TPMDC
Reid Opponent Embraces Patriot Group That Warns Of 'Giant Concentration Camps'
Share
Send to a friend!
The peculiar ideology of Sharron Angle, the Republican nominee challenging Sen. Harry Reid in Nevada, is perhaps no better illustrated than by her embrace of the patriot group Oath Keepers, whose membership of uniformed soldiers and police take an oath to refuse orders they see as unconstitutional -- including enforcement of gun laws, violations of states' sovereignty, and "any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps."
Back in April, Angle told TPMDC she was a member of the Oath Keepers at a press gaggle in Washington. On Monday, we decided to call Angle's campaign to confirm her relationship to the group. Angle's husband, Ted, picked up the phone.
"We support what the organization stands for," he told us. "Sharron does."
Members of Oath Keepers -- whose motto is "Not on our watch!" -- subscribe to a 10-item declaration affirming that they will not, for example, force citizens into detention camps or invade a state "that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union."
Often seen at gun shows and similar settings, the Oath Keepers were singled out by the Southern Poverty Law Center in its 2009 report (.pdf) on the return of the militia movement since President Obama was elected as "a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival."
According to the SPLC, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, a former staffer for Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) warns his followers against "a coming dictatorship" that will happen if "our brothers in arms go along and comply with unconstitutional, unlawful orders." An extensive report on the group by Mother Jones in March suggests supporters of the movement believe they're living through the first steps of the shift away from constitutional freedom. Members of the group -- many of them in the armed forces -- share the "belief that the government is already turning on its citizens, they are recruiting military buddies, stashing weapons, running drills, and outlining a plan of action [to stop it]," the magazine reported.
Angle's relationship with Oath Keepers hasn't been on the media radar, but she made a little-noticed attempt to woo the group's members at a speaking event last fall, Rhodes told TPMDC Monday.
Rhodes said the event with Angle was organized after she reached out to the Southern Nevada chapter of Oath Keepers. It was held in a clubhouse in Las Vegas. She spoke and "we asked her some pretty tough questions" -- about Hurricane Katrina, gun laws, and the Iraq War, says Rhodes.
"She's got a pretty good track record of being a pretty sincere Constitutionalist," Rhodes tells TPMDC, adding that Oath Keepers does not endorse candidates.
Attending the Oath Keepers event may have been a shrewd move by Angle: the group's size and prominence on the Right has been on the rise, as a crop of profiles in national news outlets attests.
Ted Angle told TPMDC he doesn't know if he or his wife are full-fledged members of the organization, but said that they fully stood behind its principles.
He "vaguely remembers" he and his wife being asked to join. "It's one of things we desire to have happen," he said about membership in the group. "I'm not sure if it has happened yet or not."
(Rhodes says that full membership is only available to those who are in uniform or have been in the past, while folks like the Angles could be associate members. He wasn't sure whether Sharron Angle is currently a member.)
The Reid camp is already signaling it plans to paint Angle as an extremist -- or even a paranoid -- by highlighting statements like her recent observation that Americans are "afraid they'll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways."
Angle's endorsement of the Oath Keepers will only bolster that image. The group is preoccupied with nightmarish visions of U.S. citizens being marched into Nazi-style concentration camps. One part of the Oath Keepers' creed reads: "Such a vile order to forcibly intern Americans without charges or trial would be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason, regardless of the pretext used. We will not commit treason, nor will we facilitate or support it.'NOT on Our Watch!'"
Late Update: Rhodes called us back to stress that Oath Keepers is not a militia. "We don't train or horde weapons or any of that kind of nonsense. We are an education outfit," he says.
Note: This post has been revised.
Comments (189) | Join the Conversation!
Follow us!
TPM Top News
© 2011 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
sagesource
June 9, 2010 1:14 AM
As usual, the right wing is projecting. "Force American citizens into internment camps"? I'm sure they've already got their lists drawn up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RoboticSpacePenguin
June 9, 2010 1:46 AM in reply to sagesource
Where do you think they put the illegal immigrants?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohiomeister
June 9, 2010 6:49 PM in reply to RoboticSpacePenguin
So this group is basically saying in advance that if we have a second Civil War, they are going to commit treason by disobeying the Commander-in-Chief and fighting on the side of the Confederacy?
I'm not sure it's even legal to take that oath if you are in the military. While you don't have to follow an unlawful order, you can't make a lawful order unlawful by just declaring it to be so in advance.
What if the oath was not to obey an unlawful order to invade countries without provocation and where the tenets of the Just War theory had not been met?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hologram5
June 10, 2010 9:04 AM in reply to ohiomeister
" you can't make a lawful order unlawful by just declaring it to be so in advance."
They aren't doing that, in case you didn't read it in its entirety it states, "they will NOT carry out any order that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL." Ordering soldiers to confiscate lawfully owned weaponry is unconstitutional. Ordering ANYONE into a camp is unconsitutional. Think about it hmmkay?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hologram5
June 10, 2010 9:10 AM in reply to hologram5
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
June 10, 2010 1:31 PM in reply to hologram5
I think our military leaders can shoot treasonous uniformed people who disobey a direct order in time of war; and with the so-called "war on terror", it will be a "time of war" from now on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SamAdams1776
June 10, 2010 1:58 PM in reply to ohiomeister
The ten posted orders listed by Oathkeepers ARE unconstitutional. And have you not read Federalist No. 28? Or at least the Declaration of Independence?
"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Let me make this VERY clear. And I am speaking as a military officer: My oath is to protect and defend the Constitution, not the government. We are careful, but many, many, many officers and enlisted are convinced we are moving in a direction that unchecked will result in despotism. Do you, or do you not want us to save you from that. We have only our own judgment to guide us as did the founders. And truthfully, knowing the history and the causes of the rebellion, I am certain the founders would have rebelled decades ago. Talk about "patient sufferance!
And dont question MY loyaly to the US Constitution and the people it SERVES, or to any who SERVE the Constitution and its people.
But beware these words from Daniel Webster:
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
And we are there. The ultimate problem of our age is that our "representatives" do not view themselves as servants--they do indeed view themselves as our masters, and that poses a grave danger to individual liberty.
SamAdams1776 III
Molon Labe
"No Fort Sumters"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
steinologist
June 14, 2010 6:37 PM in reply to SamAdams1776
I question your patriotism- have you got a Combat Infantry Badge, like mine? I didn't think so. More to the point, your statement that "we are moving in a direction that, unchecked, will lead to despotism" (commas mine) is the most revealing, and the one that renders you unfit for command. If you are a commissioned officer, then you are a fucking embarrassment, and ought to resign forthwith.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
June 13, 2010 9:46 AM in reply to RoboticSpacePenguin
That question is so easy to answer:
The vast majority who hold any views, of any degree different than theirs, will occupy most of the country, which will be transformed into a gigantic concentration camp. (I can see the sign over the front gate, ala Auschwitz, "Lib-rul Concentration Camp".)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 9, 2010 8:54 AM in reply to sagesource
"any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps."
What they're referencing is the illegal orders that were given to police officers after hurrican Katrina to keep people from espcaping the destruction. The Oath Keepers aren't a fringe group. Not sure why they always get beaten up here, but it's a losing argument.
The 3%'ers are more fringe, but they're a subset of oathkeepers, and their missing is completely different.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tedski
June 9, 2010 11:26 AM in reply to Mark
Yes...the Oath Keepers were formed because their members were deeply concerned with the plight of black folks in the aftermath of Katrina.
Hm. No. Don't buy it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnny b
June 9, 2010 5:54 PM in reply to tedski
More racist sentiment from the LEFT. What gives you the right to accuse anyone of being so racist as to be completely apathetic to people's suffering in New Orleans? You're a real piece of...
This doesn't upset me though, because the only people Harry Reids attacks on OUR SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN (you libs make me want to puke) will appeal to are....you fags. So I'm not too concerned. You all actually make up a very small portion of society, which is why the Democratic party has had to make its tent so wide. Only the media has allowed you to appear as though you are larger than you really are (Alinsky anyone?)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aacme
June 9, 2010 10:04 PM in reply to johnny b
No. 1- When has Harry Reid ever attacked our military people?
No. 2- You may not understand this, but a big tent is a good thing. It's what the nation's founders had in mind- government for everyone, not just white right-wing shit-for-brains.
No. 3- Who the hell is Alinsky? the only people I've ever seen mention him are right-wingers. The inference is we go around gesturing with our little red Alinsky books while quoting from them. I understand he's a historical figure but he was created as a right-wing bogey-man by Glenn Beck. Your roots are showing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Red XIV
June 9, 2010 2:27 PM in reply to Mark
What a crock. The Oath Keepers believe that Obama is going to declare himself a dictator and use martial law to hold the American people prisoner. They also are secessionist, given their claim that it would be unconstitutional to "invade" a state that tries to secede.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joe1776
June 9, 2010 4:21 PM in reply to Mark
A rational Oath Keeper and Three Percenter? Check out the blog too, wow. http://www.OperationPitchfork.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ewad
June 9, 2010 9:01 AM in reply to sagesource
The fringe left and the fringe right have more in common than both would wish to acknowledge. They both believe in large American concentration camps. The only difference is who they see as the intended occupants.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 9, 2010 9:50 AM in reply to ewad
You, sir or madam, are full of bullspit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ewad
June 9, 2010 11:07 AM in reply to Signalman
No I'm not.
If we are honest, we can remember during the Bush administration fears voiced from some on the left of secret camps being built in remote areas to be used for dissidents. I'm not making this up. I was one who actually had some thoughts that this may indeed be true - it certainly fit into a lot of the reactionary things that were happening post 9/11.
If these notions are deemed "srewy" as viewed from the left toward the right, then in all honesty we have to take a look at the opposite. More to the point, these assertions, when viewed in the entire context of the whole body politic can be seen for what they most likely are - fringe element projections more to do with paranoia and zealousness than anything else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
biged242
June 9, 2010 12:04 PM in reply to ewad
Yes, you are. Name me one currently active, violent, armed left-wing militia group in the US today. Can't, can you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ewad
June 9, 2010 12:37 PM in reply to biged242
Just read what I wrote.
Your making an argument against something that was never said - a non sequitur.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 9, 2010 12:46 PM in reply to ewad
You claimed that "the fringe left" "believe(s) in large American concentration camps."
Kindly substantiate that claim, sir, or else retract your statement like an adult.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ewad
June 9, 2010 1:01 PM in reply to Signalman
Just google "Bush concentration camps" and you're going to see all kinds of entries. Then, google "Obama concentration camps" and you're going to see a lot of entries as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
weezie.jefferson
June 9, 2010 1:14 PM in reply to ewad
Alex Jones is a paranoid motherfucker who had lots of creepy theories about the Bush administration and concentration camps. To be fair, he has them about pretty much anyone from the establishment. But he is quite beloved by many progressives. He is NOT violent nor does he advocate violence. He simply documents items of concern and goes on about how it fits into his conspiracy theories. His website is called prisonplanet.com...
So you are both right: The left does not have any mainstream violent, paranoid groups that are embraced by the Democratic Party on any level the way that the teaparty, the "patriot" movements, and the birthers are embraced by the right. But there are paranoid groups out there on both sides.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
June 9, 2010 1:52 PM in reply to weezie.jefferson
Sorry, no.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxcm3ZWxC0w
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
June 9, 2010 2:02 PM in reply to weezie.jefferson
And more:
http://leavingalexjonestown.blogspot.com/
Sorry, but your claim that Alex Jones does not advocate violence simply is not true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
June 10, 2010 6:58 PM in reply to weezie.jefferson
Interesting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 9, 2010 3:33 PM in reply to ewad
No. I'm not doing your work for you.
Present your evidence or retract your unfounded claim, sir.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
June 9, 2010 3:47 PM in reply to Signalman
Dude,you can find examples of this in any group of Green Party members. Cindy Sheehan and Cynthia McKinney come to mind.
No, I don't like admitting it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 9, 2010 5:31 PM in reply to LiberalRedneck
Then if they are so easy to find, then he should have no problem whatsoever *substantiating* his claim. I don't see what's so difficult about that.
Respectfully, saying 'everybody knows that' isn't substantiation. It's the kind of argument that Freepers use.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
June 9, 2010 5:34 PM in reply to Signalman
I did, jerk. Scroll down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 9, 2010 6:11 PM in reply to LiberalRedneck
You did not. Do you even read the things you post before you post them?
Just so you know, I will be reading whatever you post, so you'd be well-advised to check it closely. If you don't, and if it doesn't support your argument, you'll certainly hear about it from me.
You might also be well-advised to put a bit more effort into being polite, as the combination of non-supportive links, arguing like a Freeper and name-calling really isn't winning me over to your argument.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ewad
June 9, 2010 4:37 PM in reply to Signalman
I've tried twice to post a reply with links from a "Bush concentration camp" google search. They both disappeared into cyber world. Perhaps TPM has a block on links. I don't know, but I guess you'll have to do the search. Believe me they're there for all to read.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 9, 2010 5:29 PM in reply to ewad
Try parsing the link or breaking it up. I'm not doing your work for you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
June 9, 2010 5:36 PM in reply to Signalman
Man, you're being a pedantic ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 9, 2010 5:39 PM in reply to LiberalRedneck
And I've got no reason to take either of you at your word.
If the claim is so all-fired self-evident, then it shouldn't be so hard to back it up. If you can't do so, then respectfully, that's your shortcoming, not mine.
You're certainly not going to get me to agree with you by calling me a "pedantic ass."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
June 9, 2010 5:42 PM in reply to Signalman
I linked you a Mother Jones article that specifically talks about FEMA camps.
And yes, you are a pedantic ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 9, 2010 6:07 PM in reply to LiberalRedneck
And the guy who's being quoted in there doesn't seem to be anywhere near as left as you might like him to be.
FYI, being called a "pedantic ass" by some internet dude who argues like a Freeper is a label I'm proud to wear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
June 9, 2010 5:48 PM in reply to ewad
There seems to be a limit of 2 hyperlinks per post. Beyond that, the post doesn't "take." If you have a longer list, you'll need to break it down into separate messages.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ewad
June 9, 2010 5:53 PM in reply to slb
Okay, I'll try that - thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ewad
June 9, 2010 6:05 PM in reply to Signalman
http://libertyforlife.com/jail-police/us_concentration_camps.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/shivani0813.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 9, 2010 6:22 PM in reply to ewad
Your link #1 doesn't seem to be coming from a lefty POV, but instead a corporate or even conservative one. Can you elaborate on how you think it illustrates a leftist POV?
Your link #2 is more creditable as a leftist argument, but it seems to treat the notion of camps very abstractly, not necessarily as something that is happening or that has been set into motion. Can you perhaps point to some passages in there that you feel treat the subject in a concrete manner?
I appreciate you efforts in this regard, and I appreciate that you're being polite in doing so. While we clearly have a point of disagreement between us, we don't have to be disagreeable about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ewad
June 9, 2010 6:31 PM in reply to Signalman
I'm not sure what you mean by concrete. Here are people talking about concentration camps and Bush. That's what I was talking about. I apologize if the first link isn't from the left, after the trying so often I just grabbed a couple of links off the first page in the search.
Try this one:
http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/bush-regime-building-concentration-camps/2483/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 9, 2010 6:46 PM in reply to ewad
Well, by concrete, I mean speaking of concentration camps in a manner that suggests a belief that they already are set up and that a plan exists for their use. That article seems to speak of them in a more abstract manner, almost conceptually -- as if to say 'could the Bush Administration actually do such a thing?' Is that more illustrative of my question?
I'll try to give that article and your additional link a close reading this evening, but I'll be logging off TPM shortly. Again, I appreciate your willingness to discourse politely; I'm afraid that other fellow was just a bit too intemperate to be worth talking to any longer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ewad
June 9, 2010 7:04 PM in reply to Signalman
It is undisputed that The Bush administration bulit or was to build large internment facilities (some estimates were as large as to accommodate 20 million). The given reason was to accommodate a large influx of illegal immigrants if necessary and some other vague notions of enemy combatants.
The speculation from there arose amongst the left that it wasn't a large leap from enemy combatants to citizen dissidents. This kind of talk was pretty widespread throughtout the leftwing media and continued into the general population of left leaning people as often evidenced in the comments section in various websites.
The talk was very reminiscent of what we are now hearing from some circles on the right - maybe not as violent, virulent or plentiful but nonetheless similar.
If we can see this, it can help to put our own fears (and the other's) into a more helpful and accurate context and maybe just a little more understandable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 14, 2010 12:57 PM in reply to ewad
The original claim was that there was a difference of opinion regarding whom should be held in the camps. I have, as yet, seen no evidence regarding whom the left thinks should be held in those camps.
While I do not think you are doing so deliberately, you are not zeroing in on the crux of my disagreement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
seashell
June 9, 2010 9:11 PM in reply to Signalman
Signalman, essentially it was believed by the left that FEMA was building (or had built) a bunch of camps in Mississippi, I think, to hold civil protesters or whoever was on Cheney's shit list. Ewad is correct, with or without any concrete.
No cause is furthered by continued lack of belief on your part.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 14, 2010 12:55 PM in reply to seashell
"Signalman, essentially it was believed by the left that FEMA was building (or had built) a bunch of camps in Mississippi, I think, to hold civil protesters or whoever was on Cheney's shit list."
That doesn't agree with the original statement that I questioned. The original statement was that both the extreme left and right "believe(d)" in such camps, but that they differed in whom should be held in them. You are clearly suggesting that while both sides believe that such camps exist, there does not appear to be a clear-cut difference of opinion regarding who should be taking up residence in them. That's the crux of my disagreement. You have clearly and simply misread my objection. However, I remain open to hearing more of what you have to say.
"Ewad is correct, with or without any concrete."
No. Ewad's claim is as yet unsupported and without evidence. Please present any evidence you may have to support it; I would welcome any evidentiary support you can provide for his claim.
"No cause is furthered by continued lack of belief on your part."
I seek to further no cause. I simply seek to see evidence of a claim that has been made here on TPM. I believe the claim to be incorrect, unsupported and without merit, and so far, no one here has been able to support it. Given that, I refuse to believe that the claim is true in much the same way that I refuse to believe theist claims about the Invisible Sky Fairy.
Belief will not prove ewad's claim. But evidence will. Perhaps you can provide some for me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rufus
June 9, 2010 4:25 PM in reply to ewad
Been there done that.I used to believe that Bush and Cheney would gin up a crises and suspend the elections to stay in power ( turns out it was discussed).There were a lot of liberals who believed that who probably wouldn't want own up to it now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
June 9, 2010 5:53 PM in reply to rufus
Sure, it certainly was entertained as a possibility. And if that was actually discussed within the Bush administration, then the concern was hardly paranoid delusion. What I don't remember is the widespread hysteria on the left that you are currently seeing on the right, hysteria which seems to be based on nothing concrete.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
June 9, 2010 1:48 PM in reply to Signalman
The left has its share of loonies who believe in one world government conspiracies, 911 was an inside job, organic food, anti-business conspiracies and on and on.
They just don't run around with guns strapped to their hips.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
June 9, 2010 12:29 PM in reply to ewad
People on the left were reacting to an actual 300+ million dollar no-bid contract the Bush/Cheney administration placed with KBR, a subsidiary of Cheney's Haliburton.
The plans were being made at a time when that same administration was engaged in the largest campaign extra-judicial domestic surveillance in U.S. history on it's own authority. A time when it was unilaterally declaring that it had the right to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens on U.S. soil as "enemy combatants" incommunicado, without trial, hearing, right to counsel, any due process or resort to resort to habeas corpus all on the executive's own authority. A time when it was actively manipulating terror warnings, and even arrests, in order to create and maintain and "emergency" siege mentality, declaring that reporters needed to "watch what they say," for political purposes. A time when it was also politicizing the Department of Justice and blatantly targeting political opponents for criminal prosecution.
So, yeah, when for no apparent reason, these same people quietly gave Haliburton, a company wallowing in Iraq War no-bids and still very much in Cheney's orbit, 300 million to draw up "contingency plans" for the construction of what were denominated "emergency internment camps" in the event of a sudden mass influx of illegal immigrants in response to a an entirely hypothetical natural disaster or political upheaval, a number of people who were to the left of of the right wing authoritarian 26% who supported GWB to the bitter end, were a bit concerned.
The hard right's only apparent basis for fearing that Obama is going to put them in concentration camps is his advocacy of a law expanding private health insurance coverage, stepping in to keep AIG, GM, Chrysler and Citibank from folding just as Nixon did with Lockheed and Bush I did with Chrysler and the S&L's, and the color of his skin.
So, yeah, that's totally the same thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ewad
June 9, 2010 12:50 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I know all of that. It's the conclusions which are salient here. It was a common idea that these "camps" were going to be used for dissidents of the Busch adminstration - I too shared those thoughts as a possiblity.
Did it happpen? Given the climate of the country then I also felt a coup was very possible - another commonly held belief on the left. Did any of it happen?
It's easy to look at those we disagree with and see the extreme folly of their beliefs and the illogical conclusions they draw. Only when we can see our own fears through that same filter will we be able to put all of our beliefs and actions into a more accurate context.
The continual demonization of the other side, regardless of where one originally sits, without understanding the ultimate result of that thinking will only perpetuate the ever increasing divide and misunderstandings.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
June 9, 2010 1:37 PM in reply to ewad
I, for one, remain convinced that we were one mass casualty terrorist attack on a U.S. city away from it right up until the Democrats took back Congress in 2006, at which point it no longer became practical. The emotional, psychological, logistic, political and psuedo-legal groundwork had been laid and it is difficult to believe it was not all being done in furtherance of a unified project.
And that's my point. On one hand, we had the left (and, for that matter, the center) which had a solid factual basis for its fears that Bush/Cheney were laying the groundwork for the imposition of a Putinized sham-democracy authoritarianism. On the other, we have the right, which adopts a fear that the left introduced into national consciousness based upon Obama's support for propping up our capitalist economy when it was on the brink of collapse, expanding private health insurance and the color of his skin.
I've got my beefs with the left in this country. Most of them flow from its stubborn resistance to drawing the correct conclusions from the reality that it is, by far, smallest ideological fraction in the country. The rest flow from my growing conviction that ideology of any kind is a mental illness. And I acknowledge that all variants of that disease--left, hard right, neocon right, libertarian mishmash, and even centrist, share a cluster of symptoms.
But there's this difference between them, and it's important: for the overwhelming majority of them, the symptoms of people suffering from the leftist variant of the illness are milder, the effects of the illness are generally benign, and while somewhat subject to delusional thinking, all of their delusions have some grounding in reality. And, more importantly, those delusions can often be dispelled because they don't usually all fold into one grand master delusion. To use the phrase that was in vogue a few months ago, people on the left in this country are significantly more resistant to the epistemological closure that has become pandemic on the right (unless they're hardcore academic Marxists, at any rate).
Here and now, in the U.S. in 2010, the difference between the left and the right in this country is the difference between an otherwise functional and productive guy with a mild personality disorder that makes him kind of annoying and a violent paranoid schizophrenic. Lumping them both together as "mentally ill" is a dangerous form of false equivalence.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ewad
June 9, 2010 2:00 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I can't disagree with anything you say. In fact I believe there are profund fundamental differences between the left and right - I never said otherwise - that carry throughout all aspects of world views and subsequent actions is all aspects of life.
Saying the fringe left and right have commonalities is not contradictory to that belief.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
June 9, 2010 6:47 PM in reply to ewad
Given the climate of the country then I also felt a coup was very possible - another commonly held belief on the left.
No, it was not "commonly held." As NC Steve has said, a lot of us feared that if there were another major terrorist attack, then we might indeed find habeas corpus suspended and civil liberties swept aside, but I don't agree that it was a common belief that such things were likely absent some kind of major event to precipitate them.
The right has been flapping its wings ever since Obama was elected over a conviction -- not just a concern, but a firm conviction -- that Obama is going to confiscate their guns and ammunition. And I cannot see that there is any basis for that fear whatsoever; it stems solely from their conviction, also based on no apparent evidence, that Obama is a secret Muslim communist fascist would-be dictator determined to destroy the country.
Those two things are not equivalents of one another.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ewad
June 9, 2010 7:51 PM in reply to slb
There were and are many who believe that 9/11 was staged to justify the invasion of Iraq. I can see the logic and possibility of that given the circumstances. Just as there were and are those who believe this, the belief that another staged incident could be manifested to bring about even harsher measures (such as "concentration camps") was also very much in the leftwing ether. I'm not bringing these notions out of left field and just making them up. The leftwing media, in general, was swimming with these discussions.
None of this may be the equivalence of what is now happening on the right, but it is similar - a commonality of over the top conclusions brought about by a fear that may or may not be justified.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Boidster
June 9, 2010 12:51 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Damn, this beatdown was so hard I felt it all the way over on Kos. Had to come see what was going on.
You nailed it. +1 internets to you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
June 9, 2010 12:39 PM in reply to ewad
Don't presume because you had a paranoid thought that anyone else did. If you're referring to the detention of Muslims without charge or trial on vague suspicions of terrorism, you can object based on principle without thinking everybody who disapproves of Bush was about to be rounded up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 9, 2010 12:41 PM in reply to ewad
Yes, you are.
Demonstrate to me that the "fringe left" happens to "believe(s) in large American concentration camps."
Nothing in your response speaks to that claim of yours.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ewad
June 9, 2010 1:42 PM in reply to Signalman
Again, read what I first wrote. The only thing I said is the fringe left and right have more in common than they are comfortable admitting.
I would probably be described by many (of course it is always relative) as being on the fringe left. I don't know if I am - I would expect that there are many further to the left. I don't regard this site or (from the comments) most of its readers as anything near fringe.
Just as I don't regard the "Oath Keepers" or their ilk as being anything but fringe elements.
So, I think we are having a problem here because territories have not been defined.
I think it would be disingenuous to not acknowledge that there were elements from the left who believed that the Bush/Fema/Haliburton camps were going to be used for dissidents of the Bush administration.
Now, if you think I am speaking of you (or any of the others who have commented on this) then you are the ones possible projecting.
I went to a 9/11 symposium many years ago thinking I was pretty radical and extreme in my thinking. There were people there who were quite frightening - who were so radical in their thinking that they appeared to share some things with other extremely radical thinkers regardless of political persuasion. To my sensibilities they struck me the same way as the "Oath Keepers."
When one gets that far out it hardly matters what the idealogy is - the thinking is quite similar.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ewad
June 9, 2010 2:15 PM in reply to ewad
This comment was intended as a response to "ericf" up above. I must have made the wrong click somewhere. My apologies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 9, 2010 3:47 PM in reply to ewad
See reply to you below at 3:46 PM; the reply misposted and did not register as a reply to you. Apologies for any inconvenience, but not for continuing to disagree with you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
June 9, 2010 5:40 PM in reply to ewad
If we are honest, we can remember during the Bush administration fears voiced from some on the left of secret camps being built in remote areas to be used for dissidents.
Nope, sorry, I don't remember that. Whatever you remember hearing couldn't have been very widespread, not on any scale comparable to what is coming out of Oath Keepers and the various right-wing militias. And for sure there were no Democratic candidates for major office who shared those views.
If, as the former NCSteve remembers, there were concerns stemming from an actual contract for Haliburton to build secret detention camps in remote areas, (and I don't remember that, either) that's hardly a paranoid concern. That's a concern that has its basis in reality. And in any case, it did not result in organized groups of leftists threatening armed resistance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ewad
June 9, 2010 6:22 PM in reply to slb
I agree that the amount of fear and paranoia comming from the right seems to be more than what came from the left. I would also agree that there is and was more of a basis of fact (but also speculation) for the leftwing fears. None of that, however, precludes the notion that both fringe extrmemes have some commonality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
June 9, 2010 6:53 PM in reply to ewad
I'm sorry, I guess I just fail to see what that commonality is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ewad
June 9, 2010 7:31 PM in reply to slb
Perhaps I need to explain first what I mean by "fringe."
To illustrate this;
I can understand, as an example, the outrage of the group of people we refer to as "teabaggers." Were they lose me is when that outrage is explained in terms such as - Obama is a Communist, or he plans to enslave us in concentration camps, or other such similar over the top sentiments.
To me that's "fringe" thinking.
Conparing that to surmising that Bush, because of these internment camps was going to jail all dissidents, suspend the constitution and elections, and take over the country is just as over the top and IMO on the "fringe."
Now in this case, I completely understand the fear, but the conclusions are just as over the top as the conclusions of the "teabaggers."
I acknowledge the differences in the two scenarios and groups(and sometimes the differences may be significant), but I can also acknowledge that there are similarities. One does not preclude the other.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mooser
June 9, 2010 5:40 PM in reply to ewad
"I was one who actually had some thoughts that this may indeed be true"
Well what do you know, you agree with yourself! Never seen that happen before!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ewad
June 9, 2010 6:02 PM in reply to Mooser
I'm simply trying to define myself a bit so posters here can perhaps understand my comments better. I'm not unsympathetic to the left or its causes - I see myself as a progressive and was also caught up in the fear and frenzy of the Bush administration - some of which was over the top. Just as I now see people on the right reacting to the Obama administration.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dweb823
June 9, 2010 10:19 AM in reply to sagesource
Sounds like fun....toasting marshmallows over the campfire and singing Kumbaya with fellow internment campers....and at govt. expense
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rynato
June 9, 2010 11:47 AM in reply to sagesource
I seem to recall that quite a few on the right were calling for internment camps for Muslims and for Americans who dared to criticize Bush's illegal, misbegotten war in Iraq.
Those would largely be the same conservatives who now scream and wail about Obama trashing the Constitution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NerdRage
June 9, 2010 3:49 PM in reply to sagesource
whoah whoah whoah...this woman is the standard bearer for the Nevada GOP...
just ask Michael Steele...
(lol)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aacme
June 9, 2010 10:11 PM in reply to sagesource
I have been able to keep up with what the right is doing or planning by what they are accusing the left of. This goes back to the eighties, when Reagan accused the Sandanistas of funding the defensive war against the Contras by running drugs into the US. On being asked for confirmation the next morning, his own Drug Czar said we have no evidence of that but plenty of evidence the Contras are doing that, to get around the congressional cut-off of funds.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
libdevil
June 9, 2010 1:15 AM
You know, I've kinda got to agree with them that massive blockades of civilian areas does "turn() them into giant concentration camps." Not like that could happen in a democratically governed country though, like the US, Canada, or Israel. Oh. Never mind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
June 9, 2010 8:31 AM in reply to libdevil
Makes a difference if the area is viewed as simply a civilian area or an enemy with whom you are at war. The United States blockaded the South and currently plans a partial blockade of Iran and North Korean ships have been searched. Not to mention the United States embargo of Cuba:
The embargo has been criticized for its effects on food, clean water,[27] medicine, and other economic needs of the Cuban population. The Cuban population is in dire need of most of these items. Some academic critics, outside Cuba, have also linked it to shortages of medical supplies and soap which have resulted in a series of medical crises and heightened levels of infectious diseases.[28][29] It has also been linked to epidemics of specific diseases, including neurological disorders caused by poor nutrition[30] and blindness.[28] Travel restrictions embedded in the embargo have also been shown to limit the amount of medical information that flows into Cuba from the United States.[27] Malnutrition and disease resulting from increased food and medicine prices have affected men and the elderly, in particular, due to Cuba's rationing system which gives preferential treatment to women and children.[29]
Israel's blockade of Gaza is probably legal as long as Gaza keeps tossing rockets and the Israelis let through the basics. Of course, to agree with that you have to agree that Israel has the same rights as other nations to defend itself.
I'm unaware of Canada's history with blockades, if any.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Karl the Marxist
June 9, 2010 9:15 AM in reply to AJM
Given that they are only allowing through about 1/4 of "the basics", not so much. Not that it is to begin with but they are not even pretending very hard.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mass_murdock
June 9, 2010 1:38 AM
I'm more concerned about pterodactyl infestations. It only takes two, then they start messing around, and pretty soon things get way out of hand.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
June 9, 2010 2:23 AM in reply to mass_murdock
You get bit by one of them things, too, and it is a B-I-T-C-H, bitch. So yeah, sound the alarm, bro!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Davran
June 9, 2010 5:45 AM in reply to mass_murdock
Don't forget about the Reptilians.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
June 9, 2010 9:06 AM in reply to Davran
They're already involved.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theorajones
June 9, 2010 9:26 AM in reply to mass_murdock
Oh, so we're supposed to worry about pterodactyls? Ah, and while we're busy worrying about them, you and your robot compatriots will storm the barricades and enslave us all?
I've got your number, robot man.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
erica
June 9, 2010 9:52 AM in reply to theorajones
I thought he said petrodactyls. I hear they're becoming a problem in the gulf already.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John M
June 9, 2010 1:39 AM
In addition, Angle wants to do away with Social Security and the Department of Education, and reinstate prohibition...... just your normal Queen Tea Bagger to Rand Paul's King Tea Bagger.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
June 9, 2010 8:39 AM in reply to John M
“I would tell you that I have the same feelings about legalizing marijuana, not medical marijuana, but just legalizing marijuana,” Angle offered. “I feel the same about legalizing alcohol. “The effect on society is so great that I’m just not a real proponent of legalizing any drug or encouraging any drug abuse,” she continued. “I’m elected by the people to protect, and I think that law should protect.”
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
June 9, 2010 10:44 AM in reply to AJM
She also wants to legislate morality - but John Ensign, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are her models.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rufus
June 9, 2010 1:39 AM
It's the part about the states being all sovereigny and they won't enforce federal authority there that creeps me out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
June 9, 2010 2:27 AM in reply to rufus
That shit flies just right in Nevada.
I had some desert rat from out there married into my family for a while. Top education, but you wouldn't much know it to listen to his Ah's-angry no brain curmudgeon "politics."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
*
June 9, 2010 6:11 AM in reply to Overreach THIS!
Las Vegas is where Democrats are the strongest in the entire state. But the republicans are chewing on it one cul de sac at a time. I was working for the State in the 90's and many of my counter-parts up in Reno were diehard republicans. You wouldn't believe all the tangents they could take any any given issue. Compromise was never in their vocabulary...it was their way or nothing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
June 10, 2010 6:56 PM in reply to *
This misanthrope was indeed from Reno.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
June 9, 2010 3:55 AM in reply to rufus
You think you're creeped out? I'm *FROM* Texas.
I have a pretty good idea what some of these guys would do if they actually were sovereign!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MysteriousStranger
June 9, 2010 1:56 AM
Some of the Oath Keepers are out there. But as was pointed out to me, the main thing that they advocate is not following illegal orders, not following orders that violate the constitution. If you think Cheney wouldn't lock us up you
better think again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
June 9, 2010 2:26 AM in reply to MysteriousStranger
Exactly. That's why the Oath Keepers were so outspoken that Jose Padilla shouldn't have been locked up without charge, that no military personnel should take part in waterboarding or other torture, etc.
Oh, wait...
The main thing they advocate is not following orders that they regard as illegal, by which they mean any order derived from a law on the Democratic agenda. It'll be interesting to see what happens if an Oath Keeper follows through on the rhetoric, and someone commits a murder with a gun purchased because a cop deliberately cleared a background check without actually doing it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
June 9, 2010 2:38 AM in reply to midnight rambler
Well if the kernel of analysis they begin with is the Co'stution, there is no doubt that you are 100% correct. Anything is agin' the Co'stitution that Dems propose. Health care was agin' it, all the teabagging shit-for-brains wailed. Could be any topic without limitation.
As I often repeat, virtually anybody citing the U.S. Constitution in populist politics is telling you two things about themselves: 1) they have no idea what the document is, 2) they don't know much about anything else either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sean_P
June 9, 2010 9:06 AM in reply to midnight rambler
That's the thing. I'm a retired Navy officer, and the OKs (what an inappropriate acronym) are correct in saying that military members must not follow unlawful/unconstitutional orders. The problem is that to the OKs, "unconstitutional" == "policies I don't agree with". And they don't agree with anything done by the Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 9, 2010 9:53 AM in reply to Sean_P
Co-sign from an Army vet. And thank you for your service, sir.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
June 9, 2010 10:17 AM in reply to Sean_P
I'm a retired 1140...the whole thing about them swearing an oath to the Constitution and those appointed above them, yet, if they dont agree, will not undertake or execute an order they see as unsat, is fucking scary. What if that guy was in a crucial position and refused during a crisis?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Logical_Consideration
June 9, 2010 8:45 AM in reply to MysteriousStranger
Don't sweat it. We'll give political asylum out freely when we cut Texas and South Carolina loose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
June 9, 2010 9:33 AM in reply to MysteriousStranger
So, if the premise of the Oath Keepers is to not follow any order that is not Constitutional. The fact that ONLY the Supreme Court can determine the Constitutionality of any particular law or order, are the Oath Keepers prepared to carry out an order until which time the Supreme Court may make a decision on that particular order? I think not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sean_P
June 9, 2010 4:14 PM in reply to tinsk
Not so. We had the Nuremberg trials over this. Military members are enjoined not to obey "unlawful orders". If your superior orders you to do something that's clearly unconstitutional, and you obey based on the fact that the Supreme Court hasn't yet gotten around to issuing a ruling on this particular case, you're at risk for prosecution later... and "I was just following orders" won't cut it as a defense.
That being said: there's a strong presumption that orders issued by a superior ARE constitutional, unless you have some very compelling reason to know that they're not. Also, given that the Supreme Court has been around for a really long time and has ruled on a lot of topics over its history, I'm hard pressed to even think of an order a superior could give that was both 1) clearly unconstitutional, and 2) hadn't already been established as such via precedent. All the really clear-cut stuff is already settled... so in practice, this is sort of moot. There's not too many areas left that are waiting for SC rulings, and what remains are the sort of gray-area topics in which the superior is going to have to be presumed to be issuing legal orders.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The_Buddha_Pest
June 9, 2010 2:57 AM
>>>>>> "Such a vile order to forcibly intern Americans without charges or trial would be an act of war against the American people, ..."
They support it unless ir relates to citizens who are protesting the WTO, the G8, or opposition to torture.
They they're willing to "bend the rules" a little.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
June 9, 2010 3:08 AM
Trivial grammar point: ""We support what the organization stands for," said Angle's husband, Ted, told TPMDC in a phone interview Monday."
No doubt this story will create a lot of buzz in the immediate aftermath of the primary so you might want to clean that up, particularly since you'll probably have a lot of news outlets quoting that exact passage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Twoflower
June 9, 2010 3:18 AM
>>>>>> "Such a vile order to forcibly intern Americans without charges or trial would be an act of war against the American people, ..."
So... would killing Americans without trail be even worse, or is that considered OK? I would be interested to hear an answer to that from them!
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thepeoplechoose
June 9, 2010 3:49 AM
There is an argument to be made for the encroachment of the Pentagon on the domestic front. Under Bush / Rumsfeld domestic intelligence in particular has changed dramatically. DOD funded intelligence for domestic operations has mushroomed to where the DOD is now a major player if not the lead player in this arena.
The rest of the stuff I don't care for at all but on this I have more than a little discomfort. Having our military intimately involved in domestic intelligence is a warning sign that nobody has taken much notice of. The only reason this has occurred is because of lobbying by the military industrial complex and the cozy arrangement of the the DOD and congress with the industry. They seem not to care one whit that this crosses a long established line. To me it is damn scary having our military gathering intelligence data domestically on virtually everything electronic. That is what is occurring. Never before in our history have we done this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
*
June 9, 2010 6:28 AM in reply to thepeoplechoose
You missed a very important point. The military's role has always been to protect the continent from invasion from outside forces. Protecting the public within the borders is a police action which, under the 10th Amendment, is the domain of the States. There was NEVER a military command assigned to protect the continental US until Bu$h. That places the public under the jurisdiction of the military which is controlled of the Executive Branch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thepeoplechoose
June 9, 2010 9:25 AM in reply to *
You state it exactly correct. However the focus has expanded on the part of the DOD to include protection from internal threats as well as external. Internal threat protection used to be the province of the FBI and of the states themselves. This is a significant modification of the role of the DOD and has opened up an entirely new entry point for defense contactors to hawk their wares to the government. I don't think people have yet realized the overall significance of this change. There was never any intent of having the military conduct internal intelligence operations. Historically, this was actually prohibited. I'm unconvinced this was a wise change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
buck
June 9, 2010 4:48 AM
'"It's one of things we desire to have happen," he said about membership in the group. "I'm not sure if it has happened yet or not."'
Ah! They haven't learned the secret handshake yet!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
buck
June 9, 2010 4:55 AM
"She's got a pretty good track record of being a pretty sincere Constitutionalist"
In other words, she knows absolutely nothing about the Constitution!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
*
June 9, 2010 6:30 AM in reply to buck
But I thought that was the prerequisite for being a Constitutionalist?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John M
June 9, 2010 12:07 PM in reply to *
No. They are "Constiutionalists" supporting what THEY BTHINK the Constitution means. Rand Paul is supposedy a 'Constiutionist" but he would trample the 14th Amendment and any part of the Constiution that he doesn't agree with. Maybe the Oath Keepers should kill Rand Paul for trampling the Constitution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
June 9, 2010 12:42 PM in reply to John M
That's true. They what I'd called Menu Constitutionalists. Their being Constitutionalists goes only so far as choosing the parts that they like and self defining what those parts mean. That is not a Patriot. That is an insurgent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Waltz
June 9, 2010 6:59 AM
"affirming that they will not, for example, force citizens into detention camps"
Only because for some reason they think this might happen to white people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
June 9, 2010 7:15 AM
I will take an oath to not follow any order to become a serial killer. And I take an oath to refuse to be part of any Army that invades another soverign state. Nor will I obey any order to force any citizen to vote for Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sexxybeast1973
June 9, 2010 7:16 AM
Its only going to get more interesting as her wacky views slowly dribble out over the next few months. I willhowever miss the Lowden chicken suits!!! I say people continue to wear them anyways!! Maybe a chicken in a teabagger outfit?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluestatedon
June 9, 2010 7:20 AM
C'mon, the real meat of the issue for these loons is this: the main thing they advocate is not following orders emanating from that black guy in the White House.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mark Chilton
June 9, 2010 7:36 AM
"affirming that they will not, for example, force citizens into detention camps"
What's most worrisome is the pregnant implication of the word "citizens" in the above quote. They stand ready to help out with concentration camps for non-citizens?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bobby Thomson
June 9, 2010 7:51 AM
Josh is flogging this as excellent news not only for John McCain, but Harry Reid. It's unclear to me just how much political traction he gets out of this story, especially in Nevada. Most Americans would oppose the use of the military to blockade American cities in contexts not involving rebellion (and in Nevada, rebellion probably attracts more support than it should). Most Americans also would support the military refusing to obey an order to commit war crimes. Never mind that the military being used in this way is their own fantasy. It's just too hard to push this story because the Angle camp will just say "Harry Reid must support the blockade of American cities," enough reporters will run with that Angle, and Reid will back down in a Las Vegas minute.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 9, 2010 11:33 AM in reply to Bobby Thomson
We forget that a massive epidemic (flu, ebola, you name it) could require some type of quarantine of large population centers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dogger
June 9, 2010 8:08 AM
So it turns out that the lady who advocated Checkups for Chickens was the sane one? How much crazier can the GOP get?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dogger
June 9, 2010 8:09 AM in reply to Dogger
Oh, I forgot. South Carolina!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thecrow
June 9, 2010 8:48 AM
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/as-wall-street-is-transformed-a-reminder-from-aaron-russo/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
June 9, 2010 9:03 AM
Where were these Oath keepers several years ago?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
June 9, 2010 9:10 AM in reply to It's Pat
Yeah. Anyone disobeying King George's war orders would by these guys have been branded a traitor who deserved a cell in GitMo.
They just don't like takin' orders from that black guy who they think wasn't born in the U.S. and therefore isn't President.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
clemenceau
June 9, 2010 10:47 AM in reply to It's Pat
Promise Keepers?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Political Junkie
June 9, 2010 9:07 AM
I don't the obsession with the 10th Amendment while ignoring the rest of the Constitution. Sure, the 10th Amendment gives states rights but if you looked at Art. I people would see that Congress has expansive power. I just feel like some people think that there two amendments to the Constitution, the 2nd and 10th Amendment, everything else they can ignore.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
maya89
June 9, 2010 9:08 AM
another right-wing nutjob wins a primary -- perfect...
these paranoid rantings about "concentration camps" are ludicrous of course.. one can only imagine where they would put people who don't think like them if they took power... let's hope Sen. Reid's campaign milks this for all it's worth.. I don't think a fringe lunatic of this sort should have a place in the U.S. Senate..
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
June 9, 2010 9:14 AM
I wish the black helicopters would hurry up and take me to the FEMA camps so these people would stop talking about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcrose68
June 9, 2010 10:03 AM
The irony is killing me.
Any guess how these people weigh in on no-knock search warrants or habeus?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dogger
June 9, 2010 10:07 AM in reply to mcrose68
If they actually supported the Constitution on those issues, they would join the ACLU instead of a right-wing nut group.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
leoklein
June 9, 2010 10:26 AM
I think I'd put scare quotes around the 'Patriot' part since they don't seem very patriotic to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
clemenceau
June 9, 2010 10:36 AM
Scientologists and aspiring Oath Keepers members?
I'll bet the Angles buy a lot of stuff off of TV.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 9, 2010 11:24 AM
""Such a vile order to forcibly intern Americans without charges or trial would be an act of war against the American people..."
And that's why they have been so up in arms about Jose Padilla and other Americans imprisoned without...
Oh right.
And that's why they have been so up in arms about Obama's order to use drones to assassinate specific American citizens without trial because of ties to terror and...
Oh right.
Just another wingnut group where up is down, black is white, and the Constitution is whatever they say it is...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
June 9, 2010 1:25 PM in reply to Jeremy
No, their problem is that the president IS black, not white.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnnydoughey
June 9, 2010 11:34 AM
Form a belief... then go out and look for anything that might faintly support that belief...
The South's history has been passed down for generations and who would want to tell their children that their uncles, cousins, and even father were stupid and wrong and evil doers for warriing against their own nation?
These ancestors are heros to a few generations... and bedtime stories told by their mothers and fathers is more proof than any factual data the rest of the nation could ever come up with...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 9, 2010 11:42 AM
Oh, Christ. These OAFS would be the FIRST in line to corral dark-skinned Others into detention camps. Ridiculous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ejg3
June 9, 2010 11:56 AM
In the crazy bird war the loon beats the chicken.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
biged242
June 9, 2010 11:59 AM
Oh no! Not giant concentration camps!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sniffit
June 9, 2010 12:02 PM
Internment camps? You mean like inner city ghettos with their economic shackles and invisible fences and ceilings? Whoever said these Oath Keeper retards are not fringers is an idiot. Swearing to uphold the Constitution is all well and good, but when it's coupled with assuming yourself to be the ultimate arbiter of whether an order is Constitutional, you abrogate all other oaths you have taken...including the oaths taken in the police force and the military to obey those given Constitutional authority to give you those orders. It's circular logic...ergo, crazytalk nutjobbery. The fact of the matter is, these jackholes come out of the woodwork every time a Dem takes office because they're populated by racists, bigots, religious freaks, confederate throwbacks, mulletheads, militaristic conservatives, etc. The only cure is education, but the TX school board is already making its best attempts to prevent it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
reaganmarine84
June 9, 2010 2:23 PM in reply to Sniffit
I came over here to infiltrate the enemy camp. The large majority of the mentally challenged moonbats,with no lives,living in mama's basement,trolling around on sites such as this;and who (most likely) never served nor would consider serving a single day in defense of this nation and its constitutiopn would understand why Oath Keeper's exist. I've been a member since 2009 and proudly display my support for the organization on my car and at my house. I took an oath to support,defend and preserve the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America. Not some "President's" or "courts" interpretation of it. I'm a free thinking individual;Unlike the 'sheeple' that are blindly led aroudn with no thought of there own,I think for myself. The concept of Oath Keeper's is fairly simplistic. I know that might be a little too basic for you 'enlightened and utra-intelligient' beings;I will not obey or carry out any order given to me that violates a citizens constitutional rights.period. What's wrong with that??? If it were you that I was to carry out the order upon,you would thank me for holding up your freedom. so,STFU!!!! Some within the Oath Keeper's organization may believe in some government conspiracy FEMA camps. I do not. So don't lump all of us together. I want to protect every American citizens constitutional rights. including y ours. Here's an idea. Go to the Oath keeper's website,checkout their mission statement on the values they vow to uphold;and then,wait for it,make your own judgement. SEMPER FI.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rufus
June 9, 2010 3:37 PM in reply to reaganmarine84
Where two or more are gathered, there are different interpretations of the constitution. So if we don't follow that of the "courts" whose version do we follow? Yours? But then who am I? just one of the"sheeple."You, on the other hand,are...well... special.It's all about being so "superior." Damn those "sheeple" with their brains and accomplishments.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 9, 2010 3:49 PM in reply to reaganmarine84
Eat me, lackwit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mark Chilton
June 9, 2010 5:28 PM in reply to reaganmarine84
Okay, uphold your oath, dude. That's fine. But under the constitution, who is the Commander-in-Chief? The President that you threaten to disobey. Who is the ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality? The United States Supreme Court that you threaten to disobey. Face it: If you don't intend to obey the Commander-in-Chief and the Supreme Court, then you are the enemy domestic. And just so you know, I and all my fellow patriots intend to defend our country, our Nation and our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
reaganmarine84
June 9, 2010 11:10 PM in reply to Mark Chilton
I am upholding my oath. DUDE. and I quote "that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States,and the orders of the officers appointed over me,(now listen up)according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military justice." That being said,or written,that allows me the freedom to not obey any order I believe to be 'unconstitutional' if given by the POTUS or my officers.You lefties have been using it for decades. So now that the shoe is on the other foot,it's suddenly not okay any more. whatever.I guess only progressive liberals are allowed to use that clause. And in some cases,such as this,I believe this President to be an enemy of the Constitution. If he gave an order to disarm American citizens and confiscate their firearms;that is a CLEAR violation of their second amendments rights and therefore I WOULD NOT DO IT. The Constitution is above any President. If the President is upholding his oath under Article VI,clause 3 of the Constitution,which is the same basic oath as mine,then we don't have any problems. DUDE. BTW,I don't remember the Supreme Court being mentioned in the oath I took. So I swear no alligience to them AT ALL. Now the only problem we seem to have hear is a failure to communicate. You say you and your fellow "patriots" will preserve,protect and defend the same as I would. The problem is our definition of 'enemy' seems to differ.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 14, 2010 1:15 PM in reply to reaganmarine84
How many orders has the President ever given you, champ? Less than one, I bet,
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
reaganmarine84
June 16, 2010 10:24 PM in reply to Signalman
tell me again exactly why that matters???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 17, 2010 9:21 AM in reply to reaganmarine84
Because you're a dumbass and you don't even read what you write.
If you believe that the President is either illegitimate and thereby ineligible to give you an illegal order, then your defense applies only to orders issued to you FROM THE PRESIDENT, nitwit. Once an order travels down the chain of command, your defense no longer applies. The only defenses you could apply in that case are that either the officer *issuing you the order* is ineligible to do so, or else that the order being issued is illegal.
*You* don't have the authority to decide what orders are and are not Constitutional; that's not in your purview, and unless you work in the E-Ring of the Pentagon, it's above your pay grade. All you get to decide is whether or not a given order is within regs, doesn't require you to do anything illegal or violative of OPSEC and is issued by an officer or NCO within your chain of command. That's it.
If you find yourself unable to follow orders, then man up and GTFO of the service. And if you're already out, good effing riddance. I wouldn't want a 'man' like you wearing the uniform of my country. You're a damn disgrace.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
June 9, 2010 7:03 PM in reply to reaganmarine84
I think your comment is reason enough for us to be concerned about your little club. If you wanted to enlighten us to your cause, rude remarks, insults and half-assed reasoning won't cut it here, son. You, and those like you, are NOT the ones I want defending my "Constitutional rights."
And guess what, sweetheart, there are many, many vets and current military on this site. I happen to be the mother of a Marine. I find you and your kind to be dangerous to him and his fellow Marines. Your little ruse of "defending the Constitution" is bullshit and we know it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
June 9, 2010 7:31 PM in reply to reaganmarine84
It says a lot about you that you consider a blog expressing opposing opinions to your own to be an "enemy camp."
The concept of Oath Keeper's is fairly simplistic.
Actually, I think I might agree with that, but "simplistic" does not mean what you seem to think it means.
I don't know about "utra-intelligient," but unlike you, I do know how to spell "intelligent." And how to use apostrophes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aacme
June 9, 2010 10:29 PM in reply to reaganmarine84
Here's a question for you. Would you consider yourself an Obamamarine?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jegan
June 9, 2010 12:11 PM
Coo-coo! Coo-coo! Coo-coo . . . .
If this loony-tune, paranoiac whack job gets elected to the U.S. Senate, the State of Nevada SHOULD secede from the Union. For the better of all of us.
When does Sister Sarah make her campaign stop? What a freak show!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JBL1955
June 9, 2010 12:20 PM
"... supporters of the [Oath Keepers] movement believe they're living through the first steps of the shift away from constitutional freedom ..."
I wonder where they were during eight years of the Cheney administration. Oh, yeah -- those guys were white.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rufus
June 9, 2010 4:48 PM in reply to JBL1955
Actually one of their founding myths is that after Katrina, the police( or some authority)went around confiscating guns even in neighborhoods that had not been flooded. I have never heard that from anyone else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joe1776
June 9, 2010 5:23 PM in reply to JBL1955
I think there are good arguments between both sides. No matter what you believe, you probably owe it to yourself to take the time and check this out. http://www.OperationPitchfork.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Capt Elaine
June 9, 2010 12:31 PM
Conservatives are just dumb racists... nothing new here EVER!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eve cairo
June 9, 2010 12:33 PM
Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 9, 2010 12:59 PM
Exactly what is Reid's and the left's opposition to the Oath Keepers? Are they trying to say that any orders issued should be followed by the military? That was the Nuremberg defense taken by the Nazis and exactly the situation that the Oath Keepers are trying to prevent. Trying to paint them as an 'extremist group' is ridiculous - they ARE our armed forces. Joining the Oath Keepers is simply a reaffirmation of the oath taken by the members of the military.
Here's another thought - has it occurred to anyone that the SPLC has become an anti-american hate group actively working to undermine a patriotic movement among law-abiding citizens? Well, it should, since the SPLC has devolved to exactly such a loathsome position. There're not that many white supremacists to chase down, so its time to chase patriot groups to keep up the funding coming from the left? Is that it? Sad...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
June 9, 2010 1:27 PM in reply to Gene
Thanks for sharing - we haven't had a good concern troll in a while.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
June 9, 2010 1:31 PM in reply to Gene
Thanks for sharing - we haven't had a good concern troll in a while.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
June 9, 2010 1:54 PM in reply to Gene
Yeah, those shotguns you bought at WalMart are really a match for billion dollar drones.
Thanks for protecting me, Bubba.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Red XIV
June 9, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to Gene
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Red XIV
June 9, 2010 2:53 PM in reply to Gene
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rufus
June 9, 2010 4:56 PM in reply to Gene
Soldiers are required to know what is and is not a legal order. They are not tasked with interpreting the Constitution of the United States.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Pandonodrim
June 9, 2010 2:20 PM
Not saying that most of these guys are probably nuts and completely detached from reality... but sadly they actually have a point. Japanese-American internment camps in WWII. Guantanamo Bay. These things have precedence. Anyone who is not at least concerned about the power of our government is foolish or at least naive. The second amendment is important - the problem is the only people vocally standing up for it are nuts like this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
June 9, 2010 3:19 PM in reply to Pandonodrim
Is there a threat to the second amendment that I am unaware of?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
June 9, 2010 7:44 PM in reply to Pandonodrim
I might give your defense more credence if there were any actual Oath Keepers refusing to obey orders concerning Guantanamo Bay. I have yet to hear of any.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 9, 2010 3:46 PM
"Again, read what I first wrote."
No, YOU go back and read what you first wrote. You clearly said that "the fringe left" "believe(s) in large American concentration camps."
I ask again -- kindly substantiate that claim, sir, or else retract your statement like an adult.
"I think it would be disingenuous to not acknowledge that there were elements from the left who believed that the Bush/Fema/Haliburton camps were going to be used for dissidents of the Bush administration."
Excellent. Then kindly substantiate the existence of said people and/or groups, as I have asked you to do more than once. Don't expect that you're going to automatically be taken at your word when you make a claim like that.
The only thing I said is the fringe left and right have more in common than they are comfortable admitting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
June 9, 2010 4:32 PM in reply to Signalman
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=36655
Need more?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 9, 2010 5:35 PM in reply to LiberalRedneck
No mention of camps in there. Or, more to the point, no mention of concentration camps.
I don't reject that Cynthia McKinney is a nut (I live in GA and am well-acquainted with her nuttery), but that Snopes link doesn't substantiate the claim for which I am asking for substantiation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
June 9, 2010 5:39 PM in reply to Signalman
Okay, well the Mother Jones ones does.
I don't know why its so hard for you to accept that we have loonies on the left. Why do you think progressives swallow their pride and vote Democratic? The alternatives are full of lunatics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 9, 2010 5:52 PM in reply to LiberalRedneck
"Okay, well the Mother Jones ones does."
No, not really. Read the article more closely.
"I don't know why its so hard for you to accept that we have loonies on the left."
I accept that just fine. I simply don't accept the specific and as-yet unsubstantiated claim that "the fringe left" "believe(s) in large American concentration camps."
Kindly do not put words in my mouth, sir, or ascribe to me views that I do not hold. I have been quite specific in my criticism and disagreement, and I would appreciate it if you would reciprocate in both manner and temper.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
June 9, 2010 4:35 PM in reply to Signalman
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4145
More.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
June 9, 2010 4:39 PM in reply to LiberalRedneck
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/06/bp-oil-spill-fema-camps
I can find more, but I would rather not as it is embarrassing to the left.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 9, 2010 5:47 PM in reply to LiberalRedneck
There's nothing in there to tie that loon to the left. In fact, a close reading of the article appears to indicate that he's on quite a few radio shows with "Patriot" and Oath Keeper nutters.
Just because someone's quoted or interviewed in Mojo doesn't make them lefty.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
June 9, 2010 5:49 PM in reply to Signalman
Oh yeah, there's nothing on MOTHER JONES to tie that article to the left.
I stand by my earlier statement of "pedantic ass."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 9, 2010 6:27 PM in reply to LiberalRedneck
Rush Limbaugh is quoted in that article. I guess he votes Democratic now, huh?
I'll say it again -- that guy hangs out with 'patriots' and Oath Keepers. If you want to try to paint him as a leftist, then you're simply not reading the things you post.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 9, 2010 5:44 PM in reply to LiberalRedneck
This guy doesn't appear to agree with you.
From the article (see the fifth graf): "Despite the reasonable plausibility, most of the sources trumpeting FEMA prison camps are clearly delusional, blaming the "Illuminati" for the prison camps, and claiming that they are to support the "new world order."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
June 9, 2010 5:46 PM in reply to Signalman
So fucking what?
You asked for evidence that people on the left believe in FEMA camps.
I provided that.
Just admit you're wrong and we can go on with our lives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 9, 2010 6:33 PM in reply to LiberalRedneck
Besides being a very rude and intemperate person, you don't pay attention very well, and I have serious doubts about your reading ability as well as your research and argumentation skills.
When you'd like to behave and respond in a more collegial and polite manner, feel free to let me know. Otherwise, I don't think I care to discourse with you any further. I seem to be doing a lot better with the poster to whom I originally replied, and I don't think I'll be requiring your services or your screams from the front porch any longer.
Do have a good evening.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
June 9, 2010 7:59 PM in reply to LiberalRedneck
Who on the left in that article is expressing a belief in FEMA concentration camps?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 14, 2010 12:59 PM in reply to slb
Be careful. If you question him or ask him to provide any sort of evidentiary support for anything, he'll call you a pedantic ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stevez_86
June 9, 2010 4:22 PM
I would like to hear their opinion of the DEA raids on the marijuana dispensaries in California during the Bush years after medical marijuana was legalized BY THE PEOPLE. Following any kind of logic (which is a severe mistake since we are talking about the far right wing) these people would have literally been up in arms about the Federal Government infringing on State's Rights and the will of the PEOPLE. Not to mention the over-regulation of business they are so fearful of.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rufus
June 9, 2010 5:09 PM
Inquiring minds want to know. What are these faciities? "Sudden influx of immigrants crossing the borders.." Don't make me LOL. End the paranoia and tell the people what they are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Thornhill
June 9, 2010 6:53 PM
Late Update: Rhodes called us back to stress that Oath Keepers is not a militia. "We don't train or horde weapons or any of that kind of nonsense. We are an education outfit," he says
Don't horde weapons? One of the Oath Keepers was caught with a live Napalm Bomb in his home.
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/06/09/man-with-napalm-bomb-is-latest-oath-keeper-to-face-trial/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ooo ooo
June 9, 2010 6:56 PM
concentration camps? look no further than the millions in prison for non-violent crimes. US taxpayers are willing to spend $36,000 per year per inmate to lock up people who are no threat to society, only to themselves... freedom? let it be ringed... by barbed wire.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aacme
June 9, 2010 9:45 PM
Well, gosh. I think it's a good thing that soldiers and police sign an oath refusing to participate in a dictatorial roundup of citizens for confinement in concentration camps. I'd sign that too. I get the impression from these folks however that they mean only Democrat run concentration camps.
I think there is EVERY reason to fear a dictatorial takeover in this country, but it won't come from the Democrats. The Supreme Court ruling that it'd ok for Exxon, or any comparable size company (BP?) to buy every seat in congress, plus the presidency for a total cost of less than 10% of its current annual profit is a step in that direction, not the first. So if soldiers and police want to refuse participation in a dictatorship, I say great! But they need to refuse even if the order comes from someone they voted for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
June 10, 2010 1:39 PM
While these "oath keepers" are all concerned about the government taking away our freedom, corporations are slowly tightening the screws; buying our legislators and performing government functions without regard to law or constitution. If Rand Paul gets his way, freedom of religion and freedom against discrimination will be platatudes; business can refuse to serve or hire anybody on a whim. Not white? Not "Christian"? Woman? Gay? They will prove such people are worthless by not permitting them to work or engage in commerce.
And these wackos are afraid of Obama?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
June 10, 2010 4:04 PM
Neo-Nazi groups cloaked in a white shroud of faux "Constitutionalism." Throw in Sharron Angle, and you have the "Handmaid's Tale."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mary Alice
June 10, 2010 9:52 PM
Re Angle's election:
Maybe there is a God. Somebody's looking out for Harry Reid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 12, 2010 2:05 PM
You state it exactly correct. However the focus has expanded on the part of the DOD to include protection from internal threats as well as external. Internal threat protection used to be the province of the FBI and of the states themselves. This is a significant modification of the role of the DOD and has opened up an entirely new entry point for defense contactors to hawk their wares to the government. I don't think people have yet realized the overall significance of this change. There was never any intent of having the military conduct internal intelligence operations. Historically, this was actually prohibited. I'm unconvinced this was a wise change.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
June 13, 2010 9:56 AM in reply to Edwin
However the focus has expanded on the part of the DOD to include protection from internal threats as well as external. Internal threat protection used to be the province of the FBI and of the states themselves. This is a significant modification of the role of the DOD
_____
1. Before the advent of the FBI, it was the role of the state's militia; see Shays' and Whiskey rebellions.
2. There is nothing new about it: the "Posse Commitatus Act" was enacted for a reason, no because there wasn't need for it.
3. If the terrorism is potentially inter/multi-national, then one uses all legal resources against them. Though only suggested, it was suggested at the time that McVeigh was tied to terrorists outside the US (anything but focus on or go after the white supremacist/Neo-Nazi domestic terrorists who plant bombs year in and year out).
Who do we send in then? The FBI, whose proper role is policing across state lines? Or the CIA, who proper focus is extra-domestic?
_____
There was never any intent of having the military conduct internal intelligence operations. Historically, this was actually prohibited.
_____
Hogwash ahistorical knee-jerk far-right lunatic fringe anti-gum-mint spew. See Shays' and Whiskey rebellions. And see domestic military spy networks during both "revolution" and Civil War.
It isn't wise to cite history which isn't history but instead paranoid ideation all one's own.
And one should keep constantly in mind the provenance of anti-gov't crackpottery: our system of laws is based upon and derived from the fact the We the people are the gov't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
January 26, 2011 11:40 PM
No mention of camps in there. Or, more to the point, no mention of concentration camps.
I don't reject that Cynthia McKinney is a nut (I live in GA and am well-acquainted with her nuttery), but that Snopes link doesn't substantiate the claim for which I am asking for substantiation.
Netoby
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?