Mother Jones article on the OathKeepers

[CypherNinja]

Ohhhhhh boy......

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/oath-keepers

It's the cover article for this month.

[S. Williamson]

No good can come of this.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Is this group just nuts or a good group?  The article is slanted to make it out that the Oath Keepers are
nut jobs. The same media slants stories the same way about the Tea Parties.

If this group is legit, and really is meaningful in preparing for something, I see nothing wrong. I
just don't have enough info to make a judgement either
way.

[Sergeant Bob]

Are there any people capable of independent thought who actually read Mother Jones?

This article is nothing but leftist extremist propaganda.

[MechAg94]

Is this talking about the Promise Keepers or is this a different group entirely?

Yeah, the article starts off like it is talking about some sort of anti-govt Militia group (or "patriot" organization). 

The guy does show good trigger discipline in the picture. :)

[Monkeyleg]

Are there any people capable of independent thought who actually read Mother Jones?

Anyone I've known who actually bought Mother Jones didn't read it but just looked at the pictures, much like those who buy Playboy. The reason was that the latter were merely horny, while the former were stoned.

[Scout26]

I'm betting that Pvt Pray will be getting another Art 15 soon and/or chaptered out of the Army.  If he's non-deployable,it's probably for both physical and mental reasons, so he's a marginal soldier at best. 

Nice job on MJ's part to find a oathkeeper who's also a Truther and Birther so he's on the very fringe of the right to present Oathkeepers as even fringier (if that's a word).

I think the words I'm looking for is "Hit Piece".  Shocking, tha MJ woud print something like that.....  

[Ben]

I don't know much about the group, but saw one of their representatives on the O'Reilly Factor and have to say he handled himself well, including when O'Reilly was trying to make him out to be a nut job because the Oathkeeper rep said the authorities had no right to confiscate weapons from homes during Katrina.

[mellestad]

Is this group just nuts or a good group?  The article is slanted to make it out that the Oath Keepers are
nut jobs. The same media slants stories the same way about the Tea Parties.

If this group is legit, and really is meaningful in preparing for something, I see nothing wrong. I
just don't have enough info to make a judgement either
way.

Some are just concerned soldiers, some are nuts with a political agenda.  The guy in the article sounds like the latter, unless the article is a total fabrication.  (Not that he is unique, there are plenty of people left, right and center with heads full of conspiracy theories)

If they limit themselves to http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/ then I really don't have a problem with it.  Sounds fairly noble actually, just a list of things that no-one should be asking them to do anyway.  The problem is when it gets politicized.  Keep it apolitical.

[mellestad]

Hrrm.  Well, the groups goals/talking points sound great, but the comments section seems to be more about wiping out the government when Obama inevitably imposes martial law than resisting unlawful orders.   

[longeyes]

The real point is that like the tea parties this is about something the Left is mortally afraid of.

[mellestad]

The real point is that like the tea parties this is about something the Left is mortally afraid of.

I'm not afraid of the stated goals of the group.

[longeyes]

Nor I, but the Left is.

[mellestad]

Nor I, but the Left is.

Lol, I *am* left!

That is all I am saying, I would seperate the group from the guy in the article, because he takes it far beyond their written mission statement.  They specifically say they are apolitical and their only goal is to make a pledge against certain orders.  It all looks great, even to a 'leftist' like me.  I don't know any of my 'leftist' friends who would have any problem with the written goals either.  It just looks like common sense...all they are saying is they won't break the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution....really it shouldn't even need to be said.

But the guy in the article is a can short of a six pack, and it is unfortunate he got attached to the oathkeepers group in the article because it makes them look bad.  From reading their website they don't seem to be pushing the survivalist/conspiracy theorist plot line like he is.

[BReilley]

Lol, I *am* left!

Left you may be, but you're not trying to tell us that the least common denominator defines the group, like this guy is.  You debate the issue like reasonable people do.

What longeyes is saying is that a good deal of attention has been focused, by the left-leaning media, on these buttholes who ruin it for the rest of us.  Who's giving all the attention to the "truthers"?  Not Redstate.  Who's making a big deal of "birthers"?  Not Fox.  No, these fools are being paraded out by MSNBC and CNN(and smaller, unabashedly slanted outlets like Mother Jones) because they make those to whom the fools attach themselves look ridiculous.

That is all I am saying, I would seperate the group from the guy in the article, because he takes it far beyond their written mission statement.  They specifically say they are apolitical and their only goal is to make a pledge against certain orders.  It all looks great, even to a 'leftist' like me.  I don't know any of my 'leftist' friends who would have any problem with the written goals either.  It just looks like common sense...all they are saying is they won't break the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution....really it shouldn't even need to be said.

But the guy in the article is a can short of a six pack, and it is unfortunate he got attached to the oathkeepers group in the article because it makes them look bad.  From reading their website they don't seem to be pushing the survivalist/conspiracy theorist plot line like he is.

Again, it's obvious to you because you read the article and came to your own conclusions.  Their purpose is clearly to smear the group and its organizers by taking advantage of a very willing subject(who, though I thank him for his military service, is not helping the cause of the group he supports).  Sadly, there are many who would take the piece at face value and write off the whole project as some right-wing looniness.

[mellestad]

That is true, I just try to point out that not everyone on the 'left' is a knee-jerk reactionary, just like I don't assume everyone on the 'right' is either.

As far as media though, regardless of perceived bias (No-one agrees on who is unbiased, I listen to NPR and find it fairly free from bias, but plenty of people think not, etc. so I imagine that means everyone is biased), journalism is about sensationalism, and who wants to read a a sad article about a confused conspiracy theorist?  Much better to an write about a shadow organization bent on world domination and government overthrow through violent and unstable members, one of whom might be living next door!!!

I imagine the irony of the situation is lost on most readers.

[Perd Hapley]

mellestad,

To ascribe attributes to "the Left," or any other ideological group, is not to say that each and every member of the group meets all of the said criteria.  Tis a generalization.