SPLC continues hate smear against Oath Keepers

Oath Keepers

---

Related Articles

• Oath Keepers vs. oath breakers

• SPLC report smears Oath Keepers, militias

• To All Free Men and Women Who Escaped Collectivist Tyranny: Stand With Us!

• Hitler and the socialist dream

We've talked before about Oath Keepers.

Here's how they describe themselves:

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution

Our motto is "Not on our watch!"

Well--that certainly sounds hateful! Can't have people in America who believe in the Constitution, especially if we issue them guns! Which must be why the radical Southern Poverty Law Center called them "particularly worrisome" and lumped them in with hate groups.

That's why the SPLC links to news accounts about Oath Keepers in its "Hate Watch Headlines" feature. Apparently, you're a hate group if they hate you.

And their true believers lap it up.

Take Mac (please!) who complains about "a rude angry Marine saying the Nazi’s were Socialist leftist [sic]..."

Or read what my favorite commentator, Sandy, had to say:

I thank the SPLC for their continued diligence in researching hate/violent groups. There is always a kernel of truth in these movements…but to use the names of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi is blasphemous. Anyone who knows an inkling of what these men stood for knows that guns and violence were NEVER an option. I continue to support the SPLC and, again, thank them for their dedication. (I increased my monthly gift…wish I had more to give!)

How does that Kool-Aid commercial end? "Oh yeahhh...!"

We'll never change the minds of the self-deluded, but I do think its important to stick it back to the SPLC, just to let them know enough of us won't be gathering at their galvanized tub for a drink. I left a comment there and see no reason why I shouldn't also share it with Gun Rights Examiner readers. Note it does contain a few changes from what I posted there based on my re-reading it:

Actually, Sandy, you're wrong.

First off, "blasphemy" per Merriam-Webster:

1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity
2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable.

I guess you're free to worship fallible human beings if you want to. You know, commit blasphemy.

Per "Between Threat and Reality: The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Emergence of Armed Self-Defense in Clarksdale and Natchez, Mississippi, 1960–1965," Annelieke Dirks, Ohio State University:

Even Martin Luther King Jr.—the icon of nonviolence—employed armed bodyguards and had guns in his house during the early stages of the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1956. Glenn Smiley, an organizer of the strictly nonviolent and pacifist Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), observed during a house visit that the police did not allow King a weapon permit, but that 'the place is an arsenal.'

You--and SPLC--also ignore the role of the Deacons for Defense and Justice. Google them if you're honest enough to have your worldview challenged.

As for Gandhi, explain these quotes:

A disarmed India has no power of resistance against any aggressor if she wanted to engage in an armed conflict with him." (Statement of Mahatma Gandhi in The Great Trial after Non Co-operation movement) [and] Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest" (Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446 (Beacon Press paperback edition).

One other thing to keep in mind--he was resisting the British, who in spite of these misdeeds were a much more humane opponent than many of India's external nation state enemies, who would have historically had no qualms about employing genocide on their neighbors--or their own people, for that matter.

Oath Keepers have vowed to uphold the Constitution, which includes refusing to obey orders to disarm the population. So it's not them trying to render people of color defenseless--it's the left, that is, you national socialists (own it, Mac--that's what you are). And I know it causes outrage among hard core leftists when non-Caucasians don't toe the collectivist line, but the ones I know in Oath Keepers find being portrayed as racist haters ironic, offensive and wrong-headed, to say the least.

I'll leave you with two statements from Oath Keepers' "What We Are Not" statement:

"We are Not advocating or promoting violence towards any organization, group or person," and "We are Not advocating or promoting any act or acts of aggression against any organization or person for any reason including, but not limited to; race, religion, national origin, political affiliation, gender or sexual orientation."

This tracks very closely with the "Inclusion Statement" I wrote for the now defunct GunTruths.com website about 15 years ago:

GunTruths supports the right of all peaceable people to keep and bear arms.

Your age, race, sex, religion, political party, sexual orientation, or national origin are of no concern to us. Anyone who requires you to disarm is not your friend, and not our friend.

Only when all peaceable citizens can freely exercise their inalienable right to self defense, and their right to keep and bear arms, will we attain the ultimate safeguard for our mutual protection, as individuals, as members of a community, and as citizens of the Republic.

Anyone portraying us as violent haters is quite simply and demonstrably a liar. Like the irrational SPLC hater who posted this "Hate Watch" libel.