Oath Keepers in context

October 28, 8:49 PMAnchorage Libertarian ExaminerKevin Wilmeth

Previous Next

1 comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Anchorage Libertarian Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

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

   Oath Keepers:  Just makin' sure
  everyone's clear on their
  allegiances and all...

A.X. Perez has a very interesting article over at The Libertarian Enterprise this week.  It begins:

It was August of 1991. Misha Gorbachev was being held captive by Communist Party apparatchiki who wanted to end perestroika.Boris Yeltsin led the resistance to these Conservative Communists, who included much of the KGB and GRU. A platoon of Spetnaz was tasked with killing Yeltsin and ending the resistance to a return to good old fashion Soviet style Communist Party rule. They refused to carry out the order. Yeltsin remained in power as president of the Russian Federation and Gorbechev was rescued. Four months later the Soviet Union ceased to exist.

All because a bunch of Spetznazniki refused to continue to support what they saw as a dying world order. You can make all sorts of correct psychological, economic and sociological arguments as to why the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was doomed to be swept into the dustbin of history (and yes, I love turning this phrase on them ). But the USSR received its death blow the day Spetnazniki refused to commit a political murder to keep it alive.

Is this, you suppose, what the shrieking statist shills* like Chris Matthews and the Shamelessly Pusillanimous Libel Center, are actually afraid will happen with Oath Keepers?

Here's hoping it does.  (That's a much more peaceful resolution than what happens if it doesn't.)  Hey, human beings can dream too, ya know.

For more on the OK subject, check out Grigg's excellent take, and this blog entry from St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner Kurt Hoffmann.

_____________________________

* If you care to wade through the early commentary on David's linked article, you can see yours truly get excoriated for (somehow...that was never explained) claiming that we will find our freedom in the state.  Well, that's a new one!  I tried, once, to subtly suggest that he not make a further fool of himself by making things up about me (and was proud of my restraint), but he declined with prejudice.   At that point, rather than get accused of hunting over bait, I left him to fiddle with his own noose.