They’ve been watching Red Dawn again
The paranoia and racism of the unhinged fringe ought to be taken seriously, and it seems the Secret Service is doing exactly that. According to a report in the Boston Globe, President Obama has drawn an unprecedented number of threats against his life, overwhelming the ability of the Secret Service to check out all the lunatics to see how serious they are.
The domestic threat is also growing, fueled in part by Obama’s election as the nation’s first black president, according to specialists who study homegrown radical movements.
Obama, who was given Secret Service protection 18 months before the election – the earliest ever for a presidential candidate – has been the target of more threats since his inauguration than his predecessors.
UPDATE: Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan says that while there was a rise in threats right after the inauguration, the number of threats against Obama is now “within the range” of the number of threats against the last two presidents.
On the other hand, there are moments when the paranoia of the wingnuts is almost comical. A new group called Oath Keepers has pledged to keep the feds from violating the Second Amendment by confiscating weapons.
Formed in March, they are ex-military and police who repledge themselves to defend the Constitution, even if it means disobeying orders. If the U.S. government ordered law enforcement agencies to violate Second Amendment rights by disarming the people, Oath Keepers will not obey.
“The whole point of Oath Keepers is to stop a dictatorship from ever happening here,” says founding father Stewart Rhodes, an ex-Army paratrooper and Yale-trained lawyer. “My focus is on the guys with the guns, because they can’t do it without them.
Hey, people believe what they want. That’s what makes this a great country. But, really, folk, the government has nuclear weapons and F-16s. If by some convoluted Manchurian takeover, the feds wanted a dictatorship, would your hunting rifles stop them?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
106 comments Add your comment
dewstarpath
October 20th, 2009
4:21 pm
- Alexander Haig thought “Red Dawn” was one of
the greatest movies of all time back in ‘84. They’re
remaking it again, filming in Detroit. It’s even crazier
now, but entertaining back then.
jconservative
October 20th, 2009
4:37 pm
“Obama…has been the target of more threats since his inauguration than his predecessors.”
I am not surprised. Even though most citizens of the US say they believe in the Constitution & the rule of law there are a large number who do not. But as you say, people believe what they want to believe.
And here is the sad part the Oath Keepers do not understand. No one would bother to take away their guns to establish a “manchurian dictatorship” (great phrase Cynthia). Instead they would take away their bank accounts, 401K’s, unemployment checks, social security checks and, most important, availability of gasoline. Taking away guns is early 19th century stuff. This is the 21st century.
libertarian
October 20th, 2009
4:57 pm
It doesn’t matter. It’s all academic. After the 2010 elections Obama will be a powerless President, having lost BOTH houses of Congress, and after 2012, he’ll be relegated to the ash heap of history as a do-nothing President along the lines of Jimmy Carter, James Buchanan, Warren Harding, and Ulysses Grant, among others.
Shananeeeeee Fananeeeeeeee
October 20th, 2009
4:58 pm
I would never want anything to happen to our President or another man but I still think this guy is corrupt. A lot of those threats probably have to do with his race by the crazies out there, the others are from crazies who don’t like what this guy or his administation is doing. Maybe there is a couple from senior citizens who voted for him because of his promise for change and ending income tax for all seniors making less than $50,000 a year. Well this promise has turned out to be a lie so maybe hard working Grandma and Grandpa out there are angry. Maybe some are coming from the many people who are out of work who voted for him because of change and the promise to create 3 million jobs when they haven’t created 30,000 jobs yet. Maybe some are from mothers who are worried about the kind of future their kids have when the deficit goes up by the day and in the schools their kids are taught to sing an Obama propaganda song or hear one of his advisors express her admiration for Mao Tse Tung, a man who is responsible for more deaths than Hitler. Maybe people are tired of the government putting their hands into everything. Just this week with all the the problems we have there are people in our government concentrating on changing the College Football Bowl system. Maybe it is because the government is more worried about steroids in baseball then the millions and millions of dollars spent every month on wars. The administration is now influencing television, complaining about free speech news organizations, and next they are going for the internet. People are getting angry and are looking forward to 2010 and some are even more anticipating 2012.
Richard Roma
October 20th, 2009
5:03 pm
I think Cynthia may be the paranoid one. She thinks everyone who disagrees with her is a racist. She isn’t the only one, though, who has a knee-jerk reaction to throw that word around. I think it has lost it’s meaning.
Joan
October 20th, 2009
5:14 pm
I don’t dislike Obama because of his color. It goes a lot deeper than that. The man lies every time he opens his mouth, and he is being outed left and right. Naturally people are fearful for the terrible tax hikes that are expected, for the polarization of the people by this out in left field White House group, by the dismissal of those who work hard, apparently in favor of those who are content to set back and relax, and whose only real job is to vote Democrat every few years. It is easy to hate him, Rahm, Anita, and all the other loonies in the White House. They are destroying a great country and we are forced to watch it happen.
Davo
October 20th, 2009
5:17 pm
“…the feds wanted a dictatorship, would your hunting rifles stop them?”
With statements like that, it’s a wonder why Tucker and her ilk frown on slavery, because that’s exactly what she asks for.
Joan
October 20th, 2009
5:22 pm
About that “Manchurian takerover”. I think that is what is going on now. Obama was the perfect Manchurian Candidate. An empty suit, high on himself, and low on leverage. The guy doesn’t even make his own liberals happy. He can do no right. I wonder if he has even figured out yet that he is simply a cog in the machine. Pelosi probably threatens to spank him if he talks out of turn.
Paul
October 20th, 2009
5:26 pm
Ms McKinney
Do you have a cite from this Oath Keepers group that says they pledge to disobey orders with which they disagree?
I took a look at their web site. There are a lot of currently serving military, as well as police. Given you’ve stated that these professionals who’ve sworn to uphold the law will willingly disobey the law…. well, I’d sure be interested in that citation.
Randall W. Capps
October 20th, 2009
5:26 pm
What does this woman do for a living? It sure isn’t writing. Can’t she make one blog post with out half of it having been written by someone else?
She’s obviously making a veiled reference to obama’s off-handed remark about people in Penn. clinging to their religion and guns.
She is right about one thing: WE LIVE IN A DICTATORSHIP. And I wrote that without using the cap button but the “old-fashioned” way: The shift key.
This is prize winning writing?
Bruce Krafft
October 20th, 2009
5:34 pm
I find it fascinating that there are people who seem to feel threatened (and if you don’t feel threatened, why refer to them as paranoid wingnuts?) by a group of folks who say they will obey their oath to protect the Constitution.
As for Cynthia’s last point:
1) That is why the Second Amendment protects military style weapons, not just hunting weapons. And
2) I think Cynthia discounts the utility of a hunting rifle. A reasonably skilled marksman can hit a man-sized target out to 500 yards, a skilled marksman can hit out to 750 yards, and an excellent marksman can hit out to 1,000 yards. This means that with a “hunting rifle” one person can control about 162 acres, 365 acres, and 649 acres (or about 1 square mile) respectively.
Oh, and remember that the pilots of those F-16s may well be Oath-Keepers themselves . . .
Paul
October 20th, 2009
5:42 pm
Ms Tucker
My apologies for the incorrect surname in my 5:26.
Steve in Arizona
October 20th, 2009
5:50 pm
“Threats against President Obama are increasing.” — Obama Administration Press Release
Translation: “Whaaaaa………nobody likes me! Is it because I’m trashing the country like East German leaders did, or (sniffle, sniffle) is it because I’m a black man?”
Obama is a pathetic liar. Only naive foreigners and fools still fall for his stupid press release talking points like his paranoid “they’re threatening me” daily whines to the press. Even “liberal” Americans have caught on to this clown. “Liberals” have just discovered what the rest of us knew: Barack Obama is a hard-lined leftist like Hugo Chavez. He’s not the “ushy-squshy liberal” that many thought he was.
Peter
October 20th, 2009
5:53 pm
Oath Keepers’ “ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY”: “We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.”
That line tends to suggest a contradiction with… um… the Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 on its face. But there’s more…
Since they say “invade”, they imply that their idea of asserting “sovereignty” is secession, as otherwise “invade” would not be an appropriate term.
Their slogan says: “Guardians of the Republic… Honor Your Oath. Join us.” But if they won’t take action against a state that secedes (their idea of state sovereignty), then they are not defending the Constitution. The Constitution exists “to form a more perfect Union.” The Oath Keeper refusal above implies dissolution.
The Oath Keepers need to either re-word their refusal, or change their name and purpose, as in its current form, it is clear they do not exist to defend the Constitution. In fact, they seem to be implicitly arrayed against both it and the Union.
Paul
October 20th, 2009
6:05 pm
Peter 5:53
Cite? Link?
Paul
October 20th, 2009
6:15 pm
Peter
I saw it on the right side of their lead page.
Looks like it’s time for Sec Gates and some police chiefs to exercise some adult leadership.
But I still do not see corroboration of Ms Tuckers claims.
Sean
October 20th, 2009
6:22 pm
Here we go again. Cynthia Tucker wasting our time with a pointless article about who cares.
Paul
October 20th, 2009
6:36 pm
Well Sean, it’s a pretty big deal.
Ms Tucker asserts we have a fair number of currently-serving military personnel who would willingly disobey lawful orders. Same with police officers.
The Second Amendment point is pretty silly. All sorts of highly improbably events would have to occur. More the stuff of cheap novels.
But her first assertion: that is quite serious. She says, in effect, many serving military cannot be trusted.
El Jefe
October 20th, 2009
6:46 pm
It really does not surprise me at all. Take any President that deals in unpopular policies and there will be threats.
You must wonder, if the threats are because he is acting against the common good or if some folks don’t like Progressivism.
Most of us older folks, take an immediate dislike to anything that smacks of socialism, Marxist, Maoist or even Stalinist and embrace the words and concepts housed in the Constitution.
Kamchak
October 20th, 2009
6:49 pm
Paul
Getting a link here? Most don’t know how or what you’re talking about, and posting a link here may get you moderated.
@@
October 20th, 2009
6:53 pm
:-OMG, Paul. I just took a look at Cynthia’s blog.
You called her Ms. McKinney!!?!!
(IHSH)
Paul
October 20th, 2009
7:02 pm
@@
For which I duly apologized.
I read her post, then a friend called. So I was listening to that talk and began typing and got names mixed.
And I was NOT thinking of the ex-Congresswoman! Yikes!
Kamchak
Thanks much for the heads up.
I notice Ms Tucker referenced ex-military while the Oath Keepers references currently serving. Makes me wonder if there are separate oaths or if her source material is suspect.
Still and all, there’s a club for nearly everyone, isn’t there?
Off to a football game.
Pleasant evening to you both.
malg64
October 20th, 2009
7:24 pm
You people are absolutely insane…no wonder only 20% of the country will say they are with you…what a paranoid joke you all have become.
Kevin
October 20th, 2009
7:38 pm
Let’s see. A Pulitzer Prize winning writer (Cynthia) resorts to third grade name calling:
Unhinged fringe
Lunatics
Wingnuts
I have about as much respect for the Pulitzer committee as I do the Nobel committee.
John Bates Thayer
October 20th, 2009
8:30 pm
Threats against Obama’s life?
Why worry?
Be happy!
Tax payer funded Public Option, NEVER!
October 20th, 2009
9:17 pm
“wingnuts”? mmmmm, mmmmm, mmmmm, Barack INSANE Obama
Yo'mama Obama
October 20th, 2009
9:19 pm
Somewhere deep in the jungles of Kenya, a village is missing its idiot……
Grob Hahn
October 20th, 2009
9:32 pm
Wingnuts??? Tsk tsk
Dr. R
October 20th, 2009
9:33 pm
Cynthia, why are you so obsessed with the fringe? Address issues with people who can offer sound arguments to the contrary and you’ll have a civil debate. But you seem intent on taking the lunatic ravings from the margins and focusing on those as if they are the mainstream of opposing thought. You elevate those arguments while at the same time fail to engage those who have honest and well-reasoned disagreements with the majority view. Apparently you don’t feel you can match those argyuments effectively. I suppose choosing to debate with braind-dead morons is easier than taking on those with intellectual heft, but it isn’t wehat I’d expect from a prize-winning olumnist.
Elder Speaker
October 20th, 2009
9:35 pm
Cynthia,
Will you please attempt to refrain from name-calling. Name-calling is incendiary and serves no intelligent purpose.
“Course I know she never bothers to read her responders so I’m wasting my time.
godless heathen
October 20th, 2009
9:36 pm
“But, really, folk, the government has nuclear weapons and F-16s. If by some convoluted Manchurian takeover, the feds wanted a dictatorship, would your hunting rifles stop them?”
Yup. Nuclear weapons and F-16s can’t seem to beat a bunch of cave dwelling Afghans so Bubba and me with our deer rifles will do alright.
Obama should quit whining, apologizing, and taking Michelle out on date nights and get to leading _all the people_.
Dr. R
October 20th, 2009
9:43 pm
True Elder, I’ve never known Cynthia to engage bloggers in a conversation, as Jay Bookman and others do. I thought that was the idea of a blog. If you believe in your ideas, you should be willing to discuss it with others and not hide behind the gray walls on Marietta Street. Guess when you got a Pulitzer you’re too good to swap notions with the rabble on the streets.
Jordan
October 20th, 2009
9:47 pm
Get used to it Barack Obama will serve an 8 year term! Who you crackers going to run Palin? Our president took over a damn train wreck. There is NO ONE who could fix this mess in 10 months. I disagree with everything he is doing with the banks big time but I don’t claim to understand running a country. Your guys are going to be out of power for about sixteen years. Get used to it!
MikeB
October 20th, 2009
9:48 pm
I don’t wish Obama any harm. I do wish that you Ms. Tucker would quit playing your “race” card. We have not forgotton that he is some % African American………. I could care less. Its his policies and his kissing up to every leader in th world that I am concerned about.
So far nothing he has done internationally has made Americans, safer or more respected abroad.
Ms. Tucker…….. Please don’t distract the readers from this with your race baiting. Most intelligent conservatives see right through this BS smoke & mirrors act. And there are plenty of intelligent conservatives. Contrary to wingnut liberal belief. See? Conservatives can use that word too
Whatever
October 20th, 2009
9:55 pm
I wouldn’t respond to your right-wing drivel either if was her. Mt-suit, socialist, communist, marxist, blah! State some intelligent, independent facts and then maybe you’ll get a response. No predictions no forecasts, no Rush-Beck-Hannity talking points, just facts.
TnGelding
October 20th, 2009
9:58 pm
Let’s hope it is all just a lot of bluster and blood is never shed.
Kevin
October 20th, 2009
9:59 pm
I read today that the NYT laid off 100 in their newsroom. The AJC high-tailed it out of downtown to the ‘burbs. And Cindy moves to DC to cover this “historic presidency.”
I hope Cindy’s making some connections in DC, because, having no real marketable skills and no real writing talent, she’s going to need a cushy government job.
Jarhead1982
October 20th, 2009
10:02 pm
Actually Cynthia, if one looks at the reality of such a conflict, yes, rifles will wim! Nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and such will not be unleashed on the continental US by the government unless they are truly insane. Nor will concentrated artillery fire, mortar fire, mass bombings by B-52’s, B-1, or B-2’s. The conflict will be pretty much conventional and the civilian population no matter how cowed by the Obamalamadingdong Prozac Koolaid, will not stand for the messy results of collaterall damage on American soil!
Today there just over 3 million military and police personnel in US service. There are however over 100 million law abiding gun owners in the US.
For all those military and police to be active on US soil, all oversea’s military facilties and commitments would have to be abandoned. All police and military would have to be counted on to subdue the 100 million law abiding gun owners. Indeed, how many of those police and military personnel would refuse to attack US citizens, fire upon, put into re-education camps, hmmmmm. How many military personnel do you KNOW, I know many, past and present.
We see how effective brutal and concentrated military force is at stopping determined insurgencies in Iraq & Afghanistan. It is still going on 8 years later! They sure seem to be able to communicate, travel, supply, and fight even with our technological advantage.
Now how many of those retired military personnel took their knowledge with them? How many of those military supplies and equipment will end up in the oath keepers hands?
Yep, you are really a leading Military strategist that has a clue about what it takes to defeat even a small percentage of the 100 million.
After all the last simple fact remains, those 100 million gun owners would only have to kill the approximately 5,000 politicians to solve that little problem of tyrrany, wouldnt they? Some reason, the numbers just dont add up to support your position that we lowly peasants wouldnt stand a chance!
Whatever
October 20th, 2009
10:03 pm
Joan
October 20th, 2009
5:14 pm
I don’t dislike Obama because of his color. It goes a lot deeper than that. The man lies every time he opens his mouth
___________________________________________________
And you discredit yourself just by saying somethng that stupid.
James from Oklahoma
October 20th, 2009
10:08 pm
Anyone who is a member of this organization and is a member of law enforcement or the military should be relieved of their position immediately, fired if law enforcement, kicked out of the military, and tried for sedition. This organization is made up of traitors against the union and they should be prosecuted. These are the same kind of scum that blew up the Murrah building. Tell me? How many children have to die this time? What’s the body count? If you don’t think it can’t happen, ask any government employee who works in Oklahoma City what if felt like to have the shock wave go through their body.
ken
October 20th, 2009
10:09 pm
Cindy, please, there is not on Military Pilot that would shoot a U.S. Citizen and the police will never take our guns.
NObama is like the used car salesman. Good talk, no walk.
Whatever
October 20th, 2009
10:11 pm
Jarhead, you’re from another planet apparently. Why analyze a scenario that’s never going to take place? And even if it does, do you really think it’s going to happen in the next few years? Get a grip man. The black boogieman president is not coming to take your guns. He even responded to that dumbass question during the campaign stating, “Even I I wanted to, how would we be able to get 200 million guns off the streets” (paraphrase) You all have really lost it. In 10 months the president has “destroyed the country”. I see your internet is still working.
Mike Vanderboegh
October 20th, 2009
10:14 pm
“Hey, people believe what they want. That’s what makes this a great country. But, really, folk, the government has nuclear weapons and F-16s. If by some convoluted Manchurian takeover, the feds wanted a dictatorship, would your hunting rifles stop them?”
Cynthia, you really didn’t pay attention to the story, did you? Oath Keepers are current and former military and police. Oath Keepers are the guys and gals you Obamanoids are counting on to oppress the rest of us. Get it? The whole point of reminding oath takers that the oath they took to the Constitution — not to a man, not a regime, but to the Founders’ Republic — is to prevent the F16s and nuiclear weapons from being used, you twit. And tell me, what kind of bloody-minded moron uses weapons of mass destruction on his or her own people and own soil? I’ll tell you what kind — exactly the tyrannical type that the Oath was designed by the Founders to prevent. You really don’t think things though, do you?
Mike Vanderboegh
sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com
The REAL GodHatesTrash, Superstar
October 20th, 2009
10:30 pm
Yes, the Oath Keepers are a pathetic bunch, but mentally deficient folks with guns are never funny.
Relax
October 20th, 2009
10:45 pm
Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama
RAMBLE ON!!!
October 20th, 2009
11:25 pm
We have bigger concerns, like how come Bad Company has not been inducted into the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame?
I mean really, can you name one bad song?
I think not.
Guy Fawkes
October 20th, 2009
11:31 pm
When stimuli fail and times are just plain hard, go on, Cynthia, and play the race card.
And when the spotlight shines on Obaman duplicity, count on Cindy to go off flogging ethnicity.
While China and Russia have the West in their sights, Ms. Tukcer’s worst fear is–gun-toting whites.
Oh count on dear Cindy to play the race card, that time-worn and trusted liberal canard.
Statistics don’t matter and facts need not apply; everyone’s a racist when race dominates your eye.
Chris
October 21st, 2009
12:50 am
Owning a gun and publicly vowing to continue to exercise that right does not make one a lunatic. Vowing to hold the government accountable does not mean one intends to do physical combat against fighter jets and nuclear bombs. Among the delightful exaggerations in this editorial, it is also humorous to see a claim about the number of threats against the President, followed immediate by an “update” that directly contradicts the claim. We used to call those “retractions” or “corrections” but, as they say, WHATever.
Ed Hansen
October 21st, 2009
1:59 am
From my close reading of the Oath Keepers “About” page tinyurl.com/nje3tp, it is a group of hypocritical seditionists.
In fact, their first section states, “Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.”
Of course, Article 2, Section 2 tinyurl.com/3hbxa “Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments,” plainly states “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” Therefore, their “oath to the Constitution” means they are definitively subject to the direction of the civilian President.
If they “will not ‘just follow orders,’” they intentionally insubordinate their Oath. It is the very antithesis of the stated “oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. *Please* reference the definition of “hypocrisy,” tinyurl.com/q7gbp.
Further, the following passage meets the definition of “sedition” in both the Random House Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary tinyurl.com/34wvor:
“The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers. We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops. To win that battle, Oath Keepers will use written and video testimony of active duty military, veterans (especially combat vets), and peace officers to reach, teach, and inspire our brothers in arms in the military and police to fulfill their oaths and stand as guardians of the Republic.”
Are they still watching the infamously re-edited prints of “The Birth of a Nation”?
The second “About” section proceeds to backpedal with nine statements of what they “are not”. It reads quite like a scene from “Monty Python’s Life of Brian”. tinyurl.com/93vfz:
Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Attendee: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peace – shut up!
Reg: There is not one of us who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of the Romans once and for all.
Dissenter: Uh, well, one.
Reg: Oh, yeah, yeah, there’s one. But otherwise, we’re solid.
Ah, personal memories of being accosted as I left a screening of “Brian” by congregants of Jack Hudson’s cult of personality Northside Baptist Church in Charlotte, NC in 1979. Sorry, back on topic…
Ms. Tucker’s use of the colloquial term “wingnut” might be inflammatory, but is not entirely off-base. The defacto leader of this great mass of these people, Rush Limbaugh, has been credited with saying, “he though most people are incredibly gullible, and he felt that the key to radio programming was to reach that crowd, and that it would be really, really easy. He thought he thought he could get anyone to believe anything he said, and the more outrageous is was, the more they would believe it.” tinyurl.com/3degf The Oath Keepers are doing the same thing. So have and are virtually all of the “conservative” thought leaders and commentators in all of their various ideological crusades.
Ms. Tucker and former President Jimmy Carter are only partially correct when they claim that racism is the basis of the tide of paranoid pantopragmatism.
In fact, the correct umbrella term for these groups is “Christian Identity.”
tinyurl.com/z4p2r If you’ve never heard the term, it is your righteous duty to yourself to read the afore linked page from religioustolerance.org. Anita Bryant, Timothy McVeigh, Unibomber Ted Kaczynski, Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church/God Hates Fags cult, and most every U.S. hate group fall into this devilish brew.
Hence, all of the disclaimers in the Oath Keepers second “About” section are demonstrably hypocritical lies that are diametrically opposed to their true beliefs.
Like President Obama standing up against Fox News, it is time for all reasonable Americans to stand up against this most dangerous and absurd idealism. Enough is enough.
In this post, I have strived to avoid ad hominem discourse and to provide copious reference links for the illumination of all. Still, I’m confident that this post will be attacked.
Thomas
October 21st, 2009
2:51 am
Based on Cynthia Tucker’s article, I would say that she is the fringe. Most Americans now believe, according to recent polls, that Obama’s policies are wrong. And to Ed- defending the constitution is not radical, nor should it constitute the term “wingnut”. It the base that this country was built on.
dewstarpath
October 21st, 2009
3:41 am
- Ed Hansen – couldn’t have said it better myself. Good work.
ck hall
October 21st, 2009
4:22 am
This statement by Cynthia really sounds authoritative– “according to specialists who monitor homegrown radical movements” Wow! I wonder who these people are?
Just another race story by Cynthia..Race seems to be a prerequsite in most all her writings and it seems to always bubble to the surface. How about an original article not partially rehashed from other sources?
miracleair
October 21st, 2009
4:26 am
Hi, Ed,
Having looked at the site, I’d characterize these folks (Oath Keepers) more as conscientious objectors who advocate resistance. I couldn’t find references to Christianity at the site, though, (other than the “so help me God” part), so I’m having trouble understanding your conclusion that they’re part of some Christian Identity group. From the description given at the link you provided, I understand that these groups are fearful of other ethnic or religious groups and advocate violence. Does it follow that any group fitting this description fall under the Christian Identity umbrella?
I’m also having trouble with your reference to Limbaugh — both in your characterization of him as the “de facto leader” of “these people” (who are “these people”? Are you referring to the Oath Keepers?) and the quote you provided. Who is the “he” that Limbaugh is referring to in the quote you provided, and would you mind providing a link?
Cassandra
October 21st, 2009
4:59 am
Ed:
“Of course, Article 2, Section 2 tinyurl.com/3hbxa “Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments,” plainly states “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” Therefore, their “oath to the Constitution” means they are definitively subject to the direction of the civilian President.”
Yes. Unless he is acting against the Constitution.
“If they “will not ‘just follow orders,’” they intentionally insubordinate their Oath. It is the very antithesis of the stated “oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. *Please* reference the definition of “hypocrisy,” tinyurl.com/q7gbp.
If the President were to attack the Bill of Rights by attacking the 1st or 2nd Amendment, then he would become a domestic enemy of the Constitution.
Cass
The REAL GodHatesTrash, Superstar
October 21st, 2009
5:17 am
The Oath Keepers are not lunatics. Like most Republicans, they are merely retarded.
clyde
October 21st, 2009
5:26 am
Sometiime in the near future it will probably become a crime to disagree with Obama.
Didn’t I just read a statement in the AJC from the Secret Service saying they were not overwhelmed?
Please stop confusing Cynthia Tucker and Cynthia McKinney.Ms. McKinney doesn’t need the bad publicity.
I disagree with Obama on many issues. I must be racist.
Lil' Barry Bailout
October 21st, 2009
5:52 am
The Obama acolytes have to paint as racists those who oppose their Idiot Messiah’s radical, economy-destroying, America-hating policies. Defending fascism isn’t easy, but they’re giving it a shot.
deborahinathens
October 21st, 2009
6:20 am
Where were these “concerned Constitutionalists” when Dubya, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of the gang were eviscerating the Constitution?
Jarhead1982
October 21st, 2009
6:33 am
Unfortunately Whatever, I spoke of the reality of the absurdity of Cynthias position, and her absolute lack of knowledge of what is militarily possible/impossible as she did indeed infer the military was almighty and men with rifles wouldnt stand a chance in defying said military might. I and so many others who have the knowledge and the experience, exposed the writers shortcomings and wrote “why her position was wrong”. Unless you actually prefer that kind of action rather than a rational explanation in words?
I did not state this would happen in our lifetime, you inferred. I did not mention the presidents race, you did. I didnt claim the country was being destroyed just by the current presidents agenda, you inferred that it is.
I did call the president a ding dong, just as I called Bush a ding dong for being a manipulated puppet and an idiot. No more, no less, yet you deign to infer I and so many others are nut cases because we publicly disagree verbally and in writing.
I have read that many mentally disturbed or people who never were taught as a child by their parents or teachers to learn how to intelligently deal with their fears will project their own internal fears onto others as a type of a “mental defensive system”, including denial and irrational thoughts and behaviours. Your responses Whatever prove this must be true, you should seek some help!
MikeB
October 21st, 2009
6:43 am
Clyde 5:36am……….. Ms. Tucker is hoping it goes one further……… Pretty soon it will be a crime to disagree with Obama & Ms. Tucker LoL…….Wonder if her ranting, raving and trying to label everyone to the “right” of her as fringe, and “wingnut” will end then.
Only in this country is it place where her 1st ammendment rights will be protected to the end, by people she claims cannot be trusted.
Sorry but its the agenda of Ms. Tucker that I do not trust. Thankfully she has no relevance, or credibility that would help her peddle this liberal manure any further than the AJC……… Middle of the road, and conservative Americans see right through all of these shallow blogs.
All the way
October 21st, 2009
6:44 am
McKinney is just mailing it in these days. Trivial issues from the fringe when there are big issues of our day to be discussed. Has Mckinney lost the fire? Does she no longer believe?
Just lazy.
Peadawg
October 21st, 2009
6:52 am
“the number of threats against Obama is now “within the range” of the number of threats against the last two presidents.”
Seems like democrats were doing the SAME thing against Bush. So like many times YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE. I don’t recall you complaining when there were threats against Bush.
mike
October 21st, 2009
7:10 am
Gee, looks like Cynthia is the paranoid one with her hysterical and untrue claims about threats on Obama’s life.
Of course, we all saw how paranoid she was with Bush in office, but we expect her to be a hypocrite on all matters.
Jimmy62
October 21st, 2009
7:22 am
Ummm… Cynthia, are you daft today? The “insurgent” forces in Iraq and the Taliban or whomever in Afghanistan seem to be holding up well with rifles against our nuclear weapons. In the event of an invasion by China or whatever, of course having rifles in your home would help protect you. And if enough people have rifles, then we can do something.
Not many dictators enjoy the thought of nuking the people they want to rule over. It’s hard to extract taxes from dead people. And considering some of the anti-gun rhetoric from the left, it’s simply foolish to believe that our government could never stoop to confiscating guns from citizens.
Ben
October 21st, 2009
7:25 am
“…the feds wanted a dictatorship, would your hunting rifles stop them?”
In one word “yes”. It would be a tough and bloody resistance but the people would win in the end. All you need to do is look at the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan; both occupied by foreign invaders for about 1 decade each but in the end their resistance forces got rid of the invaders and made examples of collaborators; we’ll see how this one turns out.
I Know?!
October 21st, 2009
7:27 am
I don’t think that the average American citizen will ever have to raise a gun to defend ourselves, but if it ever does come to that we will have let things go way too far. Our first line of defense against this happening is our right to vote. Before you stock up on ammo, get registered to vote. Then get to know who the candidates are, not just from tv commercials but find out who they are and what they stand for. Educate yourself before choosing those who will represent you. We Americans are going to learn some hard lessons in the next few years…I just hope the we do learn something from all of this before it get too out of hand.
TechLover
October 21st, 2009
7:34 am
Unfortunately, I think many of these far right zealots wish to have a self fulfilling prophesy. Some fringe group will start an armed conflict and when the police, Guard, or miltary intervene, they’ll pull the, “I told you so” card claiming the government is putting them down and wants their guns. What side do the Oath Keepers, etc. fall on? Do they follow lawful orders in suppressing an armed insurrection against their country, or do they side with the insurrection because “the government” is trying to take guns away from people in an armed rebellion?
Turd Ferguson
October 21st, 2009
8:09 am
Seems Cynthia views most things thur “Racist colored glasses”.
Dan
October 21st, 2009
8:13 am
The apex of irony, one of the “medias” most paranoid wingnuts, using that as a title for an opinion piece. What strikes me most strongly with the Dems is their incessant ability to project, their own foibles onto others.
William
October 21st, 2009
8:19 am
People who call people racist without the proof should be charged with a HATE crime.
bubba
October 21st, 2009
8:20 am
how long would it take the potus to decide to use the military against us citizens
MAC
October 21st, 2009
8:24 am
Ed Hansen, please provide link to verify your Rush Limbaugh “quote” on gullible people. It appears to be made up, much like the other recent fabricated “quotes” surrounding his proposed NFL team investment.
I see the AJC has updated Ms. Tucker’s blog with a statement from the Secret Service saying the threats to the President are no more than Bush or any other POTUS. So, sfter negating the whole point of Cindy’s blog, isn’t her paranoia from within?
William
October 21st, 2009
8:25 am
Cynthia Tucker I am making a citizen’s arrest. You are charged with a HATE crime. You have shown deliberate and intentional behavior to degrade persons based race and ideology. Lay down on the floor outstretch your arms and lay palms down. You forehand should be touching the floor. Now you will be handcuffed and taken down town after you have been read your rights. At that time you may call your lawyer. May God have mercy on your soul!
William
October 21st, 2009
8:32 am
Ed Hansen
October 21st, 2009
1:59 am
So the constitution gives the citizens no right to overthrow a tyrannical government? Is this a new writing of the constituion like the school books of history and government.
MAC
October 21st, 2009
8:53 am
Ed Hansen said above….”The defacto leader of this great mass of these people, Rush Limbaugh, has been credited with saying, “he though most people are incredibly gullible, and he felt that the key to radio programming was to reach that crowd, and that it would be really, really easy. He thought he thought he could get anyone to believe anything he said, and the more outrageous is was, the more they would believe it.”
________________________________________________
But Limbaugh never said it. This would be like me claiming I heard Obama say the same thing about gullible people in Chicago in 1998 (which is just as plausible) and then having you and others refer to me and write….. “Obama has been credited with saying ….”
Make your arguments without fabricating “quotes”.
jconservative
October 21st, 2009
9:02 am
Ben
“…the feds wanted a dictatorship, would your hunting rifles stop them?”
“In one word “yes”. It would be a tough and bloody resistance but the people would win in the end. All you need to do is look at the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan; both occupied by foreign invaders for about 1 decade each but in the end their resistance forces got rid of the invaders…”
Just to be accurate – both Iraq & Afghanistan still have thousands of invaders in their country.
————-
I repeat my earlier comments. Do you folks really think that if an organization wanted to take over this country guns would be a part of it? How about: take over all communications, internet financial transactions, land phone, cell, broadcast, cable – only outlets are the gov’t outlets. All personal financial transactions are through a gov’t issued “credit card”, currency is made worthless. Gold would have only an industrial value. Rationing of gasoline, electricity & food through the “credit card”. Medical care through the “credit card”. And your “credit card” is made worthless if you break the “rules” or do not do what you are told to do. Enter your soc sec number, hit the delete button & you are powerless.
Guns would be worthless, in fact, the “government” would probably hand them out for free just so a lot of you would feel good about having one.
It is the 21st century folks. The guy in charge of all communications will rule the country. This is the 21st century totalitarian dictatorship.
Skram30082
October 21st, 2009
9:08 am
RAMBLE ON:
“Rock and Roll Fantasy”…there’s your one bad song by Bad Company. The lyrics are atrocious…there’s nothing that even smells like “rock and roll” in them. I mean, seriously, there’s nothing redeeming at all about that one.
Atlanta_Tiger_Fan
October 21st, 2009
9:11 am
This woman is a racist nut and I can’t for the life me figure how she has a paying job!!!!
BoneHead
October 21st, 2009
9:21 am
Jordan,
From your comments I know you are a racist, it is a shame that you and your ilk hate and want to destroy America. I can’t wait for 2010; just hear you cry about losing what you think you had. If Obozo keeps lying to the people he may not last the first 4 years. I will not raise taxes on ANYBODY making under $250,000! What is the cap and tax bill then, that raises taxes on everybody. I will not sign any healthcare bill that is not revenue neutral, well Obozo there is no such thing, all of the dimacrat bills cost trillions of dollars. But HR3400 does not cost the tax payer one cent. Obozo will make his mark in history as America’s biggest liar.
Common Sense
October 21st, 2009
9:43 am
Ms. Tucker:
Here is what you fail to realize in your argument about “nuclear weapons and F-16’s”.
God forbid that our loss of freedom ever gets this bad in our country but if it did, and if 30% to 40% of the population rose up in arms then guess what? That means a large portion of those in the military would also and therein lies the problem. It’s happened in country after country …………. large portions of the military siding with their friends and families.
In our Revolution only about 10% actually put their lives on the line. Half the rest could have cared less and the remaining half sided with the British and actually formed “Tory Regiments” who fought against Washington. In spite of that, and with the help of the French, our “patriots” pulled it off.
Don’t think things can’t get so bad in the future that this country won’t be embroiled in physical turmoil. People will only take so much. As one who has fought under our flag, I hope I just don’t live to see it happen ………….. and thereby have to make a choice.
Our politicians would do well to wake up from their stupidity and see what’s happening. What I saw on a bumper sticker recently expresses it quite well.
“Too late for the ballot box. Too early for the revolution.”
Always Be Ready
October 21st, 2009
9:49 am
Cynthia,
If in some far distant fascist dictatorship there are 535 Politicians with homes and families; they will be the targets; we won’t be going after the military; we don’t blame the wind, we will put the blame on the fan. I do not foresee this; I think the Constitutional escape valves are working perfectly – Obama and his fascists want control and can’t get it, unless they used force, and they will not use force because we are armed. Remember in China Mao had to kill 50,000,000 people to get his way, Obama would have to kill 150,000,000 to get his way; this isn’t gonna happen. So they and we do they dance of Democracy, and if the past is any guide we will get it basically right – a few people will die along the way, there are nut cases on both sides.
and remember; Always Be Ready.
Ben
October 21st, 2009
10:36 am
JConservative, I know you place all of your faith and confidence in the modern, secular and godless institutions that dominate our modern world but remember all things go around in circles and that which is anachronistic today will be the in thing tomorrow. People are fickle, greedy and selfish; they will follow whatever and whomever best takes care of their most basic needs and wants.
Gold has been and will always be an economic cornerstone of every society, that’s not going to change but our society is going to change.
Also, I should have been more specific about the invaders in Iraq and Afghanistan. The American invading force is being drawn down every month and their numbers are in the thousands, eventually they’ll all vacate Iraq. In Afghanistan I should have specified the Russians(being the most recent invading force to be run out). The US is there by invitation to prop up a proxy regime that needs its’ protection to stay in power.
Common Sense
October 21st, 2009
10:59 am
Ms. Tucker:
One more thing:
I don’t know if you have ever taken the oath of office to the United States Government or not. I have twice (military and civilian) and the oath was not to the Congress, or the Supreme Court or to the President ……….. it was to the Constitution and to “ALL” enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC – a very sobering thought.
In my opinion, Congress, the President and even the Supreme Court can (and have) violated the Constitution. The ultimate arbitrator is the people and we have the right (if it ever gets this bad) and even the DUTY as the Declaration of Independence says, “to alter or abolish it”.
My prayer is this never happens …………… but it’s really not up to the people. It’s up to our Government.
Tim
October 21st, 2009
10:59 am
you are a good puppet.
Fred P.
October 21st, 2009
11:16 am
Likewise, I took an oath 20+ years ago to defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic…. not to the President or Congress. The Constitution of the United States is the ultimate law of the land. Period. If you think it’s ok to violate the 2nd Amendment, then it must be ok to violate the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights – including the First Amendment. What say you now?
You need to read up on your history of this country to understand what forced the Revolutionary War. You also need to read and understand the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers – the latter being one of the precursors to the Constitution.
Lastly, you state that “The domestic threat is also growing, fueled in part by Obama’s election as the nation’s first black president, according to specialists who study homegrown radical movements.” I’m not surprised that “specialists who study homegrown radical movements” have preconceived answers without statistical data or proof to support it. It’s nice to be able to simply attach a racism tag to whoever disagrees with the current president – but I think it goes MUCH deeper than that….. and I don’t think Ms. Tucker’s commentary has even scratched the surface
Mike L
October 21st, 2009
11:35 am
‘ But, really, folk, the government has nuclear weapons and F-16s. If by some convoluted Manchurian takeover, the feds wanted a dictatorship, would your hunting rifles stop them?
(Tell that to my father. He walks with a limp compliments of a Vietcong sniper armed with an 1893 Russian 7.62 by 54R Nagant rifle. Or you could go back in history to the 1879 battle of Isandlwana between the rifle armed British 24th Regiment of Foot , and a 4,000 man Zulu Impi armed primarily with spears. The Zulus used overwhelming numbers to defeat a superbly trained infantry unit. In warfare numbers make the difference. And nuclear weapons use on our own soil would kill both sides, some immediately, some later. Who wants to be the conqueror of a poisoned landscape, kind of defeats the purpose of conquest….. doesn’t it.
BambiB
October 21st, 2009
12:07 pm
>> the government has nuclear weapons and F-16s…. would your hunting rifles stop them?
Dunno. How about we ask the Vietnamese and Afghanis? Rifles in the hands of the People would be even more effective against our own military gone rogue than in those theaters simply because the supply line would be within the borders – not out of theater.
But more than that, what if a significant portion of those flying the F-16s and in control of the nuclear weapons are Oath Keepers? That’s the target audience – active duty cops and military who have sworn an oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If even a small percentage actually honor their oath, America will remain (relatively) safe.
Chris Broe
October 21st, 2009
12:23 pm
Lincoln told the Confederacy: “You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect and defend it. You can forbear the assault upon it; I cannot shrink from the defense of it”.
Fox News is midwifing a rebirth of Treason. They call themselves the Born Again After-Birthers. (I think). These hi-tech secessionists are trying to invoke the founding defiance that lives in America’s collective sense of liberty. Birther Glenn Beck’s latest molestation of truth is being spun as “Refounding America”. (I guess he’s the fondling father).
When Glenn Beck cried on the air about the death of the christian right, he must have gone into shock. (His emotional instability is well documented). He is fomenting rebellion for the sake of his own delusions of what a republic should be. He could not conjure such reckless oaths without political support. He is a spin-monkey from hell whose ancestors were the confederate surrender monkeys unleashed in 1865. Monkey see, monkey do. (He appeals to people who think that leveraging secession is not just a reasonable Plan B, but a dang good idear!)
Glenn Beck’s new spin is to blame Obama for all America’s ills of the past seven score and four years ago….yes, since Appomatox in 1865.
Carpetbaggers were bad enough. But Teabaggers? (War is hell).
I think the night Glenn Beck cried on the air was the anniversary of when they captured Jefferson Davis with a blue dress on. (The only difference between then and now is that the stain was on our flag).
America was ready for a black president. Glenn Beck’s Born-Again After-Birthers were not.
Glenn Beck is recklessly impuning our president’s solemn oath to preserve protect and defend.
BTW: F-16s and nukes would be useless against any civil insurrection.
Twitter: Glenn Beck is a cheeky monkey.
Common Sense
October 21st, 2009
12:30 pm
To Chris Broe:
Were our founding fathers “patriots” or “treasonists” …………… it all depends on who wins doesn’t it ……………
) If they had lost, as a British citizen you probably wouldn’t even remember Washington’s name and if you did it would only be because you were taught he was hung as a traitor to the Crown.
By the way, since you brought it up, do you know why Jefferson Davis, Lee, et al were not tried and hung for treason? Look it up. The Attorney General (and two appointed special prosecutors) all believed they would lose in court and nothing would have been worse than to have savaged a portion of one’s landscape in battle and then to have lost in court.
Deo Vindce !!
Common Sense
October 21st, 2009
12:33 pm
Excuse me:
Deo Vindice !
USAFNodak
October 21st, 2009
1:24 pm
So, after all this time, with liberals saying, “only the military and the police should have guns”, we now have the liberals worried about the police and the military having guns. Well, liberals love people with guns who think like they do, but despise anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their ideology and believes in the right to kee and bear arms. They’ve got themselves in a bit of a quandry with the Oath Keepers, many of whom are police and military and have guns (plus other weapons). The liberals have always tended to trust in bigger, more powerful government. This was only because they thought that this meant the military and police would support the liberals in charge for everything the liberal wanted to push. Now they are seeing that this may not be entirely the case and they start freaking out about it.
As to using nukes and F16’s Ms. Tucker; remember, liberals and conservatives live in some of the same areas in this country. Oh, I suppose you could ignore the biggest cities which have more liberals than conservatives, but how do you drop an nuke in a conservative dominated suburb without affecting the inner city as well. How stupid are you? And you are supposedly an informed and educated columnist? You must have cheated on your college exams or you answered with what your liberal professors wanted to hear, rather than writing about the truth.
BRN169
October 21st, 2009
1:42 pm
Cynthia doesn’t seem to understand that the problem is not with the color of his skin, the problem is with the Marxism of his politics… The tree of liberty has not looked more wilted in my lifetime than it does today, I would be worried if the people weren’t getting a little restless…
Chris Broe
October 21st, 2009
1:53 pm
Benjamin Franklin said it best in the movie, 1776: “The only illegal rebellion is “their” rebellion. “Our” rebellion is perfectly legal.
Hollywood trumps the founding fathers.
Glenn Beck is a cheeky monkey, though. That’s for sure. That’s for dang sure.
SaveOurRepublic
October 21st, 2009
1:58 pm
For you Neocon/Bushbots and deceived “Liebrals” who think defending the Constitution and pressing for adherence thereto is “seditious” or “traitorous”….to whom to you believe loyalty is due?? Standing tall for our (quickly eroding) Constitutional Republic and against tyranny (the rising police state,etc.) is as patriotic as it gets!
Bobzilla
October 21st, 2009
3:34 pm
Apparently, winning a Pulitzer does not require research or accuracy.
The Secret Service already made her correct her article.
Oath Keepers was started after the people of New Orleans were disarmed by local police as ordered by Mayor Ray Nagan. It happened. In addition, National Guard and Reserve Troops were used to keep everyone locked in the Superdome, creating a concentration camp environment. All they had to do was walk across the bridge, yet they were held there by our own armed troops.
Our armed forces are required to disobey any unlawful order. Oath Keepers is seeking to identify a specific set of unlawful orders so that they can be recognized by our police and military and therefore will be appropriately disobeyed the next time.
Nuclear weapons and F16s have nothing to do with holding ground, which a requirement to achieve any military victory. Holding ground is accomplished by men with guns.
I am not sure how Cynthia won her Pulitzer, but this article is an embarrassment.
RAMBLE ON!!!
October 21st, 2009
5:04 pm
Skram30082, I think you’re being a bit too critical on that one. It still has a catchy tone to it.
They deserve to be in…The Mama’s and Papa’s, The Byrds?
Joe
October 21st, 2009
5:37 pm
Cynthia is just another small mind, attacking what she doesn’t understand and has no desire to do so. She relies on the old fallback cry of “Racism!” when she has nothing intelligent to say. No one buys the race card anymore. If this is what passes for a Pulitzer Prize winner, then I have as much respect for that award as I do the Nobel Peace Prize.
Common Sense
October 21st, 2009
5:44 pm
To Chris Broe:
Regarding your 1:53 comments you make my 12:30 points. If you win …….. all is forgiven “and” you get to write the history …….
)
Lee
October 21st, 2009
7:01 pm
Cynthia, I think what you fail to realize is that the use of that nuclear weapon or F-16 against US citizens is illegal. If it ever came down to someone giving that order to use those weapons against US citizens, I would hope that an Oathkeeper be the one with his finger on the button or at the controls of that plane.
Oathkeepers don’t repledge to defend the Constitution even if it means disobeying orders, they pledge to defend the Constitution even if it means disobeying an ILLEGAL order. As a Republic, the law is the highest authority.
Ektarr
October 21st, 2009
7:43 pm
I took that Oath back in ‘65…the one to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC…” [Emphasis added]
. . . I do not recall that it came with an expiration date.