DVD Talk
The Oath Keepers [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Santa Buddies
Buy: $29.99 $9.99
9.
10.
Julie & Julia
Buy: $28.96 $9.99
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
Cars [Blu-ray]
Buy: $34.99 $15.49
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : The Oath Keepers


jfoobar
10-19-09, 10:08 PM
An interesting organization to say the least:

http://www.lvrj.com/news/oath-keepers-pledges-to-prevent-dictatorship-in-united-states-64690232.html

READY TO REVOLT: Oath Keepers pledges to prevent dictatorship in United States
Group asks police and military to lay down arms in response to orders deemed unlawful

Oct. 18, 2009
By ALAN MAIMON

Depending on your perspective, the Oath Keepers are either strident defenders of liberty or dangerous peddlers of paranoia.

In the age of town halls, talk radio and tea parties, middle ground of opinion is hard to find.

Launched in March by Las Vegan Stewart Rhodes, Oath Keepers bills itself as a nonpartisan group of current and retired law enforcement and military personnel who vow to fulfill their oaths to the Constitution.

More specifically, the group's members, which number in the thousands, pledge to disobey orders they deem unlawful, including directives to disarm the American people and to blockade American cities. By refusing the latter order, the Oath Keepers hope to prevent cities from becoming "giant concentration camps," a scenario the 44-year-old Rhodes says he can envision happening in the coming years.

It's a Cold War-era nightmare vision with a major twist: The occupying forces in this imagined future are American, not Soviet.

"The whole point of Oath Keepers is to stop a dictatorship from ever happening here," Rhodes, a former Army paratrooper and Yale-trained lawyer, said in an interview with the Review-Journal. "My focus is on the guys with the guns, because they can't do it without them.

"We say if the American people decide it's time for a revolution, we'll fight with you."

That type of rhetoric has caught the attention of groups that track extremist activity in the United States.

In a July report titled "Return of the Militias," the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center singled out Oath Keepers as "a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival."

The Patriot movement, so named because its adherents believe the federal government has stepped on the constitutional ideals of the American Revolution, gained traction in the 1990s and has been closely linked to anti-government militia and white supremacist movements.

The movement is blamed for spawning Timothy McVeigh, who bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, killing 168 people.

"I'm not accusing Stewart Rhodes or any member of his group of being Timothy McVeigh or a future Timothy McVeigh," law center spokesman Mark Potok said. "But these kinds of conspiracy theories are what drive a small number of people to criminal violence. ... What's troubling about Oath Keepers is the idea that men and women armed and ordered to protect the public in this country are clearly being drawn into a world of false conspiracy theory."

Oath Keepers got some unwanted attention in April when an Oklahoma man loosely connected to the group was arrested for threatening violence at an anti-tax protest in Oklahoma City. Rhodes called the man "a nut" who had no real affiliation with his group.

Nonetheless, Potok's group now monitors Oath Keepers on its Web site blog "Hatewatch."

Oath Keepers is not preaching violence or government overthrow, Rhodes said. On the contrary, it is asking police and the military to lay down their arms in response to unlawful orders.

(click link for rest)

While, from a certain perspective, one could argue that this group and what they stand for is positive, it is hard for me to imagine that anyone from left to moderate considering the Oath Keepers without whistling and twirling a finger around their right ear.

I also don't believe for a minute that Rhodes is going to be able to avoid having his organization most closely associated with the antics of some of its more fringe members.

BKenn01
10-19-09, 10:17 PM
These type stories are becoming more and more common.

Decadance
10-19-09, 10:54 PM
Nut jobs exist on all shades of the political spectrum.

Tommy Ceez
10-20-09, 12:25 AM
What kind of article doesnt list an accurate number for the orginization or give its structure...

and...


More specifically, the group's members, which number in the thousands, pledge to disobey orders they deem unlawful, including directives to disarm the American people and to blockade American cities. By refusing the latter order, the Oath Keepers hope to prevent cities from becoming "giant concentration camps," a scenario the 44-year-old Rhodes says he can envision happening in the coming years.

Wait, are they claiming someone has ordered them to blockade american cities and they did not?

Who the fuck wrote this shit?

dork
10-20-09, 12:32 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/posts/AnOaf.jpg

jfoobar
10-20-09, 06:57 AM
What kind of article doesnt list an accurate number for the orginization or give its structure...

and...


Well, it was a local journalist. :)

Wait, are they claiming someone has ordered them to blockade american cities and they did not?

Who the fuck wrote this shit?

The sentence you bolded makes perfect sense to me.

DeputyDave
10-20-09, 09:54 AM
I see nothing wrong with them. Other than the obvious bias presented by the journalist they seem reasonable. Unless there is something other than this article proving some nefarious or secret agenda there should be nothing worth getting liberal panties in a bunch (now, Statists on the other hand…)

Mabuse
10-20-09, 01:06 PM
If there were to be a revolution in this country it would be nice to know that police and military would side with the people, but it would never happen.

Tommy Ceez
10-20-09, 01:51 PM
The sentence you bolded makes perfect sense to me.

Please explain

DeputyDave
10-20-09, 01:57 PM
Please explain

To me too, it simply says that IF they are given an illegal order (for example, blockading a city) they pledge to disobey that order.

It doesn’t seem like a difficult sentence to put in context.

Tommy Ceez
10-20-09, 03:12 PM
Kind of like me announcing to the world and starting an organization that states that if I were to be ordered by the President to eat the first born child of Paris Hilton I would refuse?

DeputyDave
10-20-09, 03:30 PM
Kind of like me announcing to the world and starting an organization that states that if I were to be ordered by the President to eat the first born child of Paris Hilton I would refuse?

Well, being asked to disarm citizens and blockade cities is a slightly more realistic scenario, but I think you're getting it now.

I think this is in response to fears that Obama might start some kind of “brown shirt” (Sturmabteilung) movement. A lot of it refers, I think, to a 7-02-08 speech Obama made in which he said:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

I'm not agreeing with these fears, just pointing out that some feel they have basis in fact (considering history).

The Bus
10-20-09, 04:16 PM
Well, being asked to disarm citizens and blockade cities is a slightly more realistic scenario, but I think you're getting it now.

I think this is in response to fears that Obama might start some kind of “brown shirt” (Sturmabteilung) movement. A lot of it refers, I think, to a 7-02-08 speech Obama made in which he said:

It's not from <a href="http://completeobamaspeecharchive.com/070208_neweraofservice.htm">"A New Era of Service"</a>, at least according to this random speech archive.

arminius
10-20-09, 04:17 PM
Well, being asked to disarm citizens and blockade cities is a slightly more realistic scenario, but I think you're getting it now.

I think this is in response to fears that Obama might start some kind of “brown shirt” (Sturmabteilung) movement. A lot of it refers, I think, to a 7-02-08 speech Obama made in which he said:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

I'm not agreeing with these fears, just pointing out that some feel they have basis in fact (considering history).

That sounds more like the Waffen SS and the Allgemeine SS than the SA.

The Bus
10-20-09, 04:18 PM
OK, looks like it was from that day.

Df2p6867_pw

(Not sure where in the video he says this).

DeputyDave
10-20-09, 04:24 PM
It's not from <a href="http://completeobamaspeecharchive.com/070208_neweraofservice.htm">"A New Era of Service"</a>, at least according to this random speech archive.
:lol: Actually it is from that speech. The text released has been "sanitized" and references to that quote have been removed, but if you watch the video of the speech at 16:40 Obama clearly says it:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Df2p6867_pw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Df2p6867_pw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Tracer Bullet
10-20-09, 04:50 PM
Um, what about the National Guard?

This stuff should be left up to the states.

DeputyDave
10-20-09, 04:54 PM
Um, what about the National Guard?

This stuff should be left up to the states.

I completely agree, but then I feel at least 90% of what the US Government is involved with should be left up to the states.

Josh-da-man
10-21-09, 01:07 AM
It's great that the police are willing to stand up for our consitutional rights.

Though I have to wonder where these guys have been for the past, oh, five decades.

Tracer Bullet
10-21-09, 10:22 AM
It's great that the police are willing to stand up for our consitutional rights.

Though I have to wonder where these guys have been for the past, oh, five decades.

Dude, if you got to play with military-issue gear and act all badass, you'd favor an encroaching police state too.

http://www.casenet.com/movie/SWAT_Teaser_Poster_L.jpg

superdeluxe
10-21-09, 11:46 AM
I see nothing wrong with them. Other than the obvious bias presented by the journalist they seem reasonable. Unless there is something other than this article proving some nefarious or secret agenda there should be nothing worth getting liberal panties in a bunch (now, Statists on the other hand…)

agree, not sure what the issue is here.

Hank Ringworm
10-21-09, 12:04 PM
Could you imagine if a group of Senators declared that they would stand by their oaths to uphold the Constitution, like, no matter what? The horror!

This is the same damned thing.

Also, Cf. Abu Ghraib.