The best investigative magazine in this country has published a report on Glenn Beck's favorite armed militia group, the Oath Keepers:
Oath Keepers is a little different from your run-of-the-mill right-wing militia groups in that it specifically courts soldiers and police:
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.
This is a great article and I suggest that you read it - MJ interviews several active-duty (and disabled) soldiers from the Oath Keepers as well as several members of the leadership of the organization.
The whole article is worth a read, but I'd really like to highlight a few more passages from the article which show the truth behind this movement of "staunch protectors of the Constitution". First off, where were these people during the Bush years?
Most of the men's gripes revolve around policies that began under President Bush but didn't scare them so much at the time. "Too many conservatives relied on Bush's character and didn't pay attention," founder Rhodes told me. "Only now, with Obama, do they worry and see what has been done. I trusted Bush to only go after the terrorists. But what do you think can happen down the road when they say, 'I think you are a threat to the nation?'"
Trusted Bush and Cheney, don't trust the liberal black man. Check. Well, at least the members are serious about protecting the Constitution and didn't join up because of some conspiracy theories:
Now Pray is both a Birther and a Truther. He believes he is following an illegitimate, foreign-born president in a war on terror launched by a government plot—9/11. He admires soldiers like Army reservist Major Stefan Frederick Cook, who volunteered for a deployment last May and then sued to avoid it—claiming that Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus unfit for command.
Sigh. Well, this is one guy in the Oath Keepers. The rest of the organization must believe strongly in the sanctity of the Constitution. Therefore they should have strong feeling about the wars we're in, about detention and torture, and about the wholly unconstitutional Patriot Act, right?
Oath Keepers steers clear of certain issues. Personally, Rhodes would prefer the list of objectionable orders to include detaining foreigners indefinitely at facilities like Guantanamo. And while he argues that torture should never be legal, the group takes no official stance on America's war on terror or overseas engagements. After an Oath Keeper who is also a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War touted IVAW repeatedly on Oath Keepers' Web forum, Rhodes deleted the guy's online testimonial. "The IVAW have their own totalitarian mindset," he told me. "I don't like communists any more than I like Nazis."
That is the single most damning statement in the entire article, in my opinion. "The group takes no official stance on America's war on terror or overseas engagements". In the end, we find that this group of people who have come together and take an oath to protect the Constitution don't have an official stance on the "war on terror" - the thing which is most responsible for the revocation of our Constitutional rights.
This is the reason that we can write them off as simply another right wing militia movement, albeit one with more weapons training and important members of society as members. MJ reports that as of mid-January Oath Keepers had 15,000 official members, and it is implied that there are ~1000 currently deployed soldiers in the Oath Keepers stationed overseas.
Again, I strongly recommend that you read the MJ article and if you like it, toss a little coin their way or subscribe. You won't regret it.