Why Oathkeeper = anti-NAZI: Enabling Act of 1933

A recent article from Mother Jones, which you can read HERE entitled "Oath Keepers and the Age of Treason" discusses an American soldier in a rather demeaning light. Although the article has a pretense of balance - it seems to me that the writer doesn't understand that American soldiers take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. Why was the domestic part added to the oath? Perhaps because DOMESTIC ENEMIES are a reality that certain powers would prefer you ignore by labeling those calling your attention to them "conspiracy theorists?"

Here're a few snippets from the article:
" Oath Keepers is officially nonpartisan, in part to make it easier for active-duty soldiers to participate, but its rightward bent is undeniable, and liberals are viewed with suspicion. At lunch, when I questioned my tablemates about the Obama-Hitler comparisons I'd heard at the conference, I got a step-by-step tutorial on how the president's socialized medicine agenda would beget a Nazi-style regime.

I learned that bringing guns to Tea Party protests was a reminder of our constitutional rights, was introduced to the notion that the founding fathers modeled their governing documents on the Bible, and debated whether being Muslim meant an inability to believe in and abide by—and thus be protected by—the Constitution. I was schooled on the treachery of the Federal Reserve and why America needs a gold standard, and at dinner one night, Nighta Davis, national organizer for the National 912 Project, explained how abortion-rights advocates are part of a eugenics program targeting Christians. I also met Lt. Commander Guy Cunningham, a retired Navy officer and Oath Keeper who in 1994 took it upon himself to survey personnel at the 29 Palms Marine Corps base about their willingness to accept domestic missions and serve with foreign troops. A quarter of the Marines he polled said that they would be willing to fire on Americans who refused to disarm in the face of a federal order—a finding routinely cited by militia and patriot groups worried about excessive government powers."

later in the article...

...Chip Berlet, of the watchdog group Political Research Associates, who has studied right-wing populist movements for 25 years, equates Rhodes' rhetoric to yelling fire in a crowded theater. "Promoting these conspiracy theories is very dangerous right now because there are people who will assume that a hero will stop at nothing." What will happen, he adds, "is not just disobeying orders but harming and killing."

What I find interesting is the the lack of alarm the reporter shows for the willingness of such a large number of active duty Marines to fire on American civilians. Why doesn't the reporter find that alarming? Why is the reporter just now being "schooled" on the treachery of the Federal Reserve? Why is the reporter so naive? I think American journalism needs a little more critical thought sprinkled in with their Kool-Aid.

Here is a link to Oathkeepers.

Here is a vid from Sheriff Richard Mack:


Here is Sheriff Mack's website: CLICK HERE

The enabling act of 1933. What is it? You can read about it here. Here's an excerpt:

"On March 23, 1933, the newly elected members of the German Parliament (the Reichstag) met in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin to consider passing Hitler's Enabling Act. It was officially called the 'Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich.' If passed, it would effectively mean the end of democracy in Germany and establish the legal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.

The 'distress' had been secretly caused by the Nazis themselves in order to create a crisis atmosphere that would make the law seem necessary to restore order. On February 27, 1933, they had burned the Reichstag building, seat of the German government, causing panic and outrage. The Nazis successfully blamed the fire on the Communists and claimed it marked the beginning of a widespread uprising.

On the day of the vote, Nazi storm troopers gathered in a show of force around the opera house chanting, "Full powers - or else! We want the bill - or fire and murder!!" They also stood inside in the hallways, and even lined the aisles where the vote would take place, glaring menacingly at anyone who might oppose Hitler's will.

Just before the vote, Hitler made a speech to the Reichstag in which he pledged to use restraint.

"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures...The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one." - Hitler told the Reichstag."

Check out this vid - history repeats - how did Hitler LEGALLY seize power? Well there was high unemployment, a false flag attack on the Reichstag, the identification of scapegoats (similar to 911 Truth advocates, Gun rights activists, and those supporting freedom of speech today in America.) He played on the fears of the middle classes... - well you get the drift. So the parallels are valid relative to America's present charged environment - also like NAZI Germany - a perpetual state of emergency. See time=5:30 specifically for a 911 parallel and pay close attention to the Enabling Act of 1933 - shifting dictatorial powers to Hitler - eliminating any checks and balances. (at time=6:40)

How did Hitler consolidate his rule?


Did you catch the line about the desire of the NAZIs to eliminate ideas? How, and I'm paraphrasing "Where books are burned eventually people will be burned? Internet censorship replaces fire with our modern technology - a la Winston Smith in George Orwell's 1984.

Did you notice the parallels with the Waffen SS and Blackwater/Xe? The parallel is that the WAFFEN part of SS means that they were armed - in other words they were armed despite rules where only the Army was to have such power - where in America our military is supposed to be under civilian rule-and how after the "Night of the Long Knives" the Waffen SS, now having enough power - took the opportunity to stike first and seize power for their insane masters?

Notice also- especially - that following the Enabling Act of 1933 that troops now swore allegiance to the leader (Fuehrer) instead of to their laws. Sound familiar? All the Oathkeepers are saying is that they refuse to be NAZIs!

If you think the Oathkeepers (Patriotic defenders of Bill of Rights and Constitution) are paranoid please keep the following video in mind where we hear an Amerikan NAZI admit willingness to murder his fellow citizens:


So, my patriotic flag-waving uniformed fellow citizens - will you keep your oath to the Constitution or will you join the NAZIs?
-----------
Note: I'm pissed I thought I brought up the "Age of Reason" with this previous post:
Summer of Rage: On Joe Stack and the coming of the Rage of Reason
-------
UPDATE MAY 19., 2010