Oath Keepers: How is a vow to uphold the Constitution a 'threat'?

October 20, 11:55 AMSt. Louis Gun Rights ExaminerKurt Hofmann

Previous Next

7 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

   An Oath Keeper . . . keeping his oath
      Sipsey Street Irregulars photo

---

Related Articles

• Media discovering Oath Keepers: part one
• Media discovering Oath Keepers: part two
• Cops, deputies warned again about right-wing 'terrorists'
• Oath Keepers: Napolitano's 'right wing extremists'?

Back in April, I wrote about the rather startling resemblance between what the Department of Homeland Security characterizes as potential "homegrown terrorists," and a group whose raison d'etre is about as far removed from violent attacks on America as is possible.  I refer to the Oath Keepers, and this is 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

Joining the Oath Keepers involves taking an oath to refuse any unlawful (i.e., unconstitutional) order.  So if, for example, an Oath Keeper in the police or National Guard were to receive orders to disarm law-abiding American citizens (as happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina), he or she would be honor-bound to refuse that unlawful order, which would violate citizens' Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms (in truth, of course, all police and military members would be honor-bound to do so, but the Oath Keepers are leaving no room for doubt about their commitment to that sacred duty).

Recently, the Oath Keepers have attracted considerable media attention (my National Gun Rights Examiner colleague, David Codrea, published two must-read articles about that--see the first two links beneath the photo)--much of it heavily slanted against the movement.  An article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, for example, is titled "Ready to Revolt," and notes that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has discussed the Oath Keepers on their "Hatewatch" blog.  In the article pointed to by the second link below the photo, David Codrea lists several other recent or upcoming news stories about the Oath Keepers, including the fact that Oath Keeper founder Stewart Rhodes will be on MSNBC's "Hardball" tonight, perhaps debating SPLC spokesman Mark Potok.

My biggest question to the people who are alarmed by the Oath Keepers is this: if our men and women in uniform reaffirming their oath to refuse unconstitutional orders so bothers you, what unconstitutional orders do you expect them to receive, and want them to obey?  Yesterday, I discussed the "cold, dead hands" promise--could the alarm about the Oath Keepers be linked to fear that there will not be enough troops and police officers to render those hands cold and dead?

Update: here is the "Hardball" segment. Chris Matthews came across as just the kind of guy who would get "a furrow up [his] leg" at an Obama speech.  Also see David Codrea's in-depth analysis of the segment.