Oathkeeper: Bundy Almost Made Military Turn on Obama

Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oathkeepers, spoke to a group of wingnut sheriffs and claimed that the standoff at the Bundy ranch earlier this year almost caused a civil war in which the military would have turned against the government. He has no evidence of this, of course, but here it is:

Noting that a number of military veterans joined the armed anti-government protest at the Nevada ranch, Rhodes said that “the politicians and the would-be dictators in Washington, D.C…have to worry if they go too hard, if they drop the hammer too blatantly on Americans like at Bundy Ranch, that the Marine Corps would flip on them. And I think it would. And same goes for the tip of the spear in the Army, Army Airborne, special forces, your Navy Seals, all of those groups out there, the more hardcore they are as warriors, the more likely they are to look at something like that and say, ‘that’s it, I’m done’ and join the resistance.”

“And so that’s why [federal officials] are careful about what they do,” he added. “It’s not out of charity or concern for your lives that the don’t drop the hammer.”

Citing a Washington Times report that the Obama administration “considered but rejected deploying military force” against the armed groups trying to stop the Bureau of Land Management from collecting decades of grazing fees from Cliven Bundy, Rhodes said, “Thankfully they did not, because if they had, that would have kicked off a civil war in this country. It would have.”

See, this is why I can’t praise the Oathkeepers. On the surface, a group of soldiers and law enforcement officers who pledge not to obey an order from the government to attack the people sounds laudable, but the truth is that these people are just far-right ideologues peddling John Birch Society paranoia. They’re demagogues selling nonsense about FEMA camps and martial law. And that makes them very dangerous, in my view.

httpv://youtu.be/aJ4ydj82zAk

"How could you be so cruel? The Girl Can't Help It. That's a hit pahp ..."

Palin’s Pointless Appeal
"'Round these parts we say, "Errnnjeh", accent on the "Errnn". We say the same thing ..."

Palin’s Pointless Appeal

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://Reallyawakeguy.blogspot.com somnus

    And as we all know, military coups have a long and glorious history of protecting and restoring individual civil rights.

  • Artor

    I believe the oath that the OafKeepers are so excited about is the one that goes;

    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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    The fact that they generally have a demented understanding of the Constitution, think that criminals like Cliven Bundy are heroes to be protected & rallied behind, and despise their Commander in Chief, pretty much tells you all you need to know about the OafKeepers.

  • D. C. Sessions

    Artor, the Constitution that they swear to uphold is the True Constitution — the one that only counts the Usurper in the White House as 60% of a President.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    They’re demagogues selling nonsense about FEMA camps and martial law.

    Plus, their theme song is by Rick Astley.

  • DaveL

    I’d like to see the “oathkeepers” step forward who refused to hold terrorism suspects without charge, the ones who refused to participate in bulk surveillance of US citizens, and any who have testified against colleagues in law enforcement for denying young black men equal protection under the law.

    Let’s just say none spring immediately to mind.

  • some bastard on the internet

    Noting that a number of military veterans joined the armed anti-government protest at the Nevada ranch…

    And they were armed to the teeth with their MediCare scooters!

  • Jared James

    The silly rumormongering and the blanket speculation about how many would take their side (practically no one) if “the government” (meaning President Obama) got out of line (meaning became black) isn’t what makes them dangerous, in my view.

    It’s the fact that they are very, very stupid.

  • http://www.gregory-gadow.net Gregory in Seattle

    NOW is it treason? Come on, what does it take?

  • Larry

    No, Gregory, it’s not. It’s what we refer to as the Right Wing wet dream. And, yes, it is as messy as it sounds.

  • laurentweppe

    On the surface, a group of soldiers and law enforcement officers who pledge not to obey an order from the government to attack the people sounds laudable, but the truth is…

    The truth is that this group is not, has never ever been and will never be opposed to gunning down unarmed dissenters: what really disgusts them is the very remote possibility that a black man may order them to gun down armed loons they agree with.

  • shay

    “…if they drop the hammer too blatantly on Americans like at Bundy Ranch, that the Marine Corps would flip on them”

    In his dreams.

  • sabrekgb

    On the surface, a group of soldiers and law enforcement officers who pledge not to obey an order from the government to attack the people sounds laudable, but the truth is that these people are just far-right ideologues peddling John Birch Society paranoia.

    Indeed… I didn’t know anything about the organization, but heard about it a while back and wanted to investigate. Having looked on their site and such, nothing actually jumped out at me that i disagreed with, and it seemed that the basic idea was, as you say, laudable. Still, there seemed to be a feel of something not quite right and it was hard to put a finger on it. Things like this, it seems, are the reason. I wonder how they get from what are ostensibly good principles to these sorts of instances where they either apply them wrong or dont apply them in other situations that would seem much more deserving.

    Perhaps it’s something similar to the dissonance involved in organizations that name themselves things like “Alliance Defending Freedom”, but then have either a myopic or wrong view of what that means. I don’t like these faulty naming conventions… Is there something malicious about them (“freedom”, like sex, sells?), or do people really think that they are espousing the named ideals? It genuinely confuses me sometimes. I mean, it’s not just organizations either…how many “Democratic People’s Republics” and such have existed?

    *sigh* Words matter. People, good or bad, should use them right. Would make things so much easier.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @Ed

    @sabrekgb

    Thirded.