Oath Keepers: Napolitano's 'right wing extremists'?

April 24, 3:37 AMSt. Louis Gun Rights ExaminerKurt Hofmann

Previous Next

3 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

   Lt. Commander David Gillie addressing
   fellow Oath Keepers at Lexington Green
   Photo/Ron Bokleman

      Janet Napolitano
      AP Photo/Ron Edmonds
 

Reading about the Oath Keepers, on one hand, and the Department of Homeland Security's "right wing extremists," on the other, it occurs to me that it would be easy to conclude that we're talking about the same folks, in both cases.

Compare . . .

Oath Keepers: Military, Veterans, and peace officers who will honor their oaths to defend the Constitution, will NOT “just follow orders,” will stand for liberty, and will save the Republic, so help us God. Our motto is:

"Not on Our Watch!"

Vs . . .

"Right wing extremists": Most notable is the report's focus on the impact of returning war veterans.

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists," it says. "DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities."

"But," you might say, "DHS isn't trying to implicate all veterans and currently serving military personnel--just the ones who adehere to "extremist" ideology. OK . . .

Oath Keepers: We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order.

Nor will we assist, or support any such attempt to disarm the people by other government entities, either state or federal.

In addition, we affirm that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of the people so that they will, in the last resort, have effective final recourse to arms and to the God of Hosts in the face of tyranny. Accordingly, we oppose any and all further infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In particular we oppose a renewal of the misnamed “assault-weapons” ban or the enactment of H.R. 45 (which would register and track gun owners like convicted pedophiles).

Some might say that sounds kinda like this:

"Right wing extremists": "Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of right-wing extremist groups as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government," the report continues. "The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by right-wing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement."

 Then there's this:

Oath Keepers: We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

Sounds kinda like this:

"Right wing extremists":  . . . those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority . . .

How about this?

Oath Keepers: We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

 . . . And this?

"Right wing extremists": The report also mentions "'end times' prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as the violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement."

There's more, but I hope I've made my point: that our own government--specifically, the agency tasked with our "security"--seems bent on portraying those who have shown the greatest commitment to our Constitution and our liberty as a threat, to be scrutinized and held in suspicion.

I see a threat here, and it's not posed by the Oath Keepers.  They, in fact, might be our best hope for deliverance from that threat.