Mother Jones Cover Story on Oathkeepers: 'Age of Treason'
The magazine is on newsstands now. Not exactly favorable coverage, but it is getting the message out.
THE .50 CALIBER Bushmaster bolt action rifle is a serious weapon. The model that Pvt. 1st Class Lee Pray is saving up for has a 2,500-yard range and comes with a Mark IV scope and an easy-load magazine. When the 25-year-old drove me to a mall in Watertown, New York, near the Fort Drum Army base, he brought me to see it in its glass case—he visits it periodically, like a kid coveting something at the toy store. It'll take plenty of military paychecks to cover the $5,600 price tag, but he considers the Bushmaster essential in his preparations to take on the US government when it declares martial law.
His belief that that day is imminent has led Pray to a group called Oath Keepers, one of the fastest-growing "patriot" organizations on the right. Founded last April by Yale-educated lawyer and ex-Ron Paul aide Stewart Rhodes, the group has established itself as a hub in the sprawling anti-Obama movement that includes Tea Partiers, Birthers, and 912ers. Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Pat Buchanan have all sung its praises, and in December, a grassroots summit it helped organize drew such prominent guests as representatives Phil Gingrey and Paul Broun, both Georgia Republicans.
There are scores of patriot groups, but what makes Oath Keepers unique is that its core membership consists of men and women in uniform, including soldiers, police, and veterans. At regular ceremonies in every state, members reaffirm their official oaths of service, pledging to protect the Constitution—but then they go a step further, vowing to disobey "unconstitutional" orders from what they view as an increasingly tyrannical government.
We ALL should be Oathkeepers
integrity and ethics matter, truth matters our actions matter.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
Proud member myself
I also added my father,father in law,and grandfathers as dues paying members. All deceased, All combat vets. I know wherever they are now they would be proud to stand with us. Even those who are gone still count, and maybe even more than we appreciate.
I cringed when I saw the cover on
the newsstand; but that article was far more balanced than I'd have expected from this Leftist magazine. It seems the writer was educated considerably by the Oathkeepers.
I hope Pray stays ok with all the publicity.
It was a good article - but not very positive
They seem to choose the most radical of the Oath keepers to focus on. Birther/truther/survivilest obsessed with when TSHTF - can be scary, and I don't think represents the majority of the Oath Keepers.
Nice article!
As a supporter and advocate of the oath keeper concept I was struck by the fair and balanced nature of this writeup. I have no doubt that many readers will come away from this story with an openness toward the organization and its goals.
The criticism that many now involved in Oath Keepers and other "patriot" groups failed to rise up in response to the policies of George W. Bush is fair. However, plenty, especially those of a libertarian or paleoconservative bent, did view Bush as a traitor to the Constitution. The notions of preemptive war, surrendering the Bill of Rights for the illusion of security, massive FEMA funding for "detention centers" construction, Bush-style socialized medicine, the TARP bailout, and the general growth of government under Bush were all viewed with extreme concern by militias, Ron Paul supporters, and many involved in the genesis of the Tea Party movement.
To those who regard themselves as liberals let me warn that the noble aims of egalitarianism can, if pursued by force, quickly turn into a very brutal experience as witnessed in Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. While Hitler declared Jews an internal enemy and Stalin butchered ideological resistors , the new internal enemies are likely to be those Americans who stand up for their Constitutional rights to vitamins, raw milk, organic farming, herbal supplements, home schooling, wood heating, home defense, etc. The DHS-instigated regional Fusion Centers (fusing local and national police/military) have already identified many nonconformists as potential "domestic terrorists" that must be closely monitored.
The Oath Keepers should therefore be regarded as an ally of liberals, a sort of ACLU of last resort. Oath Keepers will not help liberals usher in a socialist utopia but they are likely to stand in the way of speech, travel, and lifestyle clampdowns and roundups of leftist "thought crime" violators.
New Hampshire and Ecuador
Don't link this to mainstream liberals.
"Oath Keepers will not help liberals usher in a socialist utopia but they are likely to stand in the way of speech, travel, and lifestyle clampdowns and roundups of leftist "thought crime" violators."
It was the neo conservatives that employed it.(even though I consider them super ultra liberals)
You may be right.
Mother Jones readers may not be mainstream.
New Hampshire and Ecuador
A step further???
Could someone tell me how disobeying unconstitutional orders is "a step further?"
It would seem to me that disobeying unconstitutional orders is an important part of simply protecting the Constitution.
Oaths and Vow, word for show.
There is no reason for vowing (or taking an oath) to uphold the Constitution. Either a person will uphold the Constitution or they won't uphold the Constitution. Taking an oath one way or another really doesn't matter. Actions do.
One can apply the example of having faith and doing no work. Faith without works is dead. James 2:20
grant
hmmmm
Where as I am happy to see more taking their oath a lot more serious, What has me worried is the " I wasn't worried about Bush because he was just going after terrorists" line. So it's ok for Bush to declare an unconstitutional war and this oathkeeper will obey. He just won't obey if it's against the American people. So really it's seems like a pick and choose when we obey the constitution again..Sorry can't have it both ways.
"I have found that being rich is not about having the most but about needing the least"
Bump
.
Not taking an oath is not a sin. Actions speak louder than word
Unfortunately oaths don't really mean much.
For this reason the bible teaches that Christ was in favor of actions and not words. Let your Yes mean Yes and your No mean No. Matthew 5 33:37
To be honest, as is said of George Washington, he could not have been an Oathkeeper since he broke his oath to the Crown of England when he led soldiers against British troops. He broke his oath and so his words were worthless.
grant
Yes and no
What Christ taught was about expected actions. Oaths are meant to show public acknowledgment of the trust received as deserving a solemn punishment if violated.
Oaths were structured so that there was an understanding of loss credibility, power, or even life. When Jesus addressed this, he taught to his followers to live before God in such simplicity, that your yes would mean yes, and your no would mean no in everything.
OATH, n.
A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath, implies that the person imprecates his vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false, or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it. A false oath is called perjury.
Noah Webster 1828
As for George Washington, shouldn't his understanding of Magna Charta and a biblical definition of good and evil, served to temper your alleged inconsistency.
"The most significant clause for King John at the time was clause 61, known as the "security clause", the longest portion of the document. This established a committee of 25 barons who could at any time meet and overrule the will of the King, through force by seizing his castles and possessions if needed.[5] This was based on a medieval legal practice known as distraint, but it was the first time it had been applied to a monarch. In addition, the King was to take an oath of loyalty to the committee.
Clause 61 essentially neutered John's power as a monarch, making him King in name only. He renounced it as soon as the barons left London, plunging England into a civil war, called the First Barons' War. Pope Innocent III also annulled the "shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the King by violence and fear." He rejected any call for restraints on the King, saying it impaired John's dignity. He saw it as an affront to the Church's authority over the King and the 'papal territories' of England and Ireland, and he released John from his oath to obey it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
The following verse shows us how any Biblle-believer can stand in judgment of pope Innocent III as a rebel to the authority of holy scripture, when he pretended to have the authority to absolve the kings' oath.
"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." Romans 13: 3&4
For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it. - Patrick Henry
God requires no oath.
My point against George Washington was not to condemn him, but only to point out that the taking of an oath will not keep a man to his word.
Taking of an oath is something that Christ taught against. Matthew 5:33-37, James 5:12
One reason man should not take an oath, logically is because it is the law of men and not the will of God.
Deut. 23:22 states, But when thou abstainest from vowing, it shall be no sin unto thee.
Of course a person can still be punished by the State even if no jurisdiction is held by the State. Iesus gave no oath and even so was killed under Roman judgement.
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/jurisdiction.htm
But don't take my word for it, only the Spirit of God teaches the truth.
1 Cor 2:9-16
1 John 2 :27
Keeping vs breaking
"My point against George Washington was not to condemn him, but only to point out that the taking of an oath will not keep a man to his word."
Oaths are to solemnize the declaration of allegiance to certain duties and trusts, so that the oath-taker would be watched over by God and everyone else who knew of such oath being theirs.
A confession of faith in the "God, that cannot lie",(Titus 1:2), ought to, in itself, include the obligation of fidelity to all duties and trusts, but it also bear a stricter judgment based on higher law.
Lets juxtaposition your opening line here, with your closing line in the post above it:
"He broke his oath and so his words were worthless."
Over a half century after the Magna Charta, the abolition of "the divine right of kings", was still nowhere near being acknowledged by the people or the king, even though it was revered as the foundation of the Common Law. It was the closest law to God's law in defining the best working relationship with a monarch that had ever been written outside of the Bible. (Deut. 17:14-20)
An oath cannot be used to compel the good conscience of anyone to compromise their obligation to higher law. The only oath that was broken was by the king to the Magna Charta, but since the people of Great Brittan did not hold their rulers accountable to its prescribed limits and punishments, it was up to the colonists to apply it by resistance, and finally by revolution.
Since it appears Washington held to higher law and acted in good faith, Providence gave grace to the humble; and any estimation otherwise is worse than worthless.
For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it. - Patrick Henry
at least they cover them
what can I say?
any coverage brings in new members.
great find Michael.
Website:
http://www.libertypoet.com/
Twitter:
http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
"How can we justify to the unemployed and underemployed in the United States the incredible cost of maintaining a global empire?" - Dr. Ron Paul
Great read
Great read. I enjoyed reading your post and I like your take on the issue. Thanks.
http://www.LegalAge.com
Thank you
feedback like yours is what gives me energy in this struggle for Liberty.
Website:
http://www.libertypoet.com/
Twitter:
http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
"How can we justify to the unemployed and underemployed in the United States the incredible cost of maintaining a global empire?" - Dr. Ron Paul