And second, the Oath Keepers is not a "hatriot group." Its members are not "right-wing domestic terrorists," as Joshua Holland depicts in his article. Such scaremongering, and name-calling doesn't measure up to the facts. Holland says that the Oath Keepers are riding the coattails of Glen Beck, writing that the group has an, "outsized Glenn-Beckian sense of grievance," and plans on fighting for the constitution based on the "interpretations of Michelle Bachmann or Rush Limbaugh." Holland's understanding of the Oath Keepers is based on pure quackery. If you look at the origins of the Oath Keepers, and read about its founder, Stewart Rhodes, you'll get a different impression.
Rhodes was a volunteer for Ron Paul, a man who is hated by Rush Limbaugh, and was called a crackpot by Glenn Beck. But Holland wants you to believe that Beck's post-Bush shenanigans inspired Rhodes to form the Oath Keepers, even though Rhodes had the idea of the Oath Keepers when he worked for Paul in his presidential campaign, back when Bush was president, and Beck was over at CNN lying to his audience that the bank bailout was necessary to save the country from another depression . So, if you are familiar with the history of Oath Keepers, and its mission, then you'll quickly realize that there is absolutely no logic in Holland's portrayal of this group, which consists of the finest and bravest among us; military veterans, police officers, fire fighters, and active-duty soldiers.
You have to take a balance approach to understand any organization. If you form your opinion before reading the views of all the sides, then you're not being objective or critical, but ignorant. Read what Rhodes says his organization is about before forming your opinion about the Oath Keepers. Rhodes:
"We received very reliable info from a federal law enforcement officer that the political powers that be in Washington DC are not at all happy with our mission of outreaching to the current serving military and police about their oath (wow, what a surprise), so the marching orders have come down for at least one federal agency to “make Oath Keepers look like a militia – like the Hutaree.” Of course Oath Keepers is not a militia – we are not organizing an armed body of men “to take on the government” as has been alleged by corporate media talking heads. Instead, we are an association of police, military, firefighters, and first responders who are using our First Amendment protected right to free speech to reach out to other active duty police, military and first responders, reminding them of their oath and teaching them more about the Constitution they swore to defend. We encourage them to consider the constitutionality of any orders they receive while serving here on American soil, and we encourage them to refuse to follow orders that would violate the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights. And that’s all we do."After you read that, ask yourself: Do you consider an organization that dedicates itself to preserving the freedoms of the American people as more harmful to your society, and a greater insult to the dignity of mankind, than a government that denies children of a particular nation the basics of human life, and arrogantly attacks the sovereignty of other countries? What is more prominent on your moral radar - what do you look out for as a threat to your security and liberty and your humanity- criminal acts by your government, or the opinions of your fellow citizens that run counter to the current leaders in your society?
I know where I stand, and it is not with the tyrants and state criminals of this world. The only authority that I recognize is moral authority, which Washington D.C. abandoned long ago.
Here is a quick reminder from the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics about why force alone is not enough to make a government legitimate, and credible, and why a government must always maintain its word with its citizens if it wants to be obeyed, and respected:
"The authority of a state can neither be measured nor justified by the material force which it has at its command to enforce obedience. Force is no remedy, nor can it win the loyalty of the governed. Without loyalty the exercise of authority is hindered, confined, rendered ineffective. It makes no difference in the final issue whether power is exercised by a king or by the citizens themselves; for, if it is exercised unworthily, it casts a blight on the flower of loyalty, which is essential to the full exercise of authority. Briefly, it may be said that the State is an ethical institution, and while material force is needed, yet the exercise of that force is conditioned by the fact that it must always be exercised for the good of the community, and in the interests of the higher values. Authority and loyalty must go hand in hand in every State which is worthy of the name." (From Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Part 3, written by James Hastings, and edited John A. Selbie: pp. 251-252).Loyalty in the U.S. government to the constitution, and to the American people is non-existent. U.S. leaders are not loyal to the citizens they claim to represent, not even to those in the military who have sacrificed so much. Instead of nurturing, and taking care of the soldiers that fight its wars, the criminal powers in Washington abandons them, and lets them rot. Instead of rewarding them with high-pay for their service, the war and deficit hawks want to reduce their benefits, dish out their life insurance benefits once they're dead to financial profiteers like Prudential, and replace them with Blackwater mercenaries that get paid upwards of $10,000 a month. All this reflects unbelievable disloyalty, treachery, and betrayal by America's top leaders in Washington. And it is incredibly sad because America deserves better.
But there is an opportunity to do make things right because of America's great constitution, and the oath that binds all officers to the survival of the freedoms enshrined in that document. Jon Watts, a member of the Oath Keepers since August 2009, explains why an oath is important to uphold, and what marks the difference between an oath keeper, and an oath breaker in his article "The Oath Keeper -- Villain or Valiant?":
It is a mistake to view the Oath Keepers as the arm force of American fundamentalists, as many in the mainstream media, and on "liberal" websites, are saying. Its members are not right or left, and they are clear on the separation of powers, and the separation between religion and state. Anybody who says otherwise is peddling fear and disinformation to people who are ignorant about the history, and mission of the group.
"Let's set aside the controversy for a moment and examine the term "Oath Keeper." What does it really mean?Webster's dictionary defines an "oath" as "a solemn, usually formal calling upon God or a god to witness to the truth of what one says or to witness that one sincerely intends to do what one says." We might therefore infer that an oath "keeper" sincerely intends to keep his word from the moment of an initial oath forward.For example, each newly elected member of Congress recites this oath:I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.Oath Keepers use a modified officer's oath for several reasons: because veterans, even if they were once enlisted, are no longer under any orders, because civilians are not under orders, and because officers have always sworn only to defend the Constitution. Even when it comes to enlisted military, the oath is first and foremost to defend the Constitution; they are duty-bound to disobey any order that is not lawful. Further, it allows all participants, of whatever status, to join in together and reaffirm their official oath. If an enlisted man or officer wants to state the exact official oath that he swore upon entry into service, he can.
The sincere intent of any oath is contained within the words recited, as well as within the heart of the individual making the oath. To diverge from that specified intent would naturally put the person in the category of oath "breaker" rather than "keeper."The term "oath breaker" has been around since Old English was spoken. The term used in those times was "waerloga," which also meant "damned soul," "wicked person," and even "Satan." Suffice to say, an oath breaker was about the worst thing one could be back in the day. Punishments for oath breaking were of the spearing, hacking, or crushing variety -- decidedly unpleasant. Interestingly, the word waerloga is also the origin of the word "warlock" in use today. History had fitting names and biblical consequences for those who broke an oath to the Almighty. Such oaths have long since faded in value to mere formalities today.When it comes to our leaders' constitutional oaths, how many of them are acting less like oath keepers, and more like those ancient, oath-breaking "warlocks"? Given the unrelenting torrent of legislative blasphemies, the answer is clear.Another question begs asking. Who would these oath breakers and their media homunculi find offensive? The answer is likewise obvious: their polar opposites, those who are truly loyal in oath and deed to our dear Republic and its Constitution."
The appearance of Oath Keepers is one of the most hopeful things to ever happen in America. Its members are the modern day embodiment of the founding fathers, and the brave men who fought in 1776 to secure independence from a tyrannical empire. Inspired citizens, and officers in other countries have formed similar organizations. Doug Schapira voiced the need for an Oath Keepers of Canada:
"It is becoming increasingly obvious that Canada, as with most other nations of the world, is facing a loss of sovereignty and devastating Economic Depression. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) openly states that they plan to shut down the sovereignty of nations like Canada through total collapse of our economy. WE THE PEOPLE must avert a catastrophe, we seek the protection of a moral and constitutionally compliant armed forces, police force and various other enforcement and civil protection agencies. We see indications of a militarized police state being formed in the USA and even Canada. Particularly in the USA, soldiers are being used to patrol the streets, search civilians and carry duties normally restricted to the jurisdiction of police."There is no greater remedy to an outlaw police state than knowledgeable and conscience police officers, and soldiers, who have the most important role in modern society; protecting the law, maintaining order, and upholding the values of the community. Once they break their bond to the community, and enforce corruption and unjust policies, the police cease to be the guardians of the community and turn into oppressors.
I don't praise the Oath Keepers on face value. If their actions fail to live up to their words, then I will stop celebrating their name. So far, that has not happened.
What is happening is high treason. America's government leaders are betraying the values of freedom and justice. They broke the social contract, and tore up the constitution. And this fact must weigh on our judgments of leaders like Clinton, Bush, and Obama, and the system of evil that they represent, and defend.
No one wants to be governed by, or in bed with, traitors, and rascals. All relationships are based on trust, and equal respect. Both sides take a vow that promises made to each other will be kept. If a government promises that it will not infringe on the liberties of individuals, and these promises are later broken, then that government must be resisted, and corrected by the people immediately, before severe harm is done to the country.
If the people wait, and wait, hoping that the traitors will stop their abuses, then the treasonable government will grow in confidence to the point that they will attempt to execute plans for the total slavery of the people. It is the nature of beasts of prey that they don't finish until their prey is completely devoured, and to the traitors in charge of the U.S. government, as well as their Big Brother accomplices in England, and Canada, liberty is a prey, and the people are sheep to be controlled. So it is critical that all citizens correct their government's abuse of the rule of law and of their liberties now, not five years from now. "Courage," said Schopenhauer, "implies that one is willing to face a present evil so as to prevent a greater evil in the future, while cowardice does the reverse."
II. A Lesson From History About the Power of an Oath:
America is in special standing because its officers, and officials take an oath to support and defend the constitution, not the serving head of state. Germany fell prey to the Nazis because the reverse was true. In Nazi Germany, officers took an oath to protect the Fuhrer, so the traitor was the man who hated Hitler, and loved his country. Due to the wisdom of the founders, American officers will never have to be in a such grave predicament. All they have to do is uphold their oath, in fact, it is their individual responsibility to do so, as Stewart Rhodes says in this video. Rhodes: "In this country we save our country by keeping our oath. In fact, it's the only way we will save this country from following the footsteps of all the other countries that have gone down the long, sad slide into despotism."
An oath is a sacred thing. And if you swear an oath to somebody, or to your country, then you better be strong enough to keep it. Allen Dulles, the CIA director from 1953-1961, describes in his book, "Germany's Underground: The Anti-Nazi Resistance," how many German officers were adamant against the idea of resisting Hitler, even though they grew impatient with his antics, because they took their officer oath seriously. Dulles:
"In an age as cynical as the present, we are likely to pass too casually over the significance which the German officer corps attached to an oath. In reality it was an important factor in Nazi control of the Wehrmacht. Here is a literal translation of the oath, as decreed by Hitler:Kesselring, one of the most well-liked generals in the German military, showed his inflexible honor by sticking to the oath that he made as a soldier. The tragedy in Germany was that good soldiers like Kesselring took a bad oath.
I swear by God this holy oath that I will render unconditional obedience to the Fuhrer of the German Reich and people, Supreme Commander of the German Armed Forces, Adolf Hitler, and that as a brave soldier I will be prepared at all times to give my life for this oath.
If the German officer corps had taken this oath to their country, to its constitution, or to the German people, Hitler would not have been quite as secure as he was for as long as he was. Only a few generals rose above this primitive conception and put duty to country ahead of the oath.
General Franz Halder, who later succeeded General Beck as Chief of Staff and who time and again was on the threshold of acting on behalf of the conspiracy, explained his dilemma during the course of his interrogation at Nürnberg:
HALDER: You reproach me that in spite of my responsibility I tried to overthrow Hitler and that I was ready to overthrow him.
INTERROGATOR: Please be assured that if I were to reproach you, it would be for not overthrowing Hitler.
HALDER: May I make a personal remark? I am the last masculine member of a family who for 300 years were soldiers. What the duty of a soldier is I know. I know, too, that in the dictionary of a German soldier the terms "treason" and "plot against the state" do not exist. I was in the awful dilemma of one who had the duty of a soldier and also a duty which I considered higher. Innumerable of my old comrades were in the same dilemma. I chose the solution for the duties I esteem higher. The majority of my comrades esteemed the duty to the flag higher and more essential. You may be assured that this is the worst dilemma that a soldier may be faced with. That is what I wanted to explain.
The power of this oath, both as a compulsion to loyalty and a disguise for lethargy or fear, was manifest in even the last moments of the war. At the end of April, 1945, I was negotiating from Switzerland for the surrender of the German armies in northern Italy. Everything had been arranged--the envoy of General von Vietinghof, commander in chief of the Italian theatre, had accepted the surrender terms, which had already been singed at Field Marshal Alexander's Allied Headquarters in Caserta. All that remained was to announce the terms and put them into effect when General von Vietinghof was subordinated as Supreme Commander in Italy to Field Marshal Kesselring. Kesselring's ratification was sought in a dramatic hour-long conversation by telephone between the German headquarters in Italy and Kesselring's headquarters, then in the Austrian Tyrol. It was April 30. Minutes were vital if Alexander's surrender terms were to be met.
Hitler was reported to be dying but Kesselring, stubborn German militarist, true to his officer corps training, categorically refused to take action until he was released from his oath to the Fuhrer by formal announcement of Hitler's death. The fact that further resistance was hopeless, that the generals in command of the Italian theater had agreed to go along, oath or no oath, had no influence on Kesselring. Fortunately, the announcement of Hitler's death came a few hours later; the situation was saved and the surrender went through. But Kesselring had stuck to his oath." (Dulles, Germany's Underground. (1947). New York: The Macmillan Company: pp. 37-39)
