‘Bristling’ Response Merely an Attempt to Counter Lies with Truth

This is objectionable and wrong? And “hateful” and “anti-government”? Since when? And who says so?

“The Oath Keepers bristle, in posts like this one on their site pertaining to the planned rallies here, at being called a ‘militia’ force or being called ‘anti-government,’” SFist editor-in-chief Jay Barrman presumes. His Wednesday piece, filed under “News,” seems dismissive of the group’s non-racist bona fides, and appears to be fishing for something, anything else worthy of “progressive” condemnation.

First off, it wasn’t “bristling.”  I know, because I wrote the piece Barrman linked to, and know my state of mind and intent.  True, it’s tiresome being subjected every day to media-promulgated lies about Oath Keepers being haters and a militia and anti-government. It would be nice if honesty prevailed so that there’d be no need to repeatedly correct the record and cite the Bylaws, only to see that met by deliberate indifference by those not interested in truths that challenge their preferred narrative.

But presenting those truths can hardly be fairly characterized as a reaction of aggressiveness and anger. It would appear ideological self-defense is just as frowned upon in some quarters as the physical kind.

Instead, Barrman evidently equates the right to keep and bear arms with “intimidation,” disregarding how Oath Keepers have on numerous occasions proven that their presence has instead deterred destruction and violence.

“The group’s oath says, broadly, “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Barrman writes, apparently unaware that it’s not just “the group’s oath.”

Should all orders be obeyed?

“And they have a list of various orders they will not obey, which include states of martial law, and ‘orders to disarm the American people,’” Barrman adds, as if the “Orders We Will Not Obey” declaration is somehow a bad thing. Note he doesn’t say what, if anything, he actually disagrees with.

A question critics never address is “How can anyone take the oath if they don’t understand what it means?”  For too many, it’s a mindless ceremonial formality required by the job.  And for the critics, treating the oath as a big deal is something to be disparaged.

For those who are dismissive, the question becomes “What orders would you not obey?” Bearing in mind that the “Nuremberg defense” didn’t save real Nazis from the gallows, and that a requirement for orders to be “lawful” means unlawful orders should not be obeyed, that’s a question all serious-minded Americans should consider — for themselves, for their representatives, and for the enforcers supposedly serving and protecting them.

Based on many of the ignorant and hateful responses about Oath Keepers under Barrman’s article that resort to insults, libels and lies, it doesn’t look like there are too many serious-minded Americans commenting over at SFist.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

About Author

David Codrea

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Comments

  1. Mack 31 August, 2017, 18:04

    David,

    Nicely written!

    Dennis Prager received horrible media treatment as he went to conduct an orchestra.

    This almost reads as a primer on leftist media falsities:

    * https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2017/08/23/-n2372061

    I like this one:

    Lesson No. 2: When used by the mainstream media, the words “divisive” or “contentious” simply mean “leftists disagree with.”

    Reply this comment
  2. minute-man 1 September, 2017, 10:42

    here is what I retorted to one of these mental midgets on that site when they bitched about the OK Stance about the ‘Bundy Affair’ :

    ” …which was also the right thing to do for our country. Naysayers to that have a socialist (communist) hidden agenda. THE CONSTITUTION was written and is designed to protect the citizen, from harm from their very own government, which unfortunately is happening all the time, everywhere we care to look. INCLUDING when it orders Law Enforcement to “Stand Down” and ‘looks the other way’ to allow anarchist organizations like BLM & AntiFa to tear down America as they have been. The Government is the chief cause of this social unrest. It is the anarchists and closet communists IN the U.S. government who are to blame. “

    Reply this comment
    • WGP 1 September, 2017, 11:08

      I don’t buy into it’s “the anarchists and closet communists IN the U.S. government who are to blame. “

      We have allowed our country to slip into what it is today. There has been no consequence brought onto the enemies of state.

      Reply this comment
  3. Henry 1 September, 2017, 22:51

    “For those who are dismissive, the question becomes “What orders would you not obey?” Bearing in mind that the “Nuremberg defense” didn’t save real Nazis from the gallows”

    The Nuremberg rules applied ONLY to Nazis. Let’s admit this. We were the victors, and we got to do anything we wanted, that one time.

    If the Nuremberg rules have ever been applied to anyone else — such as American cops, politicians, or bureaucrats — I have seen zero evidence of it.

    Reply this comment
    • Cal 2 September, 2017, 19:27

      Not sure what type of proof you need.

      Plummer vs. State: “You may go to the extreme of taking an officers life if he is committing an unlawful arrest.”

      This decision was upheld (Plummer vs. State) by the Supreme Court in: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529 where the Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

      That is how it used to be even in the 60’s or so. If any officer had busted down ones door, window, etc without a warrant and with no real first hand knowledge that this person at this address had committed the crime they would face LAWFUL fire. BTW it still would be, is LAWFUL fire, but like a gang that is strong, those that took the Oath to Support and Defend the US Constitution instead “just follow unlawful orders” and “just do their unlawful and actually forbidden duty” and are backed by unlawful domestic enemies at best, traitors more likely for many judges, etc.

      But this is not just those who serve within law enforcement, this includes those who serve within the US military (given by Panetta and Dempsey to the UN) who “just follow unlawful orders” to go attack other lands. Why are they unlawful? Because unless those who serve within the Congress declares war, there is NO ONE ELSE IN ANY BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that has the authority to send Americans, or contract for others to go fight, etc in wars in other nations. Why is this done? Money, prestige, power. We are forbidden to have a standing (permanent) military because they are ALWAYS used against their own people. But when every able-bodied person is trained as the congress requires the military to train, armed at all times, then there is little risk, and when a military is needed it is drawn from the Militia of the several states.

      In the military there is/was Lt. Calley, Vietnam. ( https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2012/04/10/william-calley-lives ) He was charged with murdering 500 civilians, mostly old people, women and children. He was the platoon leader in Vietnam, the little village of MyLai.

      But it does not happen often, and that is in a big part our fault. We do not push for charges to be brought and prosecutions – look at Hilllary Clinton, etc – pretty openly treasonous. Obama, and all who assisted him to get into, unlawfully, the presidential race and later into the Office. He never met the 3, (only THREE) qualifications needed to be able to run for, and be, a US President. There are a while lot of domestic enemies and traitors involved in that because the ONLY purpose they kept quiet while this treason was ongoing was either they were assisting willingly; or for the years that they served, could not behave themselves so that they could not be blackmailed or had the wherewithal to quit for the good of our nation. They make scum look good.

      So, though accountability has happened in our past, and it happens much less today, that is because of the PROPAGANDA used against us, the subliminals people are hit with constantly, the re-education public schools, and drugs/food/water, etc.

      Bertrand Russell,1953: “… Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible…” (“The Impact of Science on Society”, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1953)

      So I guess I agree with you, because I know I witnessed the change from standing for ones nation to doing nothing.

      US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES;”

      John Quincy Adams: “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.”

      Senator Gary Hart : “A permanent standing military seeks causes for its continued existence and resources to maintain itself. A citizen army – an army of the people – participates in the debate as to why it exists, what threat it must repel, and how and where it may be used. For a democratic republic, there is a world of difference between these two institutions.”

      Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*