Mr. Matthews,Doubt if the point will get across, but I'm past the point of sitting idly by . . .
I would like to offer you some encouragements as far as your "investigative journalism" goes.
In your October 20 segment on Oath Keepers, your bias showed through as clearly as day. Your questions to Stewart Rhodes were not really questions, but pre-formulated statements in question form. You constantly referred to the Oath Keepers as "armed people" and even called them "vigilantes". When Rhodes tried to answer your questions, you constantly interrupted, then went on to ask him the same questions over and over again, because you didn't want the answers he was giving you. You wanted the answers you had already formulated in your mind. However, when you allowed Mark Potok to answer, you did not interrupt him, but let him speak freely except for, I believe, one time.
You did not challenge Potok when he said that the SPLC does not lump Oath Keepers together with white supremacists. Indeed, research the SPLC web sight, and you will find such insinuations. Besides that, the title given to the segment states that the SPLC has Oath Keepers in a blog called "Hatewatch". Proper research and understanding of Oath Keepers and their underlying principles would prove to you that they are not about hate at all.
Now, on to some of your questions for Stewart Rhodes and the answers.
You asked about the firepower to repel the government. Rhodes answered that it's not about firepower, it's about not following orders. Oath keepers is about standing down when unconstitutional orders are given, not fighting.
You asked why he is trying to recruit law enforcement and military, who are "all armed". He said it is because these are the people who will be given the unconstitutional orders. I would like to venture a couple of other thoughts. Number one, you need to stop complaining about these people being armed, because you pay them to protect you and defend your liberties. Another consideration as to why it is these people who are recruited is that these are the ones who took the oath to defend the . Hence the name "Oath Keepers".
You stated that you don't care about the philosophy, you just don't like the idea of these people being armed. See above answer and again remember what Rhodes said; this is not about fighting, it is about non-compliance. Nor is it a "war footing" as you called it.
You accuse Rhodes of creating a mindset. This point I will concede, though I disagree with you as to what mindset he is creating. He is trying to create a mindset of awareness of the Constitution and its provisions, as well as a mindset to resist any orders which are against the Constitution.
Mark Potok made a comment about Oath Keepers being paranoid about militias and the like being labeled as right-wing terrorists. This is not paranoia. The Department of Homeland Security has already issued a document containing such statements. Again, you did not challenge Potok.
You constantly ignored Stewart Rhodes' references to history. If it has happened before, it can happen again. Perhaps you should go take a few more history classes.
You continued during the entire discourse to come back to the idea of armed people. You seem to be a bit paranoid yourself. You forget that it has always been armed people who have fought and died for you to have the freedom to say whatever you want. Some of those people defied the government (think ). Without them doing so, you would not be able to spout such lies and bias as you currently do. You forget that those of us who are legally armed are the most law-abiding citizens, and that there are nearly 100million of us currently. One third of the population.
Perhaps if you would study history and facts altogether, you would be able to do true investigative journalism instead of simply spouting off liberal, bedwetting, liberal lapdog hysterics. Be willing to have your ideas challenged. Grow some balls and act like a real man.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Sipsey Street Irregulars posted about Steward Rhodes of Oath Keepers being on "Hardball with Chris Matthews. Here is a transcript.
I was rather angry, so following is the e-mail I sent to Chris Matthews, if he even reads it.