The Malignant Nature of the Oath Keeper Movement (by a maligned conservative?)

redstate.com ^ | October 21, 2009 | Streiff

[SuperLuminal]

"...the mindboggling assertion in Lexington/Concord was precipitated by an attempt to “disarm” Americans). "

Yep! This moron was clearly a product of criminal parents who committed him to one of those public government indoctrination asylums where the "truth" is taught.

He "knows" in his heart the the redcoats were actually going to Lexington and Concord to stop environmental pollution by the big businesses there and the racist homophobic conservatives that lived and worked there.

[Travis McGee]

The author is no conservative. He seems to confuse our oath to defend the Constitution with the Fuhrer Oath to defend Adolf Hitler.

[Travis McGee]

CW2 Ping

[Travis McGee]

I'll bet this "conservative" (sic) wouldn't care for my books either.

[Travis McGee]

He "knows" in his heart the the redcoats were actually going to Lexington and Concord to stop environmental pollution by the big businesses there and the racist homophobic conservatives that lived and worked there.

Yes, exactly.

[Eaker]

Why have you ignored all my questions?

[stephenjohnbanker]

In other words, the author is an idiot. I joined Oathkeepers recently.

[stephenjohnbanker]

B U M P to your dad!

[Las Vegas Ron]

Related:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2367955/posts

[Jack Black]

A few more of his claims: The nonsense purveyed by this group would have prevented Lincoln from opposing Secession

Well no, it wouldn't have prevented him from opposing secession, only from ordering the US Army to go start a war over it, a war that killed a half million Americans. So, maybe that wouldn't have been so bad?

and, more recently, it would have prevented Eisenhower from integrating public schools in Little Rock.

Well that was certainly the most important act in the history of country, even if mostly symbolic. Even if schools are almost as segregated today as then..

These principles, if they deserve to be called that, are nonsense and against the American tradition of government as it has been understood since the Whiskey Rebellion was suppressed by George Washington.

Which is probably about where we went wrong and the elitists (Washington was a huge distiller, hardly a disinterested party) started pushing around their "lessors" and invoking obscure Federal rules to make one and all bow to their control.

[SaraJohnson]

The establishment would not like oath keepers. No questioning unconstitutional orders or training! Just do what you are told.

[TXnMA]

"(sorry Texas was readmitted to the Union ..."

Did that sumbytch just call Texas, "sorry"?

He better stay a fur piece from these parts, because he just asked for a serious @$$-kickin'!!!

[TXnMA]

"(sorry Texas was readmitted to the Union ..."

Did that sumbytch just call Texas, "sorry"?

He better stay a fur piece from these parts, because he just asked for a serious @$$-kickin'!!!

[Noumenon]

This so called conservative is probably one of what Ralph Peters calls the ‘perfumed princes’. IOW - another 0bama bootlicker.

[CJacobs]

Seems to me that OathKeepers will have a little bit of difficulty getting active duty personnel to join an organization like this. Especially officers and others with secret or higher security clearances.

Even though an organization may have a mission statement to defend the constitution and to safeguard freedoms, the government may view the OathKeepers as an anti-government group.

This is a very fine line that I doubt active duty military would dare to cross.

Security Clearance Form SF 86:
http://www.opm.gov/Forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf

See page 17, Section 29 Association Record, Question B.

[an amused spectator]

Streiff wrote: "As a conservative I’m truly offended by this nonsense."

Conservatives don't imply that people are racists for disagreeing with them. Nor do they pretend that the Oath is to the president. Nor do they dissemble about Lexington & Concord.

You're no conservative, Streiff. You were probably a pretty sorry officer, too - but a good FORMER officer.

In the same sense as a "former Marine" - only one of which exists in the US - John Murtha.

[NTHockey]

Reading this made me think of the possibility that a lawful order may be given and yet, it would require one to disobey that order. What if a conscentious objecter is caught in a combat situation and is ordered to help defend a position? What if a corpsman is ordered to withold medicine that might be used to save others?

The point is, as you stated, that there is a higher oath to God and moral values.

[dcwusmc]

The oath we take, in both cases (officer and enlisted) is to the CONSTITUTION, not to the President, not to the Federal Government, not to any other entity. That means, since We, the People, are the bedrock under the Constitution, that our oath ultimately is to the People of the United States. The enlisted oath does feature the part of obeying orders of the President, but, as we are taught from day ONE at boot camp, those orders must be LAWFUL, and as we grow in rank, we are more and more charged with making that determination ourselves. As a Private, you kind of have to trust that your superiors know what’s lawful and what isn’t, but as you advance, it’s up to YOU to make that call. So there’s no conflict as far as the oath is concerned.

[mojitojoe]

There are probably about 150 million that are oathkeepers but haven’t joined.

[dcwusmc]

Ping