Is the Tea Party-connected Group the Oath Keepers an "extremist Right" Group as the Left Alleges?

Is the Tea Party-connected group, the Oath Keepers, an "extremist right" group as the partisan bomb-throwers on the left have been fond of alleging? That's the proverbial question of the day as Oath Keepers founder, Stewart Rhodes, made an appearance on the self-proclaimed "humble correspondent's," Bill O'Reilly's, No-Spin Zone. His appearance was the direct result of O'Reilly opening up this question of so-called "radicalism" among Tea Party supporters by hosting committed left-winger, Mark Potok (handsome devil, if you call overly gelled, curly hair and overly big eyeglasses "handsome"), of the Southern Poverty Law Center on his show a day before. The whole crux of the matter is basically that leftists like the Southern Poverty Law Center insist on raising the alarm about allegedly "dangerous" groups like the Oath Keepers because they apparently operate on "crazy theories"-like, oh my God, respecting the Constitution!! But are they really "extremists?"

The Oath Keepers are a group that was founded very recently in March 2009 by Stewart Rhodes, comprised mainly of current and former US military troops as well as law enforcement people (but "average" people can join for merely $30 per membership), with the basic purpose of upholding their oath of enlistment to the US Constitution. So they're basically defenders of the US Constitution at the heart of their organization. This all sounds upstanding so far, doesn't it, and even noble, yet leftists like those at the Southern Poverty Law Center came along and-apparently deeply threatened by the very patriotic streak among the Oath Keepers-decided to start casting aspersions on them like they're a bunch of dangerous, anti-government radicals! This is, repulsively, nothing new among liberals since patriotism seems to bring out the very worst in them as we know. In fact, this seems to be the new "in-thing" among leftists as traditional, left-wing hate-group, Media Matters (who, weirdly, call themselves a media watchdog...yeah, right!) and the defamation-site, Crooks and Liars, have both been on the pile-on against the Oath Keepers.

So in the face of these unfair aspersions which were and are still being cast on the Oath Keepers, Bill O'Reilly lived up to FNC's "fair and balanced" motto and permitted Rhodes to explain his group's purpose and, of course, defend himself from the extremely unfair insinuations of ideological leftists like Mark Potok.

In the segment, Stewart Rhodes, a Yale Law school grad and former US Army paratrooper, asserted that the Oath Keepers is affiliated with the Tea Party; in example, he himself is on the planning committee for the upcoming 911 Tea Party, the MarchonDC.org. So...oh my Lord...the liberals have succeeded in getting their founder to admit a link between them and...gasp...the Tea Party! Call the cops; this has to be "proof" of a massive conspiracy of "radical, fringe groups!" Their linkage is not surprising considering their shared commitment to revitalizing American values and respect for the Constitution.

Then, O'Reilly read an excerpt from the Oath Keepers website, which lays out their mission statement; this statement basically affirms that they won't obey unconstitutional orders, which makes sense since military people take their oath to uphold the US Constitution, after all. O'Reilly seemed to really struggle with this point as he naively asked if this really would be something that could happen in the US! Enter Rhodes, who factually reminded O'Reilly that as recently as Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans police barred US citizens in city from possessing firearms. O'Reilly then tried to justify this clear, constitutional violation by citing the chaotic state of emergency in New Orleans. However, the problem with this course of logic as Rhodes pointed out was that even emergency-like weather doesn't suspend the Constitution, which of course includes the 2nd Amendment.

Now what was disturbing here was O'Reilly's conclusion that Rhodes' position was "extreme" for only wanting to retain his firearms in an emergency situation where chaos and lawlessness would conceivably reign, such as in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. O'Reilly again questionably justified the surrender of firearms of average, law-abiding Americans if the local government would impose a state of emergency with certain conditions, such as orders to disarm. However, Rhodes is technically correct for implying that he or his members would disobey such orders based on the fact that they are unconstitutional! Plus, just using common sense, it would be ill-advised for a local government, even in the state of emergency scenario of O'Reilly's, to impose a blanket order for even law-abiding citizens to give up their guns since that would mean law-abiding citizens would be sitting ducks, ripe for the picking for lowlife criminals who obviously would keep their guns during said orders by a local government. O'Reilly usually makes more sense than this, but here, he was absolutely wrong.

To finish off the interview, O'Reilly then focused on a statement on the Oath Keepers' site which I think he took out of context and then suspiciously questioned Rhodes over-totally absurd. The quote O'Reilly referred to was basically one which advocated that soldiers obey the US Constitution first and foremost, not necessarily the president; again, that's what the document says. The whole point behind that statement on the Oath Keepers' website is for soldiers to only disobey unconstitutional orders-such as ones to wipe out civilians-yet again, O'Reilly overreacted when he impugned the ability of each soldier to be able to determine for themselves what makes an order unconstitutional, using their own sense of right and wrong.

On the whole, Rhodes did himself a huge favor by appearing on the Factor despite O'Reilly's devil's advocate-style of questioning since his point was to establish that the purpose of the Oath Keepers is merely to advocate adherence to the US Constitution, and he succeeded there nicely.

To send Marc questions, praise or criticism, you can email him at marc_schenker@telus.net

More Reading: O'Donnell and Garofalo attack Fox News, Norfolk DA Bill Keating contradicts Delahunt, Obama Czar John Brennan says 20% of Terrorists going back to Battlefield to kill Americans "isn't that bad"

Sources:

Oath Keepers, Wikipedia

Right-wing media promote, give platform to "anti-government extremist" Oath Keepers, MediaMatters

David Neiwert, Will ex-military "Patriots" form a more dangerous kind of militias?, Crooks and Liars

March on DC, MarchonDC.org