Continued Confusion by the Media about the Oathkeepers

Say I meet one person from a group and using information from that one person decide to write a story.  How accurate do you think it would be?  Yeah, exactly.  But that's not going to stop Justine Sharrock of Mother Jones.  Nope - she writes an article based on an eager 25-yr old Army Private First Class - who thinks the CIA may be listening to his phone calls.  Hate to bust your bubble of delusion, PFC, but they got better things to do.  Nor does she interview, or even state she made an attempt, the founder of Oathkeepers, Stewart Rhodes.  What are a few of the outrageous oaths that are reaffirmed bu Oathkeepers?

He laid out 10 orders an Oath Keeper should not obey, including conducting warrantless searches, holding American citizens as enemy combatants or subjecting them to military tribunals (a true Oath Keeper would have refused to hold José Padilla in a military brig), imposing martial law, blockading US cities, forcing citizens into detention camps ("tyrannical governments eventually and invariably put people in camps"), and cooperating with foreign troops should the government ask them to intervene on US soil. In Rhodes' view, each individual Oath Keeper must determine where to draw the line.

I'm guessing that Ms. Sharrock doesn't have any qualms about our government forcing any of these acts on the populace?  The Oathkeepers are a loose-knot group of active, retired and former military and law enforcement who at some point have all taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.  They're not an armed militia, there are no dues, hidden ceremonies, animal sacrifices, or even Christmas parties.

There are scores of patriot groups, but what makes Oath Keepers unique is that its core membership consists of men and women in uniform, including soldiers, police, and veterans. At regular ceremonies in every state, members reaffirm their official oaths of service, pledging to protect the Constitution—but then they go a step further, vowing to disobey "unconstitutional" orders from what they view as an increasingly tyrannical government.

Again, I don't believe these folks are alone in their beliefs.  Their oath in no way says they will fight the government - but only that they will not cooperate or enforce unconstitutional acts.  Oh my - they must be a radical fringe bus of nuts!  She does lay out Mr. Rhodes bio without an apparent bias.

Rhodes, 44, is a constitutional lawyer—his 2004 Yale Law School paper, "Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status," won the school's award for best paper on the Bill of Rights. He's now working on a book tentatively titled We the Enemy: How Applying the Laws of War to the American People in the War on Terror Threatens to Destroy Our Constitutional Republic. Raised in the Southwest, Rhodes enlisted in the Army after high school, receiving an honorable discharge after he injured his spine during a night parachute jump. He enrolled at the University of Nevada and in 1998, after graduating, landed a job supervising interns for Congressman Ron Paul. Rhodes has also worked as a firearms instructor and a sculptor—for Vegas' MGM Grand hotel, he produced a fiberglass Minuteman statue—and has practiced law in small-town Montana ("Ivy League quality without Ivy League expense"). He writes a gun-rights column for SWAT magazine. He's a libertarian, staunch constitutionalist, and devout Christian.

Her issue seems to be that Oathkeepers reaffirm their oath to the Constitution, and not to the President - just as does every military enlistee. 

When Rhodes finished, Captain Larry Bailey, a retired Navy SEAL, Swift Boater, and founder of the anti-antiwar group Gathering of Eagles, asked the crowd to raise their right hands and retake their oath—not to the president, but to the Constitution.

This blogger may or may not have an association with the Oathkeepers.