It really stretched me. Almost everything that I read in the article made me dislike the Oath Keepers.
But then I took a look at their oaths and was surprised to see that I mostly agreed with the oaths. I did think that numbers 5 & 8 were a little weird -- this is a reflection, I think, of me being less afraid of globalization than the Oathers. Also #1: I'm confused on gun control. Idealistically, my preference would be a world with no guns at all.
(continuing my previous comment) ... but for an example of why I mostly agreed with the oaths, see #10:
"We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances."
Yeah, I totally agree with the oaths. No question about it. Not that treason or sedition bother me so much, to be honest, but they are really bordering on it and in the case of the nutters profiled in this article, have crossed that line I think.
Like I said in my last TP post, I just have a hard time understanding why these people think it's necessary.
On the other hand, with the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents, they do have some reason to fear the government.
On perhaps a third hand, it seems weird that they advocate stock-piling arms and violent insubordination and then cry foul when the government is leery of them....
The very fact all these people aren't in jail is an indication of their power, mainstream support and undercuts their claim of an impending Orwellian state....
Do you have any insight on Oaths 5 & 8? Are these just stemming from anti-globalization? These two oaths seem, to me, to be forgetting that the French supported the US revolution -- supported it actively with troops on (soon-to-be) US soil.
Thank you for posting this link, Daurade!
ReplyDeleteIt really stretched me. Almost everything that I read in the article made me dislike the Oath Keepers.
But then I took a look at their oaths and was surprised to see that I mostly agreed with the oaths. I did think that numbers 5 & 8 were a little weird -- this is a reflection, I think, of me being less afraid of globalization than the Oathers. Also #1: I'm confused on gun control. Idealistically, my preference would be a world with no guns at all.
(continuing my previous comment) ... but for an example of why I mostly agreed with the oaths, see #10:
ReplyDelete"We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances."
Hell yeah!
Yeah, I totally agree with the oaths. No question about it. Not that treason or sedition bother me so much, to be honest, but they are really bordering on it and in the case of the nutters profiled in this article, have crossed that line I think.
ReplyDeleteLike I said in my last TP post, I just have a hard time understanding why these people think it's necessary.
On the other hand, with the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents, they do have some reason to fear the government.
On perhaps a third hand, it seems weird that they advocate stock-piling arms and violent insubordination and then cry foul when the government is leery of them....
The very fact all these people aren't in jail is an indication of their power, mainstream support and undercuts their claim of an impending Orwellian state....
Do you have any insight on Oaths 5 & 8? Are these just stemming from anti-globalization? These two oaths seem, to me, to be forgetting that the French supported the US revolution -- supported it actively with troops on (soon-to-be) US soil.
ReplyDelete