Washingtonpost.com:

The Oath Keepers describe themselves as a group focused on fulfilling “the oath all military and police take to ‘defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.’ ”

On Monday night, protesters again gathered in the streets of Ferguson, Mo. Demonstrations in the St. Louis suburb have flared up in recent days to mark the first anniversary of the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager who was fatally shot by a white police officer.

Also on the scene overnight: Members of a citizen militia group known as the Oath Keepers.

The men — all of them white and heavily armed — said they were in the area to protect someone who worked for the Web site Infowars.com, which is affiliated with talk-radio conspiracy theorist and self-described “thought criminal against Big Brother” Alex Jones.

Reporters and Black Lives Matter activists immediately took note.

I can’t see how the presence of Oath Keepers could be helpful to this situation.  Perhaps I am wrong. I went to oathkeepers.org to see what I could find out.

Perhaps the Oath Keepers are not the group I assumed they were. Has the Ferguson situation gotten too political for law enforcement to be effective? Have the local police simply been neutered by political correctness?

I don’t care much for what I saw at inforwars.com.  Perhaps it was the pointed attack on Planned Parenthood, linking the organization to the KKK.  It looked like a typical right-wing incendiary website.  I don’t believe the Oath Keepers can be defined by inforwars.com.  I haven’t figured out if the Oath Keepers are an offshoot of a survivalist group or if they something else much more honorable.

Obviously, Ferguson, Missouri is a troubled area.  It has become the epicenter of much national unrest.  Has the Ferguson police department become neutered in its ability to protect life and property?  Is it simply under too much media microscope to be effective?  Does the Ferguson PD fear its every move will be condemned as racist?

Will the Oath Keepers protect life and property without causing uproar and even more trouble?

Let’s discuss.

46 Thoughts to “Who are the Oath Keepers and what is their mission?”

  1. Steve Thomas

    Oath Keepers has been a minor political movement made up of those who at some point took an official oath to support and defend the US and various state constitutions, and they call out those officials, law enforcement and military officers they believe have violated their oaths. I would liken them more to the Tea Party, than to a militia. This is the first time I’ve heard of them taking direct action.

    Something to consider, though, is Oath Keepers are being criticized as an outside group that may exacerbate the situation in Ferguson. What about all those outside agitators from the “Black Lives Matter” group who have descended upon Ferguson and are inciting riots? Who is really being inflammatory here?

  2. Scout

    I think the outside agitators and opportunists have been roundly criticized, Steve. These Oath Keeper folks seem to be just more of the same. What constitutional “oath breaking” was happening in Ferguson that these guys and their weapons can mend?

  3. Cargosquid

    The Oath Keepers were there during the first set of riots, protecting businesses. They volunteered to stand guard duty for any business that asked for help.

    They are not agitating.

    @Scout
    What can their weapons mend? They can prevent the loss of more businesses and save livelihoods.

  4. Cargosquid

    Moon, using “Infowars” for any sort of research is worse than useless. It is a conspiracy site.

    Here, go to the source:
    http://oathkeepers.org/

    Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial. See the Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey for details.

  5. @Cargosquid

    I did go to OathKeepers and linked to it.

    I agree with you about infowars.com. That has to be a part of the equation though. Supposedly, the Oath Keeper group has been cited as protection for one of the reporters.

    This is probably a good time to state that I take NO position on the Oath Keepers. It sounded like an interesting topic to discuss.

    I am horribly tired and disgusted by the Black Lives Matter movement. I simply cannot applaud any organization that thumps its way into a rally or takes someone’s mic. Furthermore, that organization’s leadership is just plain stupid. Why antagonize the guy who probably will look after your cause the most. DOH.

  6. So far, Oath Keepers has not been accused of agitating, that I am aware of. Contrast this group to say, the “Minutemen” who are known for agitating a bad situation.

  7. George S. Harris

    The Oath Keepers are a self-appointed group of radicals who have no authority whatsoever to determine what orders are unconstitutional, that is the responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States as set forth in Article III of the Constitution. IMVHO, any attempt for them to violate what they believe are “unconstitutional orders” is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and they should be subject to arrest.

    As to what Article VI of the Constitution states regarding and oath: Paragraph three of Article VI states:

    “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    The form and content of the oath are NOT prescribed in the Constitution. However, 5 USC 3331 sets forth the following oath:

    “5 U.S.C. §3331. Oath of office
    An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.”

    The very fact that the Oath Keepers are walking around with openly displayed rifles is “agitating a bad situation”. These are armed white guys in a largely black community and if you don’t think that is perceived as “agitating” then I have to question your ability to “perceive”.

    I concur with Moon regarding the “Black Lives Matter” group-they are pissing in the well and doing nothing to move their case forward.

    1. I have a problem with an organization that arbitrarily decides what is constitutional and what is not. It sounds like it would be easy to go out on a limb.

  8. Censored bybvbl

    @Cargosquid

    What can their weapons mend? They can prevent the loss of more businesses and save livelihoods.

    If they’re standing guard in front of a store and are rushed by the crowd, they’ll do what? What do they have the authority to do? Kill to protect private property that isn’t theirs?

    I get the impression that this is a group that likes too carry guns and wouldn’t be surprised if some of them weren’t drummed out/passed over from the military or police departments.

  9. Steve Thomas

    Censored bybvbl :
    For a fun read on these types of militia organizations:
    https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/04/30/back-bundy-ranch-its-oath-keepers-vs-militiamen-wild-rumors-fly

    SPLC is as bad a source as is InfoWars.

    1. Somewhere there should be a happy medium.

      I guess my stand is, if the Oath Keepers behave, I won’t put them in the same category as I put the Militiamen and the Minutemen.

      If I lived in Ferguson, I would move. That earth has been salted.

      The Watts riots 50th anniversary is upon us. Any similarities?

  10. Censored bybvbl

    Maybe “vigilantes” would described them more accurately.

    There has been an unrelenting attack on everything our first African-American President has done as well as a Congress unable to make any constructive strides to address problems facing this country. Don’t be surprised by the backlash.

  11. Starryflights

    They’re a bunch of fat losers with nothing better to do.

  12. Steve Thomas

    @Censored bybvbl
    Wait…I thought the Ferguson riots were over a cop shooting a 6’4″ 300 lb 18 yearold black male strong-armed robber, who assaulted him and the “unarmed black gentle giant’s” accomplice lied and said the “victims” hands were raised in surrender …and this is the GOP’s fault for not rubber-stamping Obama’s agenda to systematically reduce our nation to third-world status?

    SWEET BUDDHA ON A RUBBER RAFT!

  13. Censored bybvbl

    @Steve Thomas

    I would say Ferguson was the spark that lit the fire. If you think racism in America had disappeared or been cured, you need to brush up on your history. All you have to do is read the comment sections in the WaPo or Huffington Post (a site probably populated by old geezers who haven’t ditched their prejudices or their love for AOL). Ha! Just read Bearing Drift and its inundation of racist crapola a week or so ago.

    The GOP has pandered to this segment of society and now they’re stuck with them. And these folks feel free to spout their remarks publicly. I know too many black people – men and women –
    who have been stopped for “driving while black”. Maybe you fail to acknowledge the difference in treatment because you’re a white middle-aged male. I think some of the black young men killed lately have acted stupidly when confronted by cops, but my reaction to cops, as a white woman who hasn’t in 50 years so much as gotten a traffic ticket, is different from what others have experienced.

    I don’t like the present atmosphere of racism in this country when I have a bi-racial relative that I worry about. When I grew up in the South, I never had any insults hurled my way unless I was betrayed by a slightly Northern accent. Then occasionally I’d hear “Yankee” or “The South will rise again” from some ignorant hick. I worry that my relative will hear more $hit thrown her way.

  14. Scout

    Steve – not everything is an R-D issue. There have been a lot of police shootings this past year. Perhaps, statistically, no more than ever, but there are now more ways to record these things. And it is clear enough that African Americans are often on the receiving end of these shootings and white police officers are on the dispensing end. Each one stands on its own merits, and the Ferguson example is one in which the Justice Department, after investigation, found that there was not enough evidence of abuse to bring federal charges. Notwithstanding that, there were a lot of problems with the way the police were being used in Ferguson, problems that all of us could agree were problems (e.g., using the police force as a substitute tax collection mechanism).

    So Michael Brown was no angel (the convenience store tape that preceded his death is clear evidence of that), and there was evidence that he assaulted the police officer in his vehicle before the shooting. Having said that, no one can be happy about the Charleston or Baltimore situations and one always has to ask whether there wasn’t some better way to serve justice than by shooting to kill. In some cases, the answer will be no. Ferguson strikes me as one of those. But we do have a problem, especially as time goes on after Ferguson and we see additional killings that, from all the surrounding circumstances, seem to have been avoidable without any compromise of police safety or law and order.

    1. We also have a problem with good cops being targeted. I don’t have any answers. I just know that the problem isn’t George Soros.

  15. Cargosquid

    @George S. Harris
    “The very fact that the Oath Keepers are walking around with openly displayed rifles is “agitating a bad situation”. These are armed white guys in a largely black community and if you don’t think that is perceived as “agitating” then I have to question your ability to “perceive”. ”

    Funny…when white Oathkeepers were there last year, protecting black businesses, I saw no statements of agitating. When black Oathkeeps showed up to to guard white owned business against black protestors, I saw statements about race traitors.

    1. I didn’t know any oath keepers were there last year, black or white. To me, it isn’t about race.

  16. Cargosquid

    Here’s an interesting take.

    Apparently the Oath Keepers are NOT there in force or protecting businesses.
    http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/12/an-oath-keeper-in-ferguson-denounces-abu
    And one of them has a lot to say about the police in general.

  17. Cargosquid

    Censored bybvbl :
    @Cargosquid
    What can their weapons mend? They can prevent the loss of more businesses and save livelihoods.
    If they’re standing guard in front of a store and are rushed by the crowd, they’ll do what? What do they have the authority to do? Kill to protect private property that isn’t theirs?
    I get the impression that this is a group that likes too carry guns and wouldn’t be surprised if some of them weren’t drummed out/passed over from the military or police departments.

    If they are charged by the crowd, a crowd that knows they are armed, that is enough to consider themselves to be in danger. I have no problem if such stupid people are shot.
    Looters get shot all of the time.

    See the LA riots and “roof Koreans.”

    1. And if a looter gets shot, then the moaning, groaning, bitching and whining starts…that looters don’t deserve to die.

      I sort of think that they do.

  18. Cargosquid

    Censored bybvbl :
    For a fun read on these types of militia organizations:
    https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/04/30/back-bundy-ranch-its-oath-keepers-vs-militiamen-wild-rumors-fly

    Everything put out in recent years by the SPLC is tainted. They have admitted to being political opponents of anything they see as “right wing,” which in their definition means “not liberal.”
    They lie.

    1. I don’t necessarily think they lie. Yes, I agree, it is a liberal group. There are right wing groups and liberal groups. Shrug. That doesn’t mean you disregard everything SPLC says. I know of at least two occasions they told the truth.

  19. Cargosquid

    Censored bybvbl :
    Maybe “vigilantes” would described them more accurately.
    There has been an unrelenting attack on everything our first African-American President has done as well as a Congress unable to make any constructive strides to address problems facing this country. Don’t be surprised by the backlash.

    Vigilante is a specific term. Nope. They are acting as guards.

    Of course there has been an unrelenting attack on our second socialist president. His race doesn’t matter. His incompetence, unconstitutional actions, narcissism, bigotry, and general disregard for America is why he is “attacked.”
    His stoking of racism is part of the problem.

    1. We must live in different universes.

      Who is your first “socialist” president?

      I do believe race matters. I cannot tell you the number of people I have talked to who have indicated that is the case.

  20. BSinVA

    @Cargosquid

    I call bullshit on racism not being a large part of the problem many right-wingers have with Obama. Just read the comment section of newspapers. Frankly, I think newspapers should shut down comments by people who won’t use their real names. They’re generally gutless cowards.

    I think “vigilante” fits just fine…

  21. Censored bybvbl

    Oops. BS in VA is innocent. It is I, Censored, who typed that reply. I should have used my own computer…

  22. Starryflights

    A lot of these losers are using long guns for overcompensating their other shortcomings.

  23. Steve thomas

    @Scout
    Scout, please go and read the comment to which I was responding. Censored made the claim that all of this racial tension is “backlash” for GOP opposition to our “first black president”. I’m sorry, but this claim is ridiculous.
    I’ve looked at the stats, and more white people are shot by police than are black people. You know as well as I that black on black criminal homicides dwarf any Cop on black justifiable or criminal homicide.

    The whole “Black Lives Matter” movement is a canard, their formative argument predicated on a demonstrable lie. The Black Panthers just marched on the Harris County jail…armed with long-guns, dressed in uniforms, chanting “death to pigs” and other vile crap. These are reported as “peaceful protests” in the Media, when even reported at all. But let some vets who still hold to their service oaths show up to protect private property, and so-called enlightened people call them “inflammatory”, “vigilantes”, and “compensating for other shortcomings”.

    I’m done. I’m done debating people like Starry, Censored, BS, and others who are so hobbled by white guilt that they see racism in every opposing argument. I’m done debating these types who want to argue history, but do so from a position of ignorance and intellectual dishonesty, or worse, pure emotion.

    I’m not a member of oath keepers, but I took the oath, when I enlisted, each time I enlisted, when I received my commission, and when I was promoted. I know what it means. I know what the constitution says. I know what the founders intended for it to mean. Defending the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic means that we do have domestic enemies of our founding document. Being a patriot and constitutionalist …these are not pejoratives.

  24. Pat.Herve

    If one of the people shoots and kills a person – whoa, they are not there under any capacity to where they can defend themselves. They are inserting themselves into a situation where they are heavily armed and ‘protecting’ something that is not theirs (other peoples businesses). Foolish.

  25. Steve Thomas

    @Pat.Herve
    “whoa, they are not there under any capacity to where they can defend themselves.”

    If they are there, at the invitation of the private property owner, then they have a right to be there. If you are attacked in a place that you have a right to be, whether it is private or public property, you have a right to self-defense. I will agree that should a shooting occur, the scruitny will be (rightfully) intense. Regardless, a private citizen who is faced with a threat that meets the three-tier test for justifiable leathal (Ability, Opportunity, Intent) force, is lawfully permitted to do so.

  26. Steve Thomas

    @Moon-howler

    Moon,

    I more than “sorta” agree with you.

  27. Pat.Herve

    @Steve Thomas
    Steve – yes, I understand where you are coming from – and the scrutiny will be intense.

    If I invite a group to my commercial or private property to ‘defend’ it and there is a shooting – I highly doubt my insurance carrier is going to stand by my side if it were this group that I invited in. If I bring in a security company (training, certifications, insurance, etc) – they will stand with me.

  28. Censored bybvbl

    Steve: “Regardless, a private citizen who is faced with a threat that meets the three-tier test for justifiable leathal (Ability, Opportunity, Intent) force, is lawfully permitted to do so.”

    If a plain clothes policeman raises his weapon and points it at you (ability, opportunity, intent), would you shoot first to defend yourself ????

  29. BSinVA

    Now we are even Censored!

  30. Scout

    I took the same oath, but I fail to see what was happening in Ferguson that brings the oath into play. If I saw a bunch of strangers in my neighborhood with guns, I’d call them outside agitators. I can’t imagine that their presence does any goodie Ferguson or anywhere else.

  31. Starryflights

    The hijacking of our democracy by corporate interests undermines our constitution more so than anything Black Lives Matter does. @Steve thomas

  32. George S. Harris

    @Cargosquid
    From the link you provided in #21 Cargo:

    Jon Belmar, the St. Louis County police chief, has described the group’s presence in Ferguson as “both unnecessary and inflammatory.” St. Louis County Executive Steve Stenger has said he wants to “insure” the Oath Keepers “are not present in the future.”

  33. Ed Myers

    “Regardless, a private citizen who is faced with a threat that meets the three-tier test for justifiable leathal (Ability, Opportunity, Intent) force, is lawfully permitted to do so.”

    Just because a shooting is lawful does not make it morally right. Both police and gun owners are too quick to use lethal force rather than step back and look for a solution that respects life. When guns are readily available the opportunity to find creative peaceful solutions is trampled by the rush to use or lose the gun.

    1. I think that is where you are making a logistical error, Ed. In law enforcement, nanoseconds matter. It is one of the few jobs where you go out with the idea that you might not come back at the end of your shift. In law enforcement, you don’t have time to mull things over and think about the best way to handle something or can the issue be diffused without the use of lethal force.

      Training is everything when seconds matter.

  34. Scout

    True enough, Moon. But one has to wonder with some of these police shootings (particularly the one in North Charleston and the one in Texas) why the officer even vaguely thought that the appropriate action was to shoot to kill.

    But Ed Myers was responding to Steve Thomas’s comment (#33) where he posits that there is some sort of universal principle that private citizens have a right to kill in a certain type of circumstance.

    I have to acknowledge that there are many states that have, in recent times at the urging of gun owner groups, relaxed the standard for justifiable lethal self-defense. Why they thought this was a good idea, I have no idea. But Steve seems to be saying that these outside agitators, vigilantes, or whatever one thinks of them, have a right to kill if the property owner invites them in and they are threatened. Legally, in some jurisdictions, he may be right (although the factual circumstances surrounding any of these incidents are often difficult to pin down, especially when one of the key witnesses is dead). The point that some of us are making about these armed strangers coming into a community, however, is that the overall situation might be better if they stayed home and popped popcorn or something and that they are qualitatively no different that the outside agitators who come into the community to keep stirring the pot with demonstrations that seem to have no purpose now, a year after a shooting that cannot be established to have been in any way unlawful.

  35. @Scout

    The one in Charleston made no sense whatsoever, at least to me. There are bad cops. Maybe they aren’t bad human beings necessarily but people who make incredibly bad decisions for whatever reason.

    I just don’t like to handicap cops with pondering time. Much of the work they do doesn’t really have built in pondering time.

  36. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    Wilson was the first socialist president.

    Actually, I miswrote, I meant 3rd. FDR was our second socialist president.

    @George S. Harris
    yes…the “powers that be” don’t want them there. Then again, the last time this happened, the Oath Keepers made them look bad. They wanted to arrest the OathKeepers then, but couldn’t find a charge. It made the papers.

    @Scout
    “relaxed the standard for justifiable lethal self-defense.”
    I’m assuming that you mean “stand your ground.” SYG does not relax the standard for self defense. It merely removes the ability of a DA to determine, after the fact, from the comfort of his office, that you had all the time in the world to “retreat” and therefore, you should have, in those few seconds that you had while facing a deadly threat. It prevents DA prosecutorial misconduct and prevents pro-gun control DAs from prosecuting for political reasons. It also prevents DA’s from prosecuting due to racial reasons…as the black community has discovered in Florida. SYG has protected black people from prosecution at a greater rate than whites.

  37. Scout

    Good training cuts way down on “pondering time”.

    @ Cargo: “SYG” dilutes the common law (and statutory, in many jurisdictions) principle that someone has to try to disengage from a confrontation before resorting to lethal force. Judges and juries are there to prevent “prosecutorial misconduct”. I don’t see what race has to do with it. If a purple man and a green man are in an altercation, the common law duty that the armed purple man has to try to disengage strikes me as a very good thing. My view of that doesn’t change if it is the same facts, but the green guy has the gun. Where we remove that, we get a kind of immunity to kill based on the subjective impressions of the killer, according to his testimony in a trial where the dead man is, alas, not able to testify, as opposed to an objective evaluation of the available facts by judges and juries. SYG addressed a non-existent problem, unless one describes the problem as people were having to try to avoid a fatal confrontation.

Comments are closed.