‘Bristling’ Response Merely an Attempt to Counter Lies with Truth
“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.”
“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?”