Thursday, January 21, 2010

Oathkeepers in the News

It's interesting we were just talking about the Oathkeepers and here they are in the news. Last time we discussed them, I don't know if we came to any agreement. (h/t Alan Colmes)

Tea Party 'Hero' Arrested For Rape, Stolen Grenade Launcher Discovered


A former Marine and current member of the Oathkeepers militia group, who was a featured speaker at the July 4th tea party in Oklahoma, has been arrested on suspicion of rape — and when his home was searched, police discovered a grenade launcher stolen from a California Army base.

It turns out the guy was well known, or at least he had a couple videos on Youtube. Meet Charles Dyer, Patriot.





What's your opinion? Are guys like Charles Dyer patriots or lunatics? Are they something in between?

Please leave a comment.

35 comments:

  1. Lunatics.

    They're also the antithesis of being a patriot.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  2. Most "militia" types are harmless. Generally speaking I don't have a problem if a bunch of guys want to go out into the woods and play army, give themselves ranks, and pretend they are at the service of the Sheriff or Governor any time he wants to call them up. Just as I wouldn't have a problem if a dozen or so people got together and held mock trials, just in case there might be a jury trial they need to do. It's a free country.

    Weird? Yes. Dangerous? Mostly no. You will have some criminals or dangerous people in any movement. The militia movement had to wear the albatross of McVeigh. But I think McVeigh moved on once he realized the militia movement was largely more talk than action. I view the militia movement as a misguided form of political protest more than a serious threat to democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. These defenders of the constitution should bone up on what they are defending:
    "Article III, Section. 3.

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its not treason when your govt declares that is has the right to kill any citizen without Trial and his one has. It has violated the right of conscience with Obamacare, and has begun systematic spying on citizens as well as using non-partisan agencies to persecute political opposition, as well as the localized violation of 2nd amendment rights. It is not treasonous to the constitution to rebel a government that isn't following the constitution. The only traitors here are those who want to use the government as a weapon against their fellow citizens to violate their rights and compel them to live their way. That would be you, lefty.

      Delete
  4. 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel' (Samuel Johnson)

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Oathkeeprs," Mikeb; "they are in the news"--plural? I see one alleged rapist, who also identified himself as an Oath Keeper. Not a proud day for the Oath Keepers, certainly, but one man's evil does not reflect on the entire group to which he attached himself, any more than an atrocity committed by Islamic terrorists reflects on the entire Muslim population.

    Hmm--JadeGold just called me a lunatic. Can there be a better endorsement of one's mental health than that?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I can understand why Sebastian wishes to downplay the militia movement as harmless white guys playing army in the woods. And he neatly tries to decouple McVeigh from the militia movement by pretending McVeigh had nothing to with it.

    Having read Sebastian for some time now, I know he wishes desperately they'd go away. Sebastian, like David Duke, knows you alienate more than you attract by dressing up and acting out.

    For those who think the militia movement in this country is harmless, I'd suggest you do some research. Dave Neiwert is a good place to start; he's written extensively on the topic.

    Moreover, the gunloons have embraced the militia and white supremacist movement. Go to a gunshow--you'll find all the materials. Then when one of these militia-types gets it into his head that it might be a good idea to shoot a couple of cops or minorities or whatever to start the revolution or end the tyranny--we really can't be too surprised.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  7. Uh oh, White Rabbit shouldn't have posted here as Zerro will start saying that's another of my identities. Sorry, I wish I were in London, but I live elsewhere (and not in the London/Home Counties vicinity either, but further afield).

    Zerro, I take it you received a medical discharge from the Service? Too mentally unstable to serve in the military, eh?

    Anyway, don't confuse me with White Rabbit. I I like to quote Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary:

    PATRIOT, n.
    One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.
    PATRIOTISM, n.
    Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.

    In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.


    The Johnson quote just doesn't do it justice for me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oath Keepers has a long and storied history of protecting the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Why, they go back all the way to the founding of the republic--oops, my bad. They go back all the way to 3 months or so after the Obama inauguration.

    Their leader is a Paulist and they're a little too cozy with the Aryan Nation sort of folks that all normal people despise.

    Yeah, just another boys club.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Now that's an interesting approach, Laci the ChineseNotJadeGold--deny the accusation--which I had never made--that "white rabbit" is yet another of your identities, and use that unmade accusation as "evidence" of mental imbalance on my part.

    I really don't care how many identities you choose to use here--I just enjoy watching you trip yourself up.

    You are pure comedic gold.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You can't really say "the militia movement" as if it's a monolithic entity with similar belief systems. It's far from it. The White Supremacists and Christian Identity crowds largely steer clear completely of mainstream gun rights activism. I don't have to put up with them, so I don't think much about them. I'm speaking of the Constitutional Militia Movement, mostly, who are not overt racists. The Oath Keepers are kind of sort of part of that.

    But really, the militia movement was largely a Clinton Era thing. Oath Keepers are pretty much an Obama Era reaction that's not really a militia, per-se, in the sense that they don't seem to advocate playing army like the Clinton era groups did. But the groups, nonetheless, share a lot of the same philosophy an idea.

    A good academic treatment of the Militia Movement was done by David C Williams. Well worth reading if you're looking to understand the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey, Zerro, you like knocking people down from the cozy nest of your computer. You don't seem to do too much else of use.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh, yeah, Zerro, I am NotJadeGold.

    It was fun to accuse you of being that to show you up for being a jerk. Too bad your smarter than I give you credit for being. You do have a slightly higher IQ than a rock.

    As I said, I used that when I posted anonymously at work. I still do, but I shall now post as Laci so that you can't have your little chuckle fest.

    Although, my question was about your military service and discharge, or are you just revolution for the hell of it? Fight tyranny--whatever that is.

    Anyway, I wanted to distance myself from JadeGold--especially since I have to quarrel with Sebastian. I rather like him and find him fairly agreeable.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey, Zerro, you like knocking people down from the cozy nest of your computer. You don't seem to do too much else of use.

    Where you get the notion that you have any idea what I do when I'm not laughing uproariously at you is . . . come to think of it, not really of much interest to me.

    Be that as it may, I do have other responsibilities to attend to, when I'm not indulging in my new hobby of provoking increasingly shrill, spittle-flecked rants from you. Fortunately, I really don't need to put much in the way of either time or effort into that.

    Hope you're having a lovely day (or evening, I suppose, in your case)--I certainly am, and you're contributing to it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sebastian is wrong but that's to be expected. He relies heavily on David Williams rather sloppy and superficial overview of today's militia movement.

    In reality, the militia or so-called 'patriot' movement actually began in the early 1980s. There you found groups like Posse Comitatus, Freemen, Phineas Priests, Christian Identity, Aryan Nation and the like. A lot of it was about the "New World Order"

    Basically, the militia movement and gunloons share much in common. Both are usually minimally educated, and economically and socially challenged by changing times they cannot hope to adapt to. They are desperately responding to feelings of having been marginalized, and disenfranchised, from the American dream.
    __JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Are guys like Charles Dyer patriots or lunatics?"

    Neither. He's a criminal.

    Which is sad, because he was otherwise a nice guy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Both are usually minimally educated, and economically and socially challenged by changing times they cannot hope to adapt to. They are desperately responding to feelings of having been marginalized, and disenfranchised, from the American dream."

    You've described the average gang member.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think this is an important point made be democommie:

    "They go back all the way to 3 months or so after the Obama inauguration."

    These Oathkeepers are about opposition to Obama. Of course they deny any element of racism, but I don't buy that. They say it's about socialism and about the Constitution and other nonsensical things.

    Their oath is interesting. They claim to want to keep the oath they'd made in the past, but the wording of the new oath has changed. The reference to obeying the President is missing. So what it boils down to is violating the original oath they took when entering the military or whatever and replacing it with one they like better. To me it sounds more like treason than patriotism.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Zorro said, "I see one alleged rapist, who also identified himself as an Oath Keeper. Not a proud day for the Oath Keepers, certainly, but one man's evil does not reflect on the entire group..."

    That might be true is he were a simple member. But when the person is a leader, one who makes speeches and recruits others, then it becomes more than one man's evil and it does reflect on the entire group.

    I wouldn't be surprised if you, Zorro, were the exception to the rule, the rule being that the Oathkeepers are mainly comprised of insecure, racist, misogynist white men who suffer from paranoia and other mental illnesses.

    I don't think they're as innocuous as Sebastian was saying.

    ReplyDelete
  19. . . . a little too cozy with the Aryan Nation sort of folks . . .

    Citation needed.

    But when the person is a leader, one who makes speeches and recruits others, then it becomes more than one man's evil and it does reflect on the entire group.

    So the fact that no one who brought him into a leadership position with the Oath Keepers predicted that he'd turn out to (allegedly) be the kind of scum who would rape someone, reflects on the group? I can see that, if the Oath Keepers claimed to be psychic, but . . . we don't.

    The Oath Keepers' founder, Stewart Rhodes, has a long history of libertarian ideals, and was a harsh critic of many Bush policies. Why didn't he start the group earlier? How the hell should I know? Maybe he was too busy working with the Paul campaign. Maybe he needed to get the capital together. Maybe he just hadn't gotten around to it yet. There's a whole long list of "maybe" explanations, and somewhere near the very bottom of that list, I suppose one must include "maybe his willingness to defy unconstitutional orders is related to the racial makeup of the Commander-in-Chief." Leave it to Mikeb and Democommie to seize on that remote possibility as the only one that makes sense to them.

    When I see any compelling evidence of an organizational link to racism, misogyny, etc.,I will withdraw my membership. Until then, I'll continue to consider any such accusations to be unfounded libel, perpetrated by people who either don't know any better, or are engaging in a deliberate smear campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "In reality, the militia or so-called 'patriot' movement actually began in the early 1980s. There you found groups like Posse Comitatus, Freemen, Phineas Priests, Christian Identity, Aryan Nation and the like. A lot of it was about the 'New World Order'"

    Myth, urban legend, never happened.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "The Oath Keepers' founder, Stewart Rhodes, has a long history of libertarian ideals, and was a harsh critic of many Bush policies."

    multiple citations needed.

    Why didn't he start it earlier?
    There wasn't a scary black man in the oval office earlier?

    Promise Keepers, Oath Keepers, Minutemen. All mostly white, very frightened guys with guns.

    ReplyDelete
  22. multiple citations needed.

    You make a vile, unsubstantiated accusation, and I ask for some evidence, and mention Rhodes' history of libertarian advocacy. Your response? No evidence, and a demand for multiple citations from me. No, sir--it doesn't work that way. I don't owe you shit. You're the one making vile accusations--any evidentiary burden is on you. If you can't pick up that burden, then you've just exposed yourself as a pathetic hatemonger, talking out your gaping ass.

    Until you come up with some evidence backing up your libel, you have wasted more than enough of my time, sir.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Zorro said, "I'll continue to consider any such accusations to be unfounded libel, perpetrated by people who either don't know any better, or are engaging in a deliberate smear campaign."

    Now don't go losing your famous sense of humor. Speaking for myself, I'm not on any kind of a campaign and I'm certainly not libelling anyone. I'm just talking.

    You seem to be saying the Oath Keepers (is that the best rendering of it, or Oathkeepers?) are squeaky clean examples of all the manly virtues with nary a taint of racism or misogyny. Are you really saying you've never seen a trace of these things in your fellow members? I wouldn't believe that, because men are men, and unfortunately we're all tainted to one degree or another.

    If, on the other hand, you're saying the organization is not based on racist or misogynist beliefs, like say the Aryan Nations or the FLDS, I could buy that. The question would then be, how prevalent are these ugly attitudes among the membership, which I'd answer with a strong but ambiguous, "very prevalent."

    ReplyDelete
  24. Now don't go losing your famous sense of humor.

    My sense of humor, such as it is (I've never claimed to be the next Steven Colbert), is intact--I just see no humor in impugning the honor of good people, without evidence, based on preconceived (and wrong) notions.

    Speaking for myself, I'm not on any kind of a campaign and I'm certainly not libelling anyone. I'm just talking.

    Yep--and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck (etc.) are "just talking," right?

    You seem to be saying the Oath Keepers (is that the best rendering of it, or Oathkeepers?) are squeaky clean examples of all the manly virtues with nary a taint of racism or misogyny.

    Two words--"Oath Keepers"--is the nomenclature used by the group. Whatever I "seem to be saying," according to you, bears little resemblance, as far as I can tell, to what I've actually said--but I guess that's you "reading into" my comments, eh? Well, I'm not here to defend what you've "read into" my comments.

    Are you really saying you've never seen a trace of these things in your fellow members?

    Well, actually, I am saying that, but you should know that I personally know only 4 other Oath Keepers--not, I'll be the first to admit, much of a sample.

    If, on the other hand, you're saying the organization is not based on racist or misogynist beliefs, like say the Aryan Nations or the FLDS, I could buy that.

    How generous of you. You do realize, don't you, that they explicitly and publicly disavow exactly the kinds of noxious things you're talking about:

    We are Not advocating or promoting any act or acts of aggression against any organization or person for any
    reason including, but not limited to; race, religion, national origin, political affiliation, gender or sexual orientation.


    Fairly unambiguous, no?

    The question would then be, how prevalent are these ugly attitudes among the membership, which I'd answer with a strong but ambiguous, "very prevalent."

    Again, my sample size is admittedly quite small, at 4 (or 5 including myself)--but I'm guessing that's 4 (or 5) more than you know personally--but in that sample, you're 0 for 4 (or 5). Clever of you to make your answer "strong but ambiguous," allowing you to shrug and say, "Oh, well," if you turn out to be proven wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I ask for some evidence, and mention Rhodes' history of libertarian advocacy. Your response? No evidence, and a demand for multiple citations from me.

    Don't worry Demo's been doing that to me for quite a while. It's just how he rolls.

    He NEVER presents facts because he simply doesn't have any.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I've been too busy to run down all of the leads to Mr. Rhodes, Ron & Rand Paul (whose campaign manager--as of a few weeks back) was an avowed racist, and the various racist groups that they are wooing.

    This link: http://www.gossip-boy.com/July4Patriot.html

    will take you to a page where there is a screen cap of an Oath Keepers blog page with info about Mr. Dyer speaking at the OK Oath Keepers' rally. Apparently Mr. Rhodes has denied that the July4thPatriot is one of his own. That denial is suspect.

    When I have time to do a little digging I'll see what else I can come up with. In the meantime, Mr. Zorro, YOU made tjhe statement that Rhodes has a long history of opposing Bushco'sx policies, prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. mikey:

    You really are a note song, aren't you.

    How's that Gay Rights thing on your blog going? Has it increased your traffic?

    ReplyDelete
  28. You are one high-maintenance individual, Democommie. Despite my owing you nothing, here's a 2006 piece written by Rhodes criticizing Neo-Con abuses of power. Notice at the top of the blog, Rhodes apparently perceived a need to deny being liberal.

    By the way, in the video of Dyer speaking at a rally, did anyone tell the black gentleman about the supposed white supremacist sympathies of the Oath Keepers? Perhaps he's a self-hating black man?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Zorro, Thanks for the link which you provided in answer to democommie's remarks. That guy Rhodes sounds like a fascinating man. I'll read more about him.

    Bact to democommie's thought, although Rhodes' criticisms predate Obama, is it true that the Oath Keepers came after? And would the wording of their oath which omits the part about obedience to the CIC also come after Obama took office? And finally, regardless of the exact chronology of these events, what do you think about my idea that this really amounts to VIOLATING the oath taken previously and replacing it with a new one, making the entire claim of "keeping" anything a bit suspect?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Mikeb, I'm going to respond to your points in reverse order. I don't see it the way you do. The new oath does nothing to violate the one made upon enlistment (or upon being commissioned). The two oaths will only come into conflict if an order from the top is unconstitutional (and thus illegal). An illegal order is one that must be disobeyed--no matter who issued it. That concept seems to have been pretty well established at the Nuremberg Trials.

    As for the timing, as far as I know, it's pretty much as you and Democommie have described it. I think the Oath Keepers are less than a year old, and I assume the wording of the oath came from the same time.

    Here's my question: so what? Like I said, Rhodes seems to have been pretty busy before--with his work for the Paul campaign, and before that, his obtaining of a law degree from Yale (I hear that can keep a guy pretty busy). But even if he didn't "have an alibi" for not getting around to this before--that makes him racist for doing it now? Even if there were no record of Rhodes criticizing government excesses before the Obama administration, does that mean he gives up any claim to a right to do so now? Would it be OK with Democommie if Rhodes waited until there was a white president again? How the hell does that make sense?

    If what is permissible depends on the race of the president, I submit that there's racism here, but it's not Rhodes who is exhibiting it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. One citation does not a "long history" make.

    Since you do not believe that the "Oath Keepers" are racists and the black man at the rally doesn't then that trumps other acounts?

    Ron Paul, for whom your hero, Mr. Rhodes. worked also said that he was not a racist, even though his "long history" gives the lie to that.

    These links:

    http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.side.html

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/

    cast doubt on Paul's assertions that he is not a racist.

    Of course he could clear this all up by releasing his entire back catalog and letting folks know who, exactly, wrote the screeds that he now says he didn't write--although it appears he had previously admitted to writing the material with "tongue in cheek, academic" tendencies.

    Ron Paul's son, Rand, currently running for an open congressional seat in Kentucky has had some probems of his own re: racism. Oddly enough, the fella accused of being a racist--his, now, ex-campaign spokesman--has like Paul, Sr. denied he ever wrote or posted anything racist on his blog. Of course I know that if I worked for someone and was unfairly smeared by political operatives from another camp, and then thrown under the bus--by the guy who hired me, while he was saying that he believed I hadn't done anything wrong--I'd think, "Man, what a stand-up, principled guy!".

    http://nky.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20091217/NEWS0103/912180366/

    http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/12/18/rand-paul-aide-quits-over-myspace-racism-afro-americans-have-kkk-radar/

    Of course I'm sure that neither of the Paul's is in any way connected with the Oath Keepers.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Oh, I guess this is another one of those situations where the truth is a nuisance.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Oh, I guess this is another one of those situations where the truth is a nuisance.

    Yeah--that's it. Apparently you've mistaken "too busy with other obligations to bother swatting gnats," with "frightened off by Democommie's unassailable facts and logic (HA!)." Don't feel bad--that's a common mistake--of the pathologically delusional.

    Now that I do have a moment, I see you've got . . . nothing.

    And I have no more time for this silliness. If you wish to take my inability to maintain interest in this "debate" as a "victory" on your part, then by all means do so, and enjoy it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Zorro:

    In other words, you have no answer for why your hero is, apparently, a liar as well as a conspiracy nut.

    I know how much you and your fellow three percenters (and the various, previous iterations of "True Americans") hate it when there's a touch of inconsistency in your brave leaders' bios, resumes or logic. But, there it is.

    I think Mikeb30200 is right that you fellas ought to just go back to the "We likes our gunz!" justification since, when all else is said, that's your real reason for having them.

    That you feel your 2A rights are threatened by the Obama administration and that the entire Bill of Rights was not being threatened duringh the Bushco era (or at least not to the extent that anyone thought the formation of the Oath Keepers was necessary until AFTER Bush left office) speaks more about your fear than any government program that sudddenly became a threat in March of 2010.

    Or is it that Mr. Rhodes is so slow on the uptake that it took him eight yeatrs to figure it out?

    Regardless, if one citation for his having a "long history" of opposition to Bushco--or for that matter a dozen, with no other activity on his part--it's hardly compelling evidenc.

    ReplyDelete