not the “Guardians of the Republic”. You simply can’t let go of your privileged status when the time comes for you to do so.

    The voters are the Guardians of the Republic, not the Oath Keepers. The People are the Guardians of the Republic, not the Oath Keepers. For better or for worse, this is what the Founders intended. The Oath Keepers are but an angry, disgruntled, closed-minded, and bitter segment of society. Because of the challenges of our society, there are many who share these sentiments and are willing to turn their back on America, but the Oath Keepers coalesces and congeals them around a particularly dangerous segment of extremist. Your supporters and adherents are those who seek only to join hands with like-minded individuals for support, encouragement, and cooperation toward what inevitably can only be a violent clash of powers.

    Whatever noble aspects of your organization you have attempted to uphold are dwarfed and overshadowed by the many more cynical, dangerous, and foolish ideologies exposed by even a superficially critical look into your group. The followers of your movement are deluded and confused, angry and dangerous, and by pouring fear and paranoia, combined with the false promise that the Oath Keepers are able to do anything truly beneficial for America, have led many of them to consolidate their hysteria over losing the elections into a kind of paranoid animus that at any moment could boil over into violence.

    While you claim you are the moderate ones, daily on your site there are extremist, hare-brained, and distorted viewpoints presented as scholarship, loyalty, and “truth” about our country, its founders, and its institutions. As long as you continue to join hands with the wild and extreme, your movement will be rooted in the wild and the extreme. You are no patriots. You are extremists.

    If there was ever a moment for real patriots, who love our country and believe in its founding principles, who can stand up for and defend rights which are being stripped away, it is now. However, your organization is lately arisen, and neglects the hundred years of history of the real patriots, the real fighters for civil liberties, who have long ago abandoned rhetoric of violence, and favor pluralism, peaceful methods, and the broadest possible principles of social justice. These, in part, are those you see right here.

    If you wish to make a difference, I sincerely urge you to leave the Oath Keepers and join forces with those of us who can make a difference, have made a difference, and will make a difference. Your way of fear and hate is doomed to failure. Your way obstructs those of us who have not sprung up lately, who do not consider ourselves above the law, who have given our lives to make America a better place, a more welcoming place, a gentler place, and a country worthy of its People.

  • Larry

    “Larry, I own three title II weapons. A Swedish K, an American 180, and a miniature M1919. If you know anything about NFA collections, you’ll know 50K isn’t much.

    And only one of those devices has a military connection, unlike the arsenals owned by many of your followers. My English and Italian shotguns will also never be considered the same as yours.”

    I should care about your gun collection because… ?

  • Erika

    ohhh did i make poor widdle lawee upset??? :P

    okay, i guess my point was too subtle for you – see liberals oppose the NDAA because of what the bill actually does

    right wingers oppose the NDAA because of insane conspiracy theories rather than what is actually in teh bill (which they happened to support prior to January 20, 2009 – and hmmm, what happened then?).

  • Aron

    Hey Larry, Erika’s comment wasn’t a strawman: that is called outright mockery.

    And that is all you are worth.

  • Aron

    Larry, I own three title II weapons. A Swedish K, an American 180, and a miniature M1919. If you know anything about NFA collections, you’ll know 50K isn’t much.

    And only one of those devices has a military connection, unlike the arsenals owned by many of your followers. My English and Italian shotguns will also never be considered the same as yours.

  • Larry

    “The Oath Keepers oppose it because OMG YOU COMMIE LIBRALS TEH KENYEN MOSLUM SOCIELEST COMUNEST FACEST MESSIAH IS COMEING TOO TAKKKE OR GUNNZ NAD L0CK US UP IN ANN OBAMA CONCENTRATION CAMP WHERE YU WIL HAV TO DRUNK FLOWERATED WATR AND ACORN WILL HALL YO BFOR AN OBAMACARE DETH PANNL!!!! GET A BRAIN MORANS!!! RON PAUL 2012!!!

    which translates in real person English as completely irrational hysterial which likely has at its root fear of a black president.”

    Wow. aadila is might have to give up the title of “Captain Strawman” after this loo-loo.

  • Erika

    Mary, the ACLU opposes the NDAA because it allows for infinite attention of people captured in Afghanistan or Iraq without trial. They specifically say that it would not allow for military detention of American citizens on American soil. In other words, they oppose the NDAA because of what it actually does.

    The Oath Keepers oppose it because OMG YOU COMMIE LIBRALS TEH KENYEN MOSLUM SOCIELEST COMUNEST FACEST MESSIAH IS COMEING TOO TAKKKE OR GUNNZ NAD L0CK US UP IN ANN OBAMA CONCENTRATION CAMP WHERE YU WIL HAV TO DRUNK FLOWERATED WATR AND ACORN WILL HALL YO BFOR AN OBAMACARE DETH PANNL!!!! GET A BRAIN MORANS!!! RON PAUL 2012!!!

    which translates in real person English as completely irrational hysterial which likely has at its root fear of a black president.

  • Larry

    ““Nice to see the left and the right come together on issues. As for this article and it’s followers they need to take their hateful heads out of their asses.”

    What an open minded and compromising attitude you must have, Mary…after you thrown anyone who disagrees with you drugged and bound into the ocean from helicopters.”

    Captain Strawman, at it again. I went back and read Mary’s post. There was nothing there to justify this bombastic, idiotic, and frankly PARANOID (oh wait, OK are the paranoid ones, right?) response.

  • Larry

    “Go on, now. Answer the damn question”

    Do you think you’re Tom Cruise and I’m Jack Nicholson, and somehow you are going to badger me into confessing that I ordered the Code Red?

    ffs…

    I answered the question several times. They identify Oath Keepers with violence because we are soldiers and police officers. DUH. When they think of us, they think of uniforms and guns. So naturally, idiots who think that uniforms and guns are the answer to our problems are attracted to us.

    Greenpeace attracts people who think granola and greenbud are the answers to our problems. Of course you aren’t going to get militia-wanna-bes attracted to them.

    Now I’m really done. If this third or fourth answer to your question isn’t good enough for you, then too bad. I can’t explain it any more simply for you than I already have.

  • aadila

    “Nice to see the left and the right come together on issues. As for this article and it’s followers they need to take their hateful heads out of their asses.”

    What an open minded and compromising attitude you must have, Mary…after you thrown anyone who disagrees with you drugged and bound into the ocean from helicopters.

    Death’s head much?

  • aadila

    “No… They are fanning hatred against anyone who questions the benevolence and authoritarianism of government.”

    Larry, if that were true, my dear boy, they would have fanned me out a long time ago with a lot of other participants in this forum.

    No. It simply means I DID answer your question.

    Hoo-wee! He’s a mean one, isn’t he? Just look at them snappers!

    But sadly, no, Larry, you did NOT actually answer the question. You anticipated various ways to answer, after days of being tormented with this question, and blurting out all manner of things, before finally seizing upon one that you hoped (inaccurately) would do what you were doing all along, which is to deflect criticism away from the Oath Keepers.

    So now you are putting it on the grassroots supporters of your organization whom you claim are misguided and violent, but not the Oath Keepers, who are above all that.

    So in other words you attempted to cover your Equus asinus and dealt dirty with the very people propping up your movement at the same time. Leave it to an Oath Keeper to turn fifth column…

    The fallacy of your answer is that you are ascribing a motive to the supporters of the Oath Keepers — i.e. trying to “turn you violent” — without answering the question why they identify the Oath Keepers with their motive and not, say, Greenpeace, or Amnesty International. The real rub here is what is it exactly about your organization and Stewart Rhodes which draws them in the first place? Of all the organizations in America, why do they keep coming to you?

    Go on, now. Answer the damn question.

  • Erika

    Larry, Larry, Larry, you really should get your legal scholarship from better sources. If Wickard v. Fiburn was such a bad case, how come its holding has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court even as the conservative Rehnquist and Roberts Courts?

    Okay, you probably do not read enough case law to know, but the answer is pretty clear. While the fact pattern of Wickard has made it a bugaboo among the right, its actual legal holding is completely uncontroversial and basically agreed to be correct

    All Wickard actually holds is that Congress can regulate national markets. A secondary holding involves the ability of Congress to act in the face of a national emergency. If you read the actual case, there is quite a lot in there about how Congress can respond to crises in national markets (in the case of wheat growing restrictions overproduction and a resulting epidemic of farm bankruptcie were threatening the ability of the U.S. to be able to continue to produce food). Of course, the fact that it was decided in 1942 during World War II made the Court see economic regulation during a crisis as being a particularly important for Congress to do. In fact, a more reasonably critique of Wickard involves people who argue that the power it permits should only be allowed in cases of grave national crisies but that ignores the fact that absolutely nobody mainstream disagrees with Congress being able to regulate national markets.

    There is absolutely nothing controversial about that holding – Wickard did not create the legal doctrine its based upon which is that Congress can regulate intrastate acticitiy if it substantially effects interstate commerce (it in fact originated in the Shreveport Rate Cases from 1914 which predate prohibition and the substantial effects test was well established by 1942). The facts actually create kind of a red herring since they ignore the reason why Congress passed the law which was farmers going bankrupt due to oversupply (and also in response to the rise in scientific agriculture including the use of hybred seeds* which increased output and The Dust Bowl creating new understanding of the danger of overfarming land). By treating the case as a case involving a farmer growing wheat for his own use and not involving a comprehensive regulatory scheme to address a major economic crisis you completely mistate what Wickard is actually about. The fact pattern that matters is that the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 was passed in response to a major farm crisis.

    And that is why the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmde that Wickard is good law – right wingers like to potray it as a boogeyman because the facts sound riduculous to a person who doesn’t understand law. Plus, the corporate interests who control the right actually love the legal doctrine behind Wickard which is the recognition of Congressional ability to regulate national markets – the last thing they ever want is to have to sell their products to 50 distinct state markets.

    Now moving on to prohibition, i think you fail to understand the driving force behind the 18th Amendment – many states had previously passed prohibition laws – these state laws were almost undoubtably unconstitutional and ineffective since the states were prohibited from regulating interstate commerce. The text of the 18th Amendment and the 21st Amendment then give its real purpose – namely to give states a carve out from “interstate commerce” for alcohol. There is no doubt that Congress could have banned the importation and transportation of alcohol – they after all had been regulating food and drugs for more than a decade before the 18th Amendment. There is no doubt that the state could ban the manufacture and sale of alcohol (see Mungler v. Kansas, i believe). However, a state could not constitutionally ban or even regulate the importation of alcohol – which means that the only way to allow state level prohibiton would be a constitutional amendment. Indeed, the 21st Amendment repealing prohibition actually allows for states to continue prohibition of they so desired (and some states allow for local prohibition).

    So the 18th Amendment and the 21st Amendment repealing the 18th were actually an increase in state power since it allowde the state to regulate or ban interstate and international commerce involving on particular good. Amending the U.S. Constitution was the only way that states could get that power because it was a power granted to Congress by the Constitution and the states were therefore excluded from being able to occupy it.

    Supporters of prohibition** likely saw national action through a constitutional amendment as the only way to have it enforced since a national ban on transport of alcohol would enable states to continue to allow alcohol to be made and sold there. The fact that even a national ban failed misarably is a lesson that the drug warriors failed to heed (but supporters of legalized marijuana should learn also from the temperance movement) However, i suspect that the termperance movement also wanted to get a national ban becasue in 1919 the alcohol market was not yet dominated by national brands and was largely a local market – in the current alcohol market which is dominated by multinational corporations and brands, a Congressional ban on transportation of alcohol across state lines would be much more effective – it would not have been when many areas had local breweries and distilleries which would have been able to continue to operate as long as that state kept alcohol legal.

    But make no mistake, the temperance movement fought for national prohibition through a constitutional amendment to force the few states that refused to go along to have to ban alcohol. It wasn’t because Congress could not pass some sort of alcohol ban – they could. It would just have been basically meaningless in the context fo the 1919 alcohol market.

    * in fact, the Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace at the time was a key proponent of scientific farmer and had personally developed many hybred seed strains and founded what became Pioneer Hybred International.

    ** which was a great social movement throughout the late 19th and early 20th century Indeed, only a handful of cases wound up going dry when prohibition started – the majority were already dry.

  • Larry

    “Larry, if I opposed RKBA (an incredibly stupid and childish acronym, by the way), why would I own over fifty thousand dollars in Title II firearms?

    Conservatives aren’t the only people who own guns, you know. I’m willing to bet I could beat the pants off of you in a subgun match.”
    **********************************

    You sound like that nutjob Kessler. Be careful. Having more than one or two guns constitutes an “arsenal” to folks around here. And if you have an “arsenal” then your home can be called a “compound” and you MUST be some kind of “terrorist.”

    No, conservatives aren’t the only ones who own guns. And Oath Keepers is also non-partisan. We don’t ask people what parties they belong to, but I do happen to know some of them personally who are life-long Democrats.

    It’s all you frothing haters who insist on putting labels on us and shoving us into whatever box you think we belong in.

  • Larry

    “True, but the SPLC isn’t fanning hatred against the government or encouraging people rather explicitly to adhere to violent ideologies.”
    ************************************

    No… They are fanning hatred against anyone who questions the benevolence and authoritarianism of government. Anyone outside the political spectrum of Hillary on the left and McSame on the right is somehow “dangerous.”

    ************************
    “And that makes you what…right?”
    ******************************

    No. It simply means I DID answer your question. Several times now. It means that there is a REASON for people’s frustration level, even if you disagree with their reason for having it.

    So whether you like the answer or not, you can stop asking now, and stop accusing me of not answering.

  • Gregory

    Larry,
    You are talking in circles, at this point. My statement that your advocacy for the OathKeepers was counterproductive was not ad hominem, but a simple statement of fact.

    However, you did make a statement that I found interesting. “Oath Keepers opposes US invterventionism and undeclared wars. We have not told our current serving to abandon their posts because it is entirely too impractical at this point.”

    The OaKie High Command has not instructed its active duty members to abandon their overseas posts because it is too impractical at this point??? Delusions of grandeur aside, that, my boy, is an incitement to mutiny.

    I am starting to wonder if you actually served in the armed forces, Larry.

  • Mary

    GET INVOLVED..

    The ACLU is advancing model state and local legislation for communities that want to ensure their state and local law enforcement agents, National Guard members, and government employees are never used to assist any U.S. military detention without charge or trial of individuals in the United States. The bill is an opportunity for communities across the country to urge Congress to repeal the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA.

    https://www.aclu.org/national-security/toolkit-state-and-local-resolutions-opposing-2012-national-defense-authorization

    LOOK THE OATH KEEPERS ARE DOING WHAT THE ACLU ARE DOING. Nice to see the left and the right come together on issues. As for this article and it’s followers they need to take their hateful heads out of their asses.

  • aadila

    Why did our founders insist that EVERY person who served in government must swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution? Serisouly… Why?

    Because it is the resonsibility of EVERY person who serves in government to consider the constitutionality of their actions. Your statement is a perfect example of the attitude I’m talking about:

    Government can do whatever it wants, and just wait for SCOTUS to get around to saying otherwise. Meanwhile, the rights of the people get trampled.

    If our founders had intended that ONLY scotus could say what is constitutional or not, then they would have only requires SCOTUS to swear an oath to support and defend it.

    Larry that is one whopper of a fallacy. The Constitution was framed amid greatly divergent points of view as to how the government and nation should be shaped. Accordingly, this living document was kept as spare and flexible as possible to cope with the inevitable challenges ahead, while still enshrining the principles which could be agreed upon.

    The decision to confer a triple division of power on the government into executive, legislative, and judicial branches was taken to maximize government efficiency while preventing the whole thing from falling apart and sinking into anarchy or yet another form of tyranny than British rule.

    The oath to uphold the Constitution is necessary because this document represents the supreme law of the land. The critical fallacy of your argument, and there are others, is equating an oath to obey the law as conferrring the right to interpret the law. Individuals going around interpreting the Constitution as they please is indistinguishable from anarchy or tyranny. The People have a right to question any law or public action through peaceable assembly, exercise of expression, and the right of petition for any greivances. This right does not mean the assembly, expression, or petition will yield the results desired, and part of living in a democracy means accepting that when our view does not prevail, it is time to accept the will of the majority and move on. The constitution never conferred upon individuals the right to execute the law, write their own laws, or interpret the laws as they please. These functions were divided into executive, legislative, and judicial branches. And though your complaints about this system may be your right to express, it does not mean that you are correct, it does not mean others will agree, nor does it mean you are following the principles of the Constitution simply because you, as an individual, have interpreted it that way. We have public institutions for a reason.

    I would like you to consider a most excellent polemic written by an observer whom I do not know, have no knowledge of whether he is left wing or right wing, but I do think he adequately expresses — in a peaceful and forthright manner — the purest principle of self expression in the American way.

    And I also happen to agree with him:

    Juan Cole, How the US Government Betrayed the Constitution and Invented an Imaginary Fascist One.

    http://www.juancole.com/

    This is what it means to exercise your rights, Larry. I doubt he is hiding in a bunker. He is speaking up, speaking out, and making his voice heard as our Founders intended — without resorting to violence, hints of violence, or turning his back on our People or its government. Where you fail, he succeeds.

  • aadila

    Larry,

    “I answered your question. Violent people are attracted to Oath Keepers because they are frustrated with the near impossibility of any real change happening in DC. Just like you, they think that because we are military and LEO, and support RKBA, that we are violent. They are wrong, and so are you.”

    And that makes you what…right?

    “As for who chooses to click the “donate” button, I doubt SPLC disallows anonymous persons from the internet to donate to them either.”

    True, but the SPLC isn’t fanning hatred against the government or encouraging people rather explicitly to adhere to violent ideologies.

    “I have already explained that I have no problem with violence in defense of life, liberty, or property.”

    Yes, many would agree with you. Unfortunately your methods and ideology go well beyond this principle and dangerously threaten the life, liberty and property of others who do not agree with your methods and ideology. Rhode’s continually fanning of irrational fear, anti-government sentiment, and conspiracy theories is the crib of a new Timothy McVeigh; and even were this not to happen, you people are scary because you fail to recognize that your point of view does not prevail when you lose the vote. You are an extremist, militarized, dangerous organization, no matter how you sugar coat it with patrotic platitudes in dead languages.

    “I didn’t design whatever skull thingy you are talking about.”

    Neither did the followers of Hitler, Pinochet, or other right wing dictators who used the death’s head as a symbol of power and oppression.

    “Neither I, nor Oath Keepers, has declared “war” on anything.”

    Not yet. But you are awfully close to it.

    “And here you are completely full of crap:”

    Prove it.

    If you believe in coercive taxation, you believe that government can commit extortion – a crime when anyone else does it.

    I don’t believe in coercive taxation. I would like to dismantle the military which is the black hole on our budget, and keep social spending because this is what makes America a better place. I am a statist because dismantling the state is a return to anarchy, and the biggest gift to exploitive corporations raping our planet, insurance companies happy to deny your kid cancer treatment, slaughterhouses selling tainted foods, and other such entities in our society would be to de-regulate and let them do it.

    “ALL human interactions should be free of coercion or fraud. If you support the existence of a coercive state, you support violence. You have simply delegated it to others.”

    While I oppose violence, war, torture, the prison state, the wholesale disregard for the Bill of Rights by the federal government, and many other problems in our country, I recognize the way to correct these problems is through peaceful activism and rational political discourse.

    That my view has not prevailed is not a sign that democracy has failed, it just means people are more concerned about their own selfish little lives than what is going on around them, and more activism and more rational discourse is required.

    Giving up and hiding in a bunker hoping to turn back the clock to the 1700s is stupid. There are more important things than gun ownership or whether or not Lincoln was a meanie: the entire lower half of our country may be practically unlivable in 100 years due to climate change. What are you doing about it?

  • aadila

    “And finally your accusations against Aadila, perhaps one of the most singularly peaceable spirits I have ever come across just shows how far out of your depth you really are.”

    Thank you, Aron, for your kind words, but please don’t mistake my insistence upon non-violence for a being a peaceable spirit. My spirit is as violent as anyone else’s because I was born into this deathtrap. I get hurt, and angry, and fearful like anyone else. I’m not trying to tell Larry or anybody else how to live their lives. That’s his choice. And I am not saying there are situations where I would not resort to use of force, because there probably are. But I don’t reside in that fear and futile rage, or turn use of force, or self defense, or rugged individualism, or death’s heads, or whatever other lovely tricks they come up with to salve their conscience, or turn it into some kind of patriotic religious fervor, thinking all that Molon Labe crap is going to keep harm at bay because it won’t. You can be as violent as you want or as peaceful as you want in this world and you’ll still end up in a box. So the question is how we want to live, not how to protect ourselves from dying. The way to stop violence is to stop pouring violence into the world. It’s really very simple.

  • Aron

    Larry, methinks you doth protest too much.

  • Andrew from Oz

    I think it is pretty clear that it is all a cunning plan for the UK to seize control of the US, and then incorporate it into the EU which will then overthrow the UN leading to a war between the EU and the ASEAN nations, with Africa acting as unwitting pawns.

    Not really. But it is no more insane than what the oath keepers claim.

  • Aron

    Larry, if I opposed RKBA (an incredibly stupid and childish acronym, by the way), why would I own over fifty thousand dollars in Title II firearms?

    Conservatives aren’t the only people who own guns, you know. I’m willing to bet I could beat the pants off of you in a subgun match.

    And the fact that you admit to ‘voluntaryism’ destroys any and all credibility you have left. If you hate paying taxes so much, simply leave. You are never going to abolish one of the fundamental elements of the Constitution

    And you’re right, I’m sure there are just about as many government moles in your organization as there are in most militia outfits. So make sure you’re always looking over your shoulder.

    And finally your accusations against Aadila, perhaps one of the most singularly peaceable spirits I have ever come across just shows how far out of your depth you really are.

    You have no understanding of history or Constitutional law. You hate the popularly-elected leader of your nation with an absurd fervor, and you think WE are the ones acting irrational. My friend, you are the poster boy for Dunning-Kruger. Go stock your bunker.

  • Larry

    “That’s for SCOTUS to determine, not the Oath Keepers.”

    Why did our founders insist that EVERY person who served in government must swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution? Serisouly… Why?

    Because it is the resonsibility of EVERY person who serves in government to consider the constitutionality of their actions. Your statement is a perfect example of the attitude I’m talking about:

    Government can do whatever it wants, and just wait for SCOTUS to get around to saying otherwise. Meanwhile, the rights of the people get trampled.

    If our founders had intended that ONLY scotus could say what is constitutional or not, then they would have only requires SCOTUS to swear an oath to support and defend it.

  • Larry

    Erika,

    I would actually prefer the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, but the Constitution is what we have, and as I said earlier, is our only hope of peacefully putting FedZilla back in its cage.

    Our founders were aware of the possible abuses of the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce clauses, and warned about it. They were very clear that they were not intended to allow Congress any powers that were not clearly enumerated in Article 1 Section 8.

    The abuse of the Interstate Commerce clause began in earnest with one of SCOTUS’ most horrendous decisions: Wickard v. Filburn.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

    The idea that everything we do somehow affects “Interstate Commerce” is clearly and obviously outside the intentions of our founders. The meaning of “regulate” has also changed drastically in 200 years. The original purpose of “regulate interstate commerce” was basically to prevent trade wars between the states, and to make “regular” – i.e. uniform – export and import tariffs, etc. It was NOT to empower government to “regulate” any and all aspects of our lives the way it presumes to today.

    Why was Prohibition passed by Constitutional Amendment, but the Controlled Substances Act simply an act of Congress? Because back then, Congress understood that outlawing a substance was NOT a power enumerated in Article 1 Section 8. According to the 10th amendment, such laws were left to the states. A constitutional amendment was required.

    Fast forward to 1971. Congress and Nixon no longer cared about Article 1 Section 8, because for more than half a century, FedZilla had been doing whatever it felt like doing, thanks to horrible decisions like Wikard v. Filburn.

  • Larry

    Larry,
    You do realize that the French troops and naval units fought on the side of the rebellious colonists, right? That they were welcomed by Washington, et. al.? Were it not for the French, we might still have the Queen on our currency, like Canada.
    ******************************************

    Yes, I know whose side the French were on. The point was that foreign troops have been employed on American soil. And thanks for ignoring my statement about US troops being used to prop up foreign governments. The point, which you deliberately missed, is that it is NOT “paranoid” to imagine the possibility of foreign troops being used here again.

    *******************************************
    Are you suggesting that the OaKies would refuse orders to serve in foreign countries to prop up governments, because that would make them “Hessians”? Please expand on this, as it promises to be interesting.
    *******************************************

    Oath Keepers opposes US invterventionism and undeclared wars. We have not told our current serving to abandon their posts because it is entirely too impractical at this point.

    **********************************************
    As for the abuse of quartering soldiers in private residences, the British soldiers were technically not foreign soldiers. Prior to the end of the Revolution, the colonists were still British subjects. The Third Amendment has more to do with the founding father’s qualms about a standing army than with foreign troops.
    ***************************************

    My point about the 3rd amendment had nothing to do with foreign troops. It had to do with the accusation of “paranoia.” Our founders did not think that Washington was going to quarter troops in people’s homes, yet the insisted on having the 3rd amendment anyway. They, like Oath Keepers, were looking beyond the next election cycle and wanted to ensure that past abuses never happened again.

    **********************************
    With advocates like you, Larry, the OaKies don’t need critics.
    *********************************

    More empty ad hominem. Grow up.

  • Larry

    I answered your question. Violent people are attracted to Oath Keepers because they are frustrated with the near impossibility of any real change happening in DC. Just like you, they think that because we are military and LEO, and support RKBA, that we are violent. They are wrong, and so are you.

    As for who chooses to click the “donate” button, I doubt SPLC disallows anonymous persons from the internet to donate to them either.

    I didn’t design whatever skull thingy you are talking about. As for the “Molon Labe” thing goes, I have already explained that I have no problem with violence in defense of life, liberty, or property.

    “arming yourselves and declaring war on the American people”

    There you go with your idiotic strawman again. Neither I, nor Oath Keepers, has declared “war” on anything.

    And here you are completely full of crap:

    “–
    “You, on the other hand, are statist to the core.”

    Yep.

    “You believe that a small segment of society should be empowered to commit acts that would be criminal if anyone else did them.”

    Nope.

    “You whole-heartedly affirm the “right” of a ruling class to extort the wealth of everyone else under threat of violence.”

    Nope.
    –”

    If you believe in coercive taxation, you believe that government can commit extortion – a crime when anyone else does it.

    ALL human interactions should be free of coercion or fraud. If you support the existence of a coercive state, you support violence. You have simply delegated it to others.

  • Erika

    larry, in 1787 it took about a month to travel from London to New York – about a week to travel from Boston to Philadelphia and a day or two to go from Philadelphia to New York City. Transporting goods was very expensive and slow. The only way to communicate over long distances was by sending a letter. The United States had very little manufacturing base with the industrial revolution only just having started in England. Interstate and foreign commerce was extremely rare – only the most expensive goods traveled overseas or overland.

    Despite all that, the Articles of Confederation which did not provide the federal government power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce proved disasterous. Indeed, the primary reason why it was scrapped was because even with extremely limited commerce the government was unworkable. One reason why is tha tthe founders were incredibly well informed and well educated men – they knew about the increases in science, they knew about the invention of a practical steam engine, they knew about Adam Smith’s An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations calling for increased trade – they knew that while interstate commerce was at present a relatively minor thing, in the future it would be extremely important – and they gave that power to Congress because otherwise we would not be a country at all.

    Of course, today pretty much everythign that anyone uses travels in interstate or foreign commerce – you can travel over the oceans or accross the country in a matter of hours.and not days. Interstate and foreign commerce includes pretty much 100% of our economic activity – even by a really restrictive definition of waht is interstate commerce (a definition in which that noted liberal Antonin Scalia calls completely nutty, btw), the vast majority of econimic activity comprises interstate or foreign commerce.

    Of course, recall the principle purpose of the Constitution replacing the ARticlse of Confederation was to give Congress and not the states the power to regulate commerce. Guess what, honey – the fact that Congress can regulate almost everything now because almost everything involves commerce means that our government is functioning exactly as the founders intended.

    So you basically reveal all that we need to know – you do not want the Constitution – because the Constiution as created by teh Founders created a weak central government only in the context of 1787, but in the context of 2013 in order to fulfill what the founders (the U.S. as one country and one central economic market) intended we require a strong central government – and anyone who argues otherwise is simply ignorant of why the Constitution was created in the first place. you may claim you love the Constitution what you really want is a return to teh Articles of Confederation.

  • Gregory

    Larry,
    You do realize that the French troops and naval units fought on the side of the rebellious colonists, right? That they were welcomed by Washington, et. al.? Were it not for the French, we might still have the Queen on our currency, like Canada.

    Are you suggesting that the OaKies would refuse orders to serve in foreign countries to prop up governments, because that would make them “Hessians”? Please expand on this, as it promises to be interesting.

    As for the abuse of quartering soldiers in private residences, the British soldiers were technically not foreign soldiers. Prior to the end of the Revolution, the colonists were still British subjects. The Third Amendment has more to do with the founding father’s qualms about a standing army than with foreign troops.

    With advocates like you, Larry, the OaKies don’t need critics.

  • aadila

    ‘So now you are somehow “above” winning or losing, and I’m an “animal.” You sure argue like someone who can’t stand losing. Your choice to dehumanize your adversary by calling him an “animal” is a classic tactic of warmongering propagandists.’

    If you look carefully, you will see that I did not resort to ad hominem. I also have an animal mind. We share that in common. However, whereas you feed your animal mind (knowingly or unknowingly), I seek to starve mine and govern my base animal impulses such as fear and violence.

    “As for who is uncivilized and condonging violence, I have already explained that I am a voluntaryist libertarian. ”

    What I object to is the Oath Keepers, and your membership therein, as leading to and encouraging extremism and violence for reasons well explained. You have every right to be Libertarian, and that point is not inherent to the discussion.

    “You, on the other hand, are statist to the core.”

    Yep.

    “You believe that a small segment of society should be empowered to commit acts that would be criminal if anyone else did them.”

    Nope.

    “You whole-heartedly affirm the “right” of a ruling class to extort the wealth of everyone else under threat of violence.”

    Nope.

    “It is also worth noting that many of your heroes, like MLK (mine too), carried a gun, and was surrounded by men carrying guns for his protection. Your beloved Messiah In Chief (NOT my hero, obviously) is surrounded by the most highly trained and proficient KILLERS on the planet.”

    My guess is the connection is both these public figures are black? If I can interpret this frothing statement, you are worried about gun control. It is possible to regulate gun owership and still preserve the rights enshrined in the 2nd Amendment. So yours is a slippery slope fallacy.

    Is he an animal too?

    He also has a choice to be human or an animal. That choice is his to make. Last time I checked, there were no deaths head symbols prominently displayed on any website he is affiliated with. He also makes more difficult choices every day than you will face in a lifetime, and deserves our respect and loyalty even if we oppose his actions politically. This is the concept of the loyal opposition, and what separates politics from open rebellion.

    “I also read an article today that several human rights groups are calling your messiah a war criminal for his drone attacks”

    He’s the President, not my messiah. I oppose drone and missile strikes on civilian targets, and any kind of military action when war is not declared, and support human rights protest about this.

    “We want to see America return to the republic our founders intended: one with a small, weak central government with specifically enumerated powers delegated to it by the states.”

    Let me know how that works out. But why the deaths heads?

    “…each and every oath-sworn official considering the constitutionality of their actions, they simply do what they want, and somehow it’s not “unconsitutional” until SCOTUS gets around to ruling it so.”

    One of the downsides of checks and balances is that it is a less efficient system than dictatorship. It’s a price I’m willing to live with. They don’t however “do what they want”, that’s a hyperbolic and inaccurate statement about executive authority. You have the right to petition the government, peaceably assemble, or hold protests.

    “Or as long as they put the magic words, “Interstate Commerce” in the legislation, the 10th Amendment doesn’t matter.”

    That’s for SCOTUS to determine, not the Oath Keepers.

    “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violentrevolution inevitable.”

    There is your way of justifying violent means when you are dissatisfied with politics. Unfortunately these sorts of violent rhetoric and veiled threats are exactly the problem with the Oath Keepers.

    “The largest contributors to BOTH political parties in the last two elections was the banking industry.”

    Have you seen who funds the opposition to Obamacare? Can’t have one without the other. This is something to address by exercising your political rights, not arming yourselves and declaring war on the American people.

    “Are you really so surprised that some of them are pissed off?”

    No, not really. What a bunch of crybabies.

    “The reason I, and the rest of Oath Keepers, support and defend the Constitution is because it is our only hope of peaceful change.”

    LOL

    “Hope that is quickly dwindling as more and more of our rights are eroded.”

    My rights. You don’t speak for me.

    “We will continue to support peaceful change by constitutional means as long as it is still possible to do so.”

    And then…violence?

  • Larry

    We all know that foreign troops used by government against their own citizens NEVER happens. There were no Hessians or French troops involved in our War of Independence. US troops never stationed troops in foreign countries to prop up their governments either.

    Why did the states insist on having the 3rd amendment added to the constitution before they would ratify it? Because they thought George Washington or John Adams were going to house troops in their homes? Were they “paranoid?” Or were they simply making sure that abuses that happened in the past NEVER happened again?

  • aadila

    Sigh.

    Can someone please tell me if there was there something about my question to Larry that was not clear? The point is not that Oath Keepers is or is not turning them away. The point is why do they keep coming and why does Stewart Rhodes and the other moderators keep cheering them on?

    The answer’s pretty obvious when you see the “donate here” button right next to the comments. So, whether you own up to it or not, these are the grassroots supporters of the movement. There is really no other way to look at it. They look to Oath Keepers to unify and coordinate their anti-American, anti-Government, anti-Constitution, pro-hate, pro-racism, pro-domestic terror agenda. Why is that, Larry? Why do they look to Oath Keepers? Even if you turn them away. Even if you don’t take their money (which you do).

    I am not asking if they are anonymous, I am not asking if you turn them away or censor their remarks. I am asking why are they there? Why do they look to the Oath Keepers for guidance, support, and death head symbols?

    Answer the damn question.