Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Mother Jones has a profile of the Oath Keepers, a new right wing group made up almost entirely of military and law enforcement personnel. It starts out benignly enough:
There are scores of patriot groups, but what makes Oath Keepers unique is that its core membership consists of men and women in uniform, including soldiers, police, and veterans. At regular ceremonies in every state, members reaffirm their official oaths of service, pledging to protect the Constitution--but then they go a step further, vowing to disobey "unconstitutional" orders from what they view as an increasingly tyrannical government.
Okay, good start. All soldiers and police officers should pledge not to obey unconstitutional orders from their superiors. That should be a given. And the group uses this to say that those who see them as a threat are wrong because they are only about what they won't do, not what they actually would ever do. But the ideology that spawns this is far deeper and more dangerous than that.
THE .50 CALIBER Bushmaster bolt action rifle is a serious weapon. The model that Pvt. 1st Class Lee Pray is saving up for has a 2,500-yard range and comes with a Mark IV scope and an easy-load magazine. When the 25-year-old drove me to a mall in Watertown, New York, near the Fort Drum Army base, he brought me to see it in its glass case--he visits it periodically, like a kid coveting something at the toy store. It'll take plenty of military paychecks to cover the $5,600 price tag, but he considers the Bushmaster essential in his preparations to take on the US government when it declares martial law...Most of the men's gripes revolve around policies that began under President Bush but didn't scare them so much at the time. "Too many conservatives relied on Bush's character and didn't pay attention," founder Rhodes told me. "Only now, with Obama, do they worry and see what has been done. I trusted Bush to only go after the terrorists. But what do you think can happen down the road when they say, 'I think you are a threat to the nation?'"
In Pray's estimate, it might not be long (months, perhaps a year) before President Obama finds some pretext--a pandemic, a natural disaster, a terror attack--to impose martial law, ban interstate travel, and begin detaining citizens en masse. One of his fellow Oath Keepers, a former infantryman, advised me to prepare a "bug out" bag with 39 items including gas masks, ammo, and water purification tablets, so that I'd be ready to go "when the shit hits the fan."
When it does, Pray and his buddies plan to go AWOL and make their way to their "fortified bunker"--the home of one comrade's parents in rural Idaho--where they've stocked survival gear, generators, food, and weapons. If it becomes necessary, they say, they will turn those guns against their fellow soldiers.
This kind of paranoia can be enormously dangerous. It is what breeds the kind of whackos who blow up government buildings. Such paranoid conspiracy theories (whether believed by the left or the right -- if there's even a difference once you get to such extremes) drive people to take violent action to prevent their dystopic fantasies from coming true. And the more imminent they believe that future to be, the more likely they are to take violent action to prevent it.
And yes, left and right extremes do blend together in this group:
Now Pray is both a Birther and a Truther. He believes he is following an illegitimate, foreign-born president in a war on terror launched by a government plot--9/11. He admires soldiers like Army reservist Major Stefan Frederick Cook, who volunteered for a deployment last May and then sued to avoid it--claiming that Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus unfit for command. Pray himself had been eager to go to Iraq when his own unit deployed last June, but he smashed both knees falling from a crane rig and the injuries kept him stateside. In September, he was demoted from specialist to private first class--he'd been written up for bullshit infractions, he claims, after seeking help for a drinking problem. His job on base involves operating and maintaining heavy machinery; the day before we met, he and his fellow "undeployables" had attached a snowplow to a Humvee, their biggest assignment in a while. He spends idle hours at the now-quiet base researching the New World Order and conspiracies about swine flu quarantine camps--and doing his best to "wake up" other soldiers.
Yes, this kind of paranoia really is dangerous. It's also unnecessary; there's plenty of dystopic things our government genuinely is doing, enough that we have no need to invent crazy scenarios of concentration camps in our future.
Politics
Comments
A bit related seeing the post mentioned guns. I'm into fly fishing and a story appeared on several boards over the last few days about fishing being banned. As there is a bit of overlap with anglers and hunters que hysterical nonsense.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/03/11/11greenwire-obama-admin-jumps-to-squelch-rumors-of-us-fish-65275.html
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | March 12, 2010 9:21 AM
"left and right extremes "
what part about that is left? I don't consider Truthers to have anything to do with liberal and progressive thought.
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | March 12, 2010 9:21 AM
Kevin,
The only connection might be that the Truthers blame Bush making them lefties. I don't make that connection but I have seen that position stated.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 12, 2010 9:28 AM
MikeMa, #3: ...I have seen that position stated.
Just yesterday, in fact. In this post and its comments.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 12, 2010 9:33 AM
These are people with values but without principles.
Loving the Constitution is a good thing. Submitting to its authority is a bad thing. Loving the Bible is a good thing. Reading the damn thing would be a bother. Loving Jesus is a good thing. Obeying the Ten Commandments would be just plain silly. Abortion is state-sponsored murder: the death penalty isn't state-sponsored murder, it's simple justice.
There are things they like and things they hate. No matter how bewilderingly crazy their thought processes seem to you, everything is plain and simple to them. They are people who cannot experience cognitive dissonance.
They do know, and use, the word 'principle', but they are utterly unprincipled themselves.
Posted by: CRM-114 | March 12, 2010 9:35 AM
To be fair, while their is nothing left wing as such about Truther ideas they do fit with criticism of George W***ker Bush, which I think was more common on the left than the right.
I think Ed is right that this kind of extreme paranoia has little to do with the majority of left or right political groups. There is a difference between thinking the government is doing a bad job (expected from any opposition party), thinking the government is in some way illegitimate (extreme but still in principle a position you can debate) and thinking the government is sending the black helicopters to kill you RIGHT NOW! GET OUT OF THE HOUSE!! RUN RUUUUUNNNNNN!!!ELEVENTY111ONE!! (Guess what I think of that view?)
Posted by: Matty | March 12, 2010 9:35 AM
What a bunch of whackadoos. The worst part is they are highly trained and armed.
Here's what I don't get. When they decide that some *unconstitutional line has been crossed and its time to get out the Bushmaster, um, Who are they going to shoot? Only other military people? Politicians they believe are undermining the constitution? Or do they plan to take civilians out that oppose their version of *Father Knows Best Coup-insanity?
I see people arming themselves in the news against the government, but then I wonder what that means? I am definitely left of center on many issues. Does that mean I should invest in Body Armor for me, and my kids? Should I then go out and buy a Bushmaster to defend myself and my constititional rights? Or do I nail my DD214 to the door post like it's passover for military folk? Or is that good enough?
There are plenty of military vets who serve in our government. Will that exempt them from a bullet in the brain? Or is there some other prerequisite that must be satisfied in order to dodge that bullet?
I don't get the impression these people think too hard, or too far into the future and really comprehend the message they are sending.
I have said this before and I will say it here. Obama hasn't done much to restrict access to fire arms since his innauguration. Like other big issues, he seems to have been content to let legislatures duke it out amongst themselves. But a vocal faction of Gun Owners are so wound up, just sure that a Democrat is going to disarm them, they they have effectively driven themselves nuts and have created self fullfilling prophecies with their antics. Threatening armed assaults, threatening the president directly over the months since he both won the primary and the presidency--will ensure that they do finally get his attention on this matter, and it won't be in a good way, thereby satisfying their need to be right, over the voiced desire to simply be left alone.
Posted by: Seeing Eye Chick | March 12, 2010 9:39 AM
Swine Flu quarantine camps??? For a highly infectious disease that lasts one or two weeks?
Now if they were worried about moron quarantine camps, I might start taking them seriously.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | March 12, 2010 9:41 AM
The Truthers often strike me as being more like Dale Gribble from that Mike Judge cartoon than bearers of coherent political positions. They possess secret knowledge that the "sheep" don't have or don't want to, and act accordingly. I see no reason to think these fellows are any different than usual Alex Jones listeners, except that they seem to have come to the party rather late in the game.
Posted by: mb | March 12, 2010 9:43 AM
Well, we can't call these people dishonest -- they're right up front with both their childlike adoration of guns and their pure tribalistic paranoia...
Most of the men's gripes revolve around policies that began under President Bush but didn't scare them so much at the time. "Too many conservatives relied on Bush's character and didn't pay attention," founder Rhodes told me.
Right -- the guy in charge was someone they liked, so they didn't care what he did or what the consequences were.
"Only now, with Obama, do they worry and see what has been done. I trusted Bush to only go after the terrorists. But what do you think can happen down the road when they say, 'I think you are a threat to the nation?'"
But now there's a BLACK LIBERAL calling the shots, and suddenly the unaccountable, paranoid regime they unquestioningly supported becomes scary TO THEM.
In Pray's estimate, it might not be long (months, perhaps a year) before President Obama finds some pretext--a pandemic, a natural disaster, a terror attack--to impose martial law, ban interstate travel, and begin detaining citizens en masse...
Translation: when our elected executive leader actually tries to lead and use his executive authority to solve a problem, IT'S WAR!!!! Because these people don't want to even admit we have any problems, let alone make any sacrifices for the common good to solve the problems. Beneath all the fake-macho posturing and gun fetishism, these people are no different from petulant children, crying about "slavery" and "tyranny" every time their parents tell them to eat their veggies, wipe their asses, clean up their rooms, or help take out the trash.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 12, 2010 9:49 AM
Seeing Eye Chick @7 brings up a good point. Who do the loons aim at and who do they shoot when the imaginary line is crossed?
I suspect that they will not aim at anyone but go hide in their bunkers and survival cabins and wait for the inevitable attack that never comes. They will be analogous to the Japanese soldiers holed up on pacific islands years after WWII ceased. The isolation won't make them any saner but it will reduce the danger. I think their paranoia will prevent them from trusting even other oath keepers. I wonder if they have a secret handshake and decoder rings?
Posted by: MikeMa | March 12, 2010 9:52 AM
Let's see: Economic crisis: check
Eliminationist rhetoric on the right: check
Stahlhelm: check.
All we need is an SA/SS and a Leader. What's Jeb Bush up to these days?
Posted by: kehrsam | March 12, 2010 10:02 AM
Not to take away from the seriousness of this but this part made me think of Kevin Smith's character in the last Die Hard movie.
More on topic, given Prey's stated beliefs and his reactions if he deems them to come to fruition, this could be considered signs of a severe disorder. Could the Army place him in some type of medical care? It would seem pretty careless on the Army's part to not do something when a soldier starts exhibiting signs of a mental breakdown, especially in light of the Fort Hood shootings.
Posted by: Jeremy Shaffer | March 12, 2010 10:06 AM
Obama hasn't done much to restrict access to fire arms since his innauguration.
Seeing Eye Chick, you say that like it's a bad thing?
Keep in mind that guys like Pray are an extreme minority. Even amongst the 3% crowd (those who claim they would take up arms against the police/military should they start to arrest/round-up citizens), these guys are a minority. And crazy minority, but a minority nonetheles.
Posted by: MadRocketScientist | March 12, 2010 10:11 AM
Most of the men's gripes revolve around policies that began under President Bush but didn't scare them so much at the time. "Too many conservatives relied on Bush's character and didn't pay attention," founder Rhodes told me.
Bush's character? Are these guys serious? The guy was a liar through and through. He lied about his military service, he lied about how great of a businessman he was, and he never exactly told the truth about cocaine.
But I guess if you say "Jesus" or "God" enough times people stop listening to everything else.
Posted by: Blue Nine | March 12, 2010 10:11 AM
when a soldier starts exhibiting signs of a mental breakdown, especially in light of the Fort Hood shootings
Now that is a valid concern.
Posted by: MadRocketScientist | March 12, 2010 10:14 AM
Good points, Raging Bee, but they are petulant children with guns. So we should hope someone's at least keeping an eye on them.
Posted by: FastLane | March 12, 2010 10:24 AM
I totally agree -- especially given the experience of Maj. Nidal Hasan and Gulf War veteran Tim McVeigh. I totally respect the people who serve in our military, but there needs to be a serious and ongoing re-examination of the culture and mindset that prevails within it.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 12, 2010 10:30 AM
Raging Bee, #10: Right -- the guy in charge was someone they liked, so they didn't care what he did or what the consequences were.
Heh. I've made these comments as well, maybe on this very blog. Someone concerned about the immense power that Obama is abusing. I've replied, "Don't you feel kind of stupid that you didn't oppose this when you're guy was in charge, when you had the chance? Didn't it cross your mind that, however much in love you were with your guy, these powers would be dangerous when the other side wins the next election?"
Seriously, there are a lot of people (and I won't confine this to the Right) who can't seem to look ahead.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 12, 2010 10:32 AM
Good points, Raging Bee, but they are petulant children with guns. So we should hope someone's at least keeping an eye on them.
Good idea, have the government keep a close on the armed, paranoid crazy people, because that won't make them more paranoid & crazy?
On a different note, how many of you have asked yourself the same question the Oath Keepers have? At what point do you decide that the system is broken and can not be fixed by any other means than armed revolution? Even as a thought experiment? When do you run, and when do you fight back, or do you just keep your head down and hope?
Posted by: MadRocketScientist | March 12, 2010 10:33 AM
Ok, same question for this guy as for the Rapture cultists, the Y2K doomsday prophets, and the 2012 End Timer theorists:
If that date (March 2011 in this case)rolls around and none of this has happened yet, will you finally admit you were wrong, calm down, shut up, and start listening to those who were right all along?
Posted by: DaveL | March 12, 2010 10:36 AM
Both of the young men in the article seemed really lost and directionless - like they were using the Oath Keepers to give meaning to their lives. We've all known people like that, people who glom onto a system (usually fictional) to fulfil their emotional and social needs. Too bad these guys didn't get turned onto D&D or Star Trek fandom or something else that doesn't involve lots of guns and a bunker in Idaho.
Posted by: KristinMH | March 12, 2010 10:39 AM
Would it matter if it was ten years ago or tomorrow?
Posted by: Gretchen | March 12, 2010 10:43 AM
KristinMH = 'Glom'?
Who has been reading 'A Clockwork Orange' recently? Unless you meant it in the 'Glommed in the Paw' kinda way. :) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 12, 2010 10:45 AM
These guys don't seem that different from the nutters who ran around screaming that Clinton was going to take away their freedoms, etc. 'Bee mentioned McVeigh earlier, he had some of the same paranoid delusions and insisted that Clinton wasn't legitimate, was going to set up camps, etc. It's just a new generation of the same old delusions. They're less active when a reich winger is in office, but when a moderate like Clinton or Obama is in office, the crazy comes out to play. We need to elect an actual liberal, these nutjobs heads would burst and we'd be done with the problem for another generation or so.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 12, 2010 10:46 AM
Yes, glom. As in "seize". You haven;t heard it used idiomatically that way? Maybe it is a regional thing? I knew exactly what Kristin meant and didn't find the choices of words remarkable... (upstate NY)
Posted by: James Sweet | March 12, 2010 10:50 AM
The only thing really crazy I see here is their reaction. Everyone agrees that government is a necessary evil, but we need to exhaust peaceful non-violent means of change before going all "Wolverines!" on it.
Posted by: Phaedrus | March 12, 2010 11:00 AM
I've long been worried about the political imbalance among those who have certain useful skills, like shooting stuff, engaging in organized violence, and blowing shit up. I'd like to see someone organize blue state wine and cheese crowds into militias and train them -- just to even the playing field a bit. But nobody with the relevant skills seems to want to do it.
Posted by: CJColucci | March 12, 2010 11:15 AM
Ok, mark me down as confused about where the "left" part comes in with these guys. Are you really counting trutherism as a leftist trait?
It's a pure anti-government thing, and while you might see extreme leftists be anti-government, that's clearly not the case here. Every single one of the thuthers that I've ever actually seen for myself were at a tea party rally alongside a bunch of people carrying Ron Paul signs. Are these guys on "the left" now too?
Posted by: Brain Hertz | March 12, 2010 11:21 AM
Raging Bee @ 10: "Right -- the guy in charge was someone they liked, so they didn't care what he did or what the consequences were."
And naturally, progressives are totally immune to this type of thinking, which is why they are just as worried about and protesting just as strongly when Obama uses these powers as when Bush did. It was a great day when the anti-war, anti-PATRIOT act, anti-torture, etc. movements came together and presented their concerns to our new progressive leader and he immediately acted to address all of their concerns regarding these abuses of power. His swift action is, of course, the only plausible explanation for why progressives are no longer talking about issues like imperialism, domestic spying, and other such barbaric abuses of power.
Phaedrus @ 27: "Everyone agrees that government is a necessary evil"
On the contrary, almost no one believes this. Anarchists think that government is an unnecessary evil and just about everyone else (left and right) thinks that government is the greatest idea since sliced bread, or would be if only they could get their particular brand of politics made into law.
Posted by: Miko | March 12, 2010 11:25 AM
Miko: You have a partial point in general about the relative quiet coming from the Left in regards to Obama's executive abuses as compared to Bush's... but 1) commenters on this blog are typically rather loud about Obama's abuses, even the progressive ones; 2) it's not like the Left in general has completely failed to notice, as partly evidenced by Obama's plummeting approval ratings; and 3) as uncomfortable as it makes me to see someone exercising questionable executive privileges... well yeah, if a guy who scares the shit out of me with his Biblical nigh-apocalyptic view of the conflict in the Middle East is abusing executive powers, you're damn right that bothers me more than if the wishiest-washiest moderate since Carter is abusing executive powers. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it.
Posted by: James Sweet | March 12, 2010 11:32 AM
On the contrary, I believe that they very much do experience cognitive dissonance on a regular basis. Point out that many such beliefs (i.e. being "pro-life" as well as being pro-war and pro-capital punishment) are contradictory, and watch how many conservatives will immediately become defensive. They might offer weak excuses for harboring such contradictory beliefs at the same time, or they might become even more rigid and black-and-white in their thought processes as a result of external criticism. Such defensiveness and rigidity of thought smack of cognitive dissnonance on some level of consciousness.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 12, 2010 11:35 AM
I go to this blog:
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com
An american ex-pat who lives in Italy and posts about gun and gun control issues. He has about four or five regular commenters who are absolutely opposed to even minimal gun regulation. There was a post about the idiot who took a shot at the helicopter a month or two back; it evolved into a long pro/con about the Barret .50 rifle. These folks claim they're just trying to preserve their rights. The whine is very similar to the one I hear from KKKristian reichwingers when they complain about being prosecuted for their beleifs--and just as nonsensical.
Posted by: democommie | March 12, 2010 11:38 AM
While the individuals in these types of groups can be dangerous on the small scale, it doesn't translate into realistic danger on a larger scale. They are a mob, not an army. They look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and the revolutionary war and think they can accomplish the same thing. They forget the outside support portion of all those conflicts. What country in the world would support them against the actual US government? They forget how much harder it would be to turn public opinion to their side when they are busy causing civilian casualties on US ground. Scary as individuals, potentially dangerous, but not dangerous to the country as a whole.
p.s. Wine and guns don't mix...never drink when shooting, but I'm game for the cheese.
As a self described liberal gun nut I find myself in a very very small minority. According to most I can't be a Democrat because I'm against most gun control. On the other hand I can't be a Republican because I'm an atheist who doesn't care about anyone else's sex life. Of course Republican's have moved so far right over the past ten years I don't actually remember the last time I voted for one.
Posted by: Laen | March 12, 2010 11:59 AM
This is my major moral conundrum when it comes to politics. I think this country is badly in need of revolution, not necessarily a full on overthrow of the government, but something at least as intense as the civil rights movement. However it appears that the only people willing to do something about our broken system are completely out of their minds.
It depresses me that with all the real abuses that occur due to the drug war, the increasingly militaristic attitude of our domestic police force, and the complete unaccountability of every level of government the only thing people in this country can get worked up over are fictional BS. Truthers, birthers, and medicare nazis are serious business to a large set of Americans. Some days I don't even have the energy to wrap my mind around the sheer insanity of that.
It seems that the more real a problem is in this country the less likely anyone is to give a damn about it. Maybe the media has just successfully programed people, after all they only cover BS so obviously the BS must be what is important.
Posted by: random guy | March 12, 2010 12:00 PM
Here are the current oaths of office for officers and enlisted in the US military:
Enlisted:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Officer:
"I, _____, having been appointed an (grade in which appointed) in the (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
There are minor variations between the services, but everything after "swear (or affirm)" is the same (with an exception for the Guard).
Apparently PFC Pray didn't mean or understand his oath. The oath specifies enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. If the Joint Chiefs thought an order from the President was unconstitutional, it would be incumbent upon them to disobey it. No doubt they would counsel him about such a decision prior to his making it. Essentially Pray has stated he has no trust in his chain of command, which makes him a poor soldier and a dangerous one.
The pretexts the loonies give under which the President would declare martial law are weak. What sort of nationwide natural disaster could happen? Maybe the supervolcano at Yellowstone blows? Asteroid? Like Obama commands these things. If they do happen, I guess it is because God hates the Oath Keepers, or doesn't, whatever.
There is one valid point in the article, one asked by me of my conservative friends: Why so sanguine about Bush's power grabs when they'll be available to the next president, who may not be "your guy?" Their usual answer was "I don't have to worry, I haven't done anything wrong." Stupid, stupid, stupid. That's just the fracking point! No one should have that kind of power. It galls me that Obama hasn't repudiated those powers.
I hope the Army and the FBI keep a close eye on Pray.
Meanwhile, I'm going to go laminate my DD214 and lag-bolt it to my garage.
Posted by: The Gregarious Misanthrope | March 12, 2010 12:27 PM
Fun nitpick. You don't have to say "So help me God."
Posted by: Laen | March 12, 2010 12:31 PM
"While the individuals in these types of groups can be dangerous on the small scale, it doesn't translate into realistic danger on a larger scale. They are a mob, not an army."
Timothy McVeigh wasn't dangerous until he blew up the Murrah building and killed 165 people.
Posted by: democommie | March 12, 2010 12:53 PM
There was an organization not too long ago, also comprised of active duty and retired military, whose opposition to governmental policies led them to conspire and plan the assassination of several members of the US senate. The plan was ultimately ditched though. One of their leaders went on to become a US senator and nearly became the president of these United States. His name is John Kerry and the organization was Vietnam Veterans Against the War. So be carefull with the two legs good four legs better mindset.
I certainly wouldn’t support the Oath Keepers if they turned violent, but letting LE and DOD people know that there is a difference between legal and lawful orders and that there are likeminded individuals willing to stand up for the rule of law should be seen as a good thing.
Posted by: Greg | March 12, 2010 1:13 PM
I wonder if the Oath Keepers have any initiation rights? Like perhaps the "Paddling of the Swollen Ass, With Paddles"?
Posted by: Duggie | March 12, 2010 1:55 PM
What part of the Oath Keepers pledge do you oppose?
OATHKEEPERS: ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY
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.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
BTW, #7 happened with the Japanese internment during WW II. #1 and #6 happened in New Orleans during the Katrina aftermatch, and Ed Brayton reported on #6, back before this blog was hosted by Science Blogs.
Posted by: Jim Babka | March 12, 2010 2:12 PM
kerhsam at #12 said,
A thought that's been crossing my mind lately is that we're lucky not to have such a leader these days, because there's no shortage of would-be followers. As much as I despise Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, and O'Reilly, perhaps it's a blessing that the leaders of the Right have no aspirations beyond being celebrity blowhards.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | March 12, 2010 2:33 PM
Seeing Eye Chick at #7 said,
They think hard, but not at all well. If I may be permitted a long quotation from Richard Hofstadter:
Upon reading the article, I thought the Oath Keepers had assembled plenty of facts, but they can't color within the lines of reality when they start imaging concentration camps and martial law.
And to answer Jim Babka's question, as statements of principles their pledge doesn't sound bad, but they make it pretty clear that they stand by those "principles" primarily when Democrats are in office and they're rather sanguine about using those illicit powers against people they don't like.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | March 12, 2010 2:42 PM
Jim Babka
4 & 5 seem possibly troublesome.
Martial Law or State of Emergency was just what was call for in New Orleans after Katrina.
So these oathers would have let the south secede. Interesting.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 12, 2010 2:47 PM
James Sweet @26, I'm just across Lake Ontario from you (Toronto), so maybe it is a regionalism.
I still feel sorry for these young men. They're being used and manipulated and their lives are being soured by conspiracy lies. When it becomes clear that Obama won't take their guns and intern them - but he will continue warrantless wire-tapping, the war, a bunch of real civil rights violations from the Bush years - I hope they're able to get out and do something better with their lives, maybe even some non-insane political activism.
Unfortunately I suspect they won't.
Posted by: KristinMH | March 12, 2010 2:50 PM
The unspoken zeroth pledge point:
0. We will NOT be concerned about any of the following things if a Republican is President.
Posted by: jpf | March 12, 2010 3:07 PM
Jim Babka @ 41,
I first oppose these people because of their demonstrated character, including the fact they are first rate projectionists. Their claimed fealty to the Constitution sounds every bit as valid as any modern-day conservative populist's, especially since their oath directly conflicts with the Constituion. My sense is that they are opposed to most Constitutional principles with few exceptions, e.g., 2nd Amendment, emminent domain. It reminds me of Sarah Palin trying to claim Mr. Obama wasn't a real American while her husband was/is? a secessionist and she even celebrated such notions as the Governor of Alaska welcoming the Alaska Independence Movement to their convention.
In addition, their numbers four and five are blatantly unconstitutional (see above regarding my claim they're projectionists). The federal government has delegated powers to defend my individual rights from tyranny no matter what form it takes, including secessionist-leaning states. If I were a Texan, and thank goodness I'm not, I'd be writing regularly letters to the President pleading with him to have the same courage that Presidents Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Kennedy had to protect my rights against state tyranny if Texas edges further into insanity.
I understand you merely asked the question and then provided a vague neutral analysis. I took this as a disingenuous method to distance yourself from this group's positions while simultaneously promoting them at the same time, perhaps unfairly. Transparency of motive is a better mark of character than your sort of opaqueness.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 12, 2010 3:29 PM
I will put up $20,000 at 2:1 odds (so you only need $10,000 to take the bet) that Obama does not declare martial law (state of emergency doesn't count) in his first term. If he is reelected without doing so, I will let whoever takes the bet go double or nothing on his second term.
Any takers?
Posted by: Dan L. | March 12, 2010 4:23 PM
OATHKEEPERS: ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY
This is how I see these "oaths" in respect to the military oath of office:
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
Since this is a right confirmed under the 2nd amendment, obeying such orders would violate their oath of office.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
For military personnel, conducting law enforcement operations is usually not allowed. There's been some debate about this recently and I am not an expert on this. However, you don't need a warrant to search someone as a LEO, just probable cause. I guess this has only become a problem now that a black liberal is in the White House.
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
Well, good luck knowing the status of the "evildoer" ahead of orders to detain or capture someone. Could you imagine a military unit in Afghanistan demanding to know the future status of some warlord they've been ordered to capture? I disagree with our current "unlawful enemy combatant" stance as it does not preclude the president from declaring anyone (Rush Limbaugh?) an UEC and tossing them in prison forever without redress.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
So, al Qaeda manages to get a nuke to detonate under the Brooklyn Bridge throwing the area into chaos and these guys think that declaring a state of emergency or maybe martial law would violate someone's rights? Rights to what? Radiation sickness? Predation of the weak by the well-armed? And typically, it's not a whole state that gets so classified.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
I guess they would have let the south secede. So what happens if Ohio decides to activate its Guard and invade Kentucky to settle some college sports grievance?
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
So if someone releases smallpox in a city they'd pass up the chance to quarantine the place and save a few million lives? Just so long as everyone has the freedom to spread deadly diseases to the unvaccinated. Which would pretty much be people under age 40 or so.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
Hard to argue with that. But seeing as how it would violate a few amendments, I think it would be covered under their original oath.
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."
Wow! Hatfoil, Hatfoil! Is Mexico going to offer troops to fight the drug war here? I'm surprised they didn't mention they would disobey lizard overlords. Wait, maybe there is a REASON they didn't mention it. OMG! I've discovered a hidden conspiracy!
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
Covered in the 4th amendment
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
Hey, look, another amendment! #1 in fact.
Overall, I'd say that this is pointless repetition of the requirements of the military oaths of office with a heaping helping of paranoid right wing nuttery. You can see the various internet rumors behind most of these. Do they really think only they understand constitutional abuses?
What irks me most about these yahoos and their teabagger buddies is that all this stuff was going on under Bush's watch and now that "their guy" isn't in power anymore it has suddenly become a problem. They didn't have a problem with war under dubious pretext. They didn't have a problem with a giant increase in Medicare spending with the drug benefit. No problem cutting taxes while spend a trillion or so on the wars (anybody hear of war bonds?). No, things are only a problem now that we've had to heap an extra 10% or so on the debt to stop a global depression.
They'll be blaming Obama when their taxes go up after the last of the Bush cuts sunset. Guess what, jackasses? Bush and the Republicans voted to raise your taxes in 2011 with the tax bill. It wouldn't have passed without the sunset provisions. They knew they would either have a Republican in office who would try to get it all to stay or there would be a Democrat in office whom they could blame when they expire.
Posted by: The Gregarious Misanthrope | March 12, 2010 4:26 PM
Pray and his buddies plan to go AWOL and make their way to their "fortified bunker"--the home of one comrade's parents in rural Idaho--where they've stocked survival gear, generators, food, and weapons.
So, when the shit hits the fan, they're going to go live in Mom's basement. Now there's some badass Freedom Fighters.
Posted by: feralboy12 | March 12, 2010 4:56 PM
@50
They've watched "Red Dawn" too much.
Posted by: The Gregarious Misanthrope | March 12, 2010 4:58 PM
@ MadRocketScientist
Yes, and Timothy McVeigh was an extreme minority. And Eric Rudolph. And the guy sho shot up the Unitarian Church in Tennessee, as was the one who shot the cops in Pennsylvania, and the Holocaust museum shooter, and the murder of Dr. Tiller ...
Somehow I don't think the constitutional framers had those douche nuggets in mind, and would agree that it is the duty of a sane society to do as much as possible to keep weapons out of the hand of its crazy "extreme minorities."
Not that we should have a blanket witch hunt, but if we WERE going to drain a swamp to actively hunt those people there would be no better wetlands to start in than the teabagger/birfer contingency. Although that would be risking picking on the mentally ill/retarded.
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | March 12, 2010 5:10 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | March 12, 2010 6:06 PM
Phaedrus "PhaedrusEveryone agrees that government is a necessary evil, but we need to exhaust peaceful non-violent means of change before going all "Wolverines!" on it."
Red Dawn: Black Marxist takes over America.
Now: Black Marxist takes over America.
Think about it.
Fifth Dentist "Somehow I don't think the constitutional framers had those douche nuggets in mind, and would agree that it is the duty of a sane society to do as much as possible to keep weapons out of the hand of its crazy 'extreme minorities.'"
Sheesh, it's like you've never even read the 2nd Amendment...
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 12, 2010 7:51 PM
Damn, people here support martial law. That's just sad.
Posted by: Juice | March 13, 2010 4:05 AM
"Damn, people here support martial law. That's just sad."
Nice conflated. That is like saying that people who are in favor of life saving surgeries support vivisection.
Posted by: democommie | March 13, 2010 7:32 AM
@ Juice
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 effectively barred imposition of martial law without congressional approval. That said, there has been some tinkering with Posse Comitatus lately so it's really hard to say what the rules are now. The only time martial law has been imposed in the last 100 years was in HI during WWII.
The idea of martial law is that the military would step in only if civil law enforcement and courts were completely incapacitated or ineffective. So the choice is really chaos and anarchy or temporary military rule of some area.
It's difficult to imagine a scenario where this would come to pass as it didn't happen during Katrina, the 1992 LA riots, or any other time of great strife in the last 100+ years with the exception of HI in WWII. Then again, my imagination must not be as vivid as the paramastubatory fever dreams of the Oathkeepers.
Posted by: The Gregarious Misanthrope | March 13, 2010 4:01 PM
There are a number of reports out lately about the increase in right-wing extremists groups. Some, discuss the presence of these individuals in the military, to include the controversial DHS report leaked to the internet last year that warned against the possibilities of disenfranchised members of the military joining right wing extremists groups. Participating in extremist organizations is against military policy. I wonder how serious the military looks into potential members of groups like the Oath Takers who's web sites post supposed pictures of current military members sporting their tattoos. Are they investigated and reprimanded? Removed from the military? Or, do those in charge have fears of EO complaints or some other PC fear (as may arguably be the case as it relates to looking into members that may be potential Muslim Extremists (Fort Hood/ Maj Hasan for example)?
Posted by: JT | March 14, 2010 1:22 AM
Well, calling these idiots 'trained' is a bit of a stretch. They're trained in basic military skills and trained to work on vehicles. They are not exactly Green Beret material.
Tim McVeigh was dangerous because he held these views and he was a highly trained soldier, not a REMF who was undeployable, with a drinking problem and clearly paranoid delusions.
Posted by: Cullen Tillotson | March 14, 2010 6:21 AM
Where were these people seven years ago?
Posted by: Shay | March 14, 2010 9:08 PM
Wow what a diatribe from supposed civil Libertarians against civil liberties! The hypocrisy of the liberal and so called conservative in this country is astonishing.What's more amazing is the fact that both seem to feel your sh#t doesn't stink! Here is a synapsis of our situation, we have surveillance cameras atop allmost every light post,in sight, We have Imperial Corporate wars fabricated to serve the interests of the finance class,and the secret police apperatus to make it happen. The so called "Patriot Act" , the civillian labor internment program,(google it) Not to mention the highest prison population in the world. And you Saul Alinsky civil libertarian wanna bes want to demonize those who would question and resist absolute authoritarians on both sides of the line? Your charactorization of "all right wing is steroetypical beyond belief! The Spanish didn't end up with Franco by luck, no they ended up with him because of fools and cowards who did exactly what most of you do now! Ie Nothing but whine! The "camps" by the way were set up originally by Regan under the Rex 84/Fema guidelines for 'upity lefties',minorities,and imigrants! But your to busy blaming the boogie man to realize that both parties for the most part serve the interests of the elites!As evidenced by their associations with the CFR/WTO etc. Here is a cold hard fact , anti gun might as well be a synonym for civil war here in the US! A Newsflash for you tucked into your urban enclaves and bistros is that millions of gun owners will not surrender their guns or sovereignty! And I am one of them. I am one of them because unlike most of you I have little illusion as to the benevolance of government. The definition of cowardice is to me at this point, a trendy superficial liberal elitist snob who prattles on incessantly about the fact that life is "to valuable to resist," just give them what they want! To this person I wonder what's the Cops life worth who comes to save you? Their $25,000 per year salary? Your complete lack of courage and personal responsibility is about on par with demands for tolerance while you are as bigoted and insulting as can be to those who don't agree with you ! Obama complained of "folks clinging bitterly to guns and religion" , hmmn what demographic does this sound like to you? White folk by and large! Wow If a white person had said "black folk clinging to gangs and crackpipes" the howls from the "left" would have been immediate!Live and let live ? Yeah right! But that's the problem its only a one way street . You know what we are all being screwed in one way or another and the thing that is sad is how many would rather fight amongst ourselves! Well Fox Noise and N-ational -Petroleum -Radio are certainly doing their share to make sure we keep it up. You want to go live in a peoples propaganda paradise? Fine that's your perogitive! You want to make this country into one? And you will see hell first hand I gaurantee it! Conversly if the Neocon man wants to intern you and make the 'trains run on time'? My stand is unchanged we at some point must resist! And on the other side are the hacks trying to say the minimum wage isn't a weapon of mass destruction and that Obama is a socialist for bailing out the banks! Your all Loons!
Posted by: Civil Libertarian | September 26, 2010 1:00 PM
Civil Libertarian:
1. You're new here, aren't you?
2. The Enter key. Find it. Love it. Use it.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 26, 2010 1:13 PM
Civil Libertarian, #61: Here is a synapsis of our situation, we have surveillance cameras atop allmost every light post,in sight, We have Imperial Corporate wars fabricated to serve the interests of the finance class,and the secret police apperatus to make it happen. The so called "Patriot Act" , the civillian labor internment program,(google it) Not to mention the highest prison population in the world....
[New line added.]
A Newsflash for you tucked into your urban enclaves and bistros is that millions of gun owners will not surrender their guns or sovereignty! And I am one of them.
And what are you gun owners doing to correct the problems that you mention? I notice that most of you gun owners actually nod in agreement when these encroachments on liberty are enacted and get excited only when you percieve that your "right to bear arms" is in jeopardy.
I never, ever saw "gun owners" attend mass rallies against the war in Iraq, the holding of people without charges, or the torture of prisoners while waving your guns and shouting "the Second Amendment allows us protect our other rights and the rights of these other people!" The only protests gun owners make as gun owners seems to be protect the right to own guns.
Maybe you're an exception, but if you are, then you might want to give it a bit more thought before you identify yourself with a bunch of pathetic losers.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 26, 2010 1:23 PM