Glenn Greenwald Wingnuts

Greenwald Promotes Oath Keepers on 9/11 for Running Pro-Snowden Ads

To say that the Oath Keepers are a “coalition of current and former military, police, and other public officials” may be somewhat accurate, but that hardly tells the whole story.


Tweets aren’t necessarily endorsements, however in this case I think its safe to assume that it is given the subject matter. They’re pro-Snowden, after all.

Either Greenwald isn’t aware of who the Oath Keepers are, or he is and approves of their message.

To barely scratch the surface, the Oath Keepers are a right wing, libertarian militia that believes wild conspiracies about the president, the U.N., gun control, and FEMA concentration camps.

Here’s the Southern Poverty Law Center’s latest report on an Oath Keepers rally held barely three months ago in July.

There will be a workshop on colloidal silver — a substance that many on the radical right believe is a cure for all kinds of ailments that the government has kept secret from the people. In fact, the substance has no known medical use and, if used with the frequency that some radicals do, turns human skin blue.

There will be seminars on Agenda 21, a United Nations sustainability plan that has no legal enforcement mechanisms or requirements, but that the radical right is convinced is a secret plot to impose socialism on the United States.

There will be representatives from the John Birch Society — a primary proponent of the Agenda 21 conspiracy theory, the idea that fluoridation of water is a Communist plot, and the charge that President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a Communist agent. Also scheduled to attend are Sheriff Richard Mack, a long-time darling of the antigovernment “Patriot” movement who has been encouraging county sheriffs to resist federal gun laws, and Chuck Baldwin, a far-right pastor and “constitutionalist” who moved to Montana several years ago to battle the incursions of the federal government.

Also featured will be training sessions on hand-to hand combat, nighttime military patrols, survival firearms, and preparation of “bug-out bags” — all of these an obvious reflection of the radical right’s obsessive fear that the government is about to move against the American people, seizing their guns and ending liberty.

While the Oath Keepers deny that they have any connections to him, former Pennsylvania Police Chief Mark Kessler sometimes wore Oath Keepers clothing while filming himself shooting targets which he referred to as Pelosi (as in Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House Minority Leader).

It’s not a surprise that they are prepared to turn Snowden into a hero, and I suppose it shouldn’t be a surprise that Greenwald will promote them for doing so. What is surprising, or at least revealing, is that he did so today.

The obvious rebuttal will be that agreeing with some of their views does not mean you agree with all of their views, but I consider that to be a cop-out. And in the case of the Oath Keepers, you would be endorsing one view out of a thousand bad ones. It’s a tacit endorsement.

On the other hand, maybe Greenwald agrees that President Obama is going to usurp your liberty by taking away your guns and opening the door to non-existent U.N. armies who will throw you in a FEMA camp under Agenda 21. Only he can clarify that. It is a slippery slope from claiming the U.S. government is watching every single thing you say and do, including those explicit sexts, to saying they will implement a plot to end all liberty.

Since Greenwald chose to promote the Oath Keepers for running pro-Snowden ads on today of all days, even though the story he linked to was published in July, I should point out that the Oath Keepers are also 9/11 truthers.

The founder of the Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, is a former aide to Ron Paul and has made numerous appearances at Ron Paul’s website and Alex Jones’ InfoWars.

Not coincidentally, the Oath Keepers were founded in March of 2009 shortly after President Obama took office.

  • adreatosi

    Greenwald post is simply descriptive of the event that the poster was promoted. He’s not making any praise or claiming affiliation or support of the group. Anything that supports Snowden against the treasonous elite system is positive work in my book. If you want to try to attack Greenwald you’ll have to be more creative. Your post is only backfiring on your credibility.

    • CygnusX1isaHole

      The Daily Banter crowd is so amped up with hatred for Greenwald for exposing the illegal surveillance state presently under the authority of their demigod Obama that they don’t require a legitimate reason to morph into a pack of ravenous howling hyenas.

      This is what extremism looks like.

      Partisanship is a mental illness.

      • Sabyen91

        The Cygnus crowd is so full of Obama hatred that he has to disagree with everybody on the left about everything…unless they have bowed down to Jane Hamsher.

    • Sabyen91

      It is not very descriptive. It is like calling the KKK a group of concerned citizens, true to an extent but totally misleading..

  • Kevin Morin

    Glenn Greenwald is a principled defender of human liberties and a hero to anyone who loves the Constitution and….who am I kidding, he’s a opportunistic douchenozzle who cozies up to right-wing crazies and racists.

  • kfreed

    A two-fer? Chez takes Libertarian Glenn Greenwald of Koch-funded Cato Institute to the woodshed over his Oath Keepers promotion as well, though let’s not kid ourselves that Greenwald “didn’t know”… RW militias are right up Ron/Rand Paul’s crooked ally:

    Good for both of you. This time I’ll refrain from repeating comments over there over here:)

    The evidence for Greenwald being a right-wing mole is quickly piling up, isn’t it? If there’s a liberal out there still claiming that Glenn Greenwald is a civil libertarian, please print this out, roll it up, and smack them with it. If they still want to play coy, you’ll know it’s a Paulbot bagger faking it.

    [Wonder when the “media” will catch on… ROFL.]

  • BlueTrooth

    There’s pressure on/within/around the FPF to produce some real examples of government abusing the NSA system. While they tried to link back to the Bush era violations, there’s that pesky “housecleaning” and reform that took place 2008-2009. Looks like they want some “witnesses” and Oathkeepers has just the membership to help that cause, am I right? Tall tales come out of that group. Next thing will be stories about “Freeman” militia having their sovereignty violated, or something.

    • nellcote

      so like NSA swiftboaters?

  • Democats and Demodog

    I wish Greenwald and Snowden would just go away? Well, Snowden already has.

  • Christopher Foxx

    Either Greenwald isn’t aware of who the Oath Keepers are, or he is and approves of their message.

    He may very well know exactly who they are. He may very well not approve of their message. Both are irrelevant to Greenwald, for whom the only consideration is “does this further my agenda of glorifying myself?”

    • kfreed

      “He may very well not approve of their message”

      Well there goes my promise not to repeat my comment. I’ll make it a compromise and only repeat a fraction of it…

      If you know anything at all about the Fraud Pauls, to which Greenwald is
      glued, you’re aware that they travel in anti-government militia, white
      supremacist, conspiracy theorist John Birch Society Tea Party circles.
      THAT is the connection between Greenwald and the Oath Keepers.

      Not to mention, Libertarian Glenn Greenwald of Koch-funded Cato Institute made a point of linking to Oath Keepers via Koch-owned – not a coincidence.

      The rest is here, with links and plenty of background informing us that Greenwald is not at all opposed to the Oath Keeper’s message, considering the company he keeps:

      May I suggest a thorough reading of all the comments over there?

  • OsborneInk

    The Oath Keepers have been trying to form alliances with pacifists and libertarian-progressives for YEARS. I’ve been tracking the issue — here is one example.

    • kfreed

      I’ve made it my mission in life to get it through liberals’ thick skulls that Libertarian Glenn Greenwald of Koch-sponsored Cato Institute is a right-wing Tea Party mole and that Ron/Rand Paul are not “civil libertarians” in any sense of the word. It took Greenwald, Snowden, Assange, and the Fraud Pauls practically goose-stepping across our faces to finally get the point across.

      Thanks for this:

      “Bradley and the Birthers: a Manning-Militia Mix?”

  • Schneibster

    Greenwald is no libertarian; he’s a Libertarian. He’s right wing. Always has been. Supported Wrong Paul for President and supports Rant Paul in 2016. He’s trying to discredit Obama to get Republicant-Amurcn teatraitors elected in 2014 and stop Obama from turning the US liberal. He’s against war because he doesn’t want to pay any taxes, because he’s rich or trying to get that way. He’s a pig.

    • WiscoJoe

      Country Club Libertarianism

      • Schneibster

        And fresh water economics.

    • OsborneInk

      Glibertarian? Libertardian? So many nuances of the term.

      • Schneibster

        I think of libertarian as anti-authoritarian, or social libertarian, and Libertarian as member of the US Libertarian Party, an offshoot of the US Republican Party, generally in the last half of the last century and all of this one the conservatives.

        As I said, the Libertarians are not libertarians.

        I am a libertarian. I would gag myself with caterpillars before becoming a Libertarian.

    • Democats and Demodog

      If he supports the Pauls, that also makes him an idiot.

      • Richard_thunderbay

        If a Greenwaldian were here, he’d angrily point out that his columns and tweets about Ron Paul during the 2012 GOP primaries explicitly state that he wasn’t officially endorsing Paul.

        That said, I’d sum up Greenwald’s Paul writing this way: thousands of words explaining the ways that Paul was more “progressive” than the despicably evil baby killer Obama, with a few vague sentences tossed in telling his readers that Paul had some drawbacks that he wasn’t going to go into detail about because they entailed him writing about topics he wasn’t interested in.

        I’ve often wondered if Greenwald would have explicitly endorsed Paul if those racist newsletters hadn’t come out (Greenwald admitted they were “troubling”), though I imagine he was always going to straddle the fence, giving a non-endorsement that read like an endorsement just so he could maintain his “progressive” cred.

        I’m guessing now that he’ll be more overt about pushing “libertarian” GOPers, given the groundwork he’s laid with Snowden’s stolen documents.

        • kfreed

          Ah, yes… the non-endorsement endorsement. That should have been the first clue that Libertarian Glenn Greenwald of Koch-funded Cato Institute was a ginormous fraud (not to mention the deep-throated Koch-sponsored Citizens United defense).

          I thought Tim Wise was going to suffer an aneurysm over it. Can’t say I blamed the man for the language he used (still a good read/not safe for work):

          “Of Broken Clocks, Presidential Candidates, and the Confusion of Certain White Liberals”

  • Richard_thunderbay

    When you think about it, Greenwald’s columns are totally consistent with what these guys stand for. Fear and paranoia about government, to the point of wanting to shut it down. As has been noted, the Snowden stuff has gone way, way beyond anything that could possibly be classified as “whistleblowing” to actively trying to undermine the government.

    • Schneibster

      That was clear when it was revealed he had stolen IDs and used them to access information he was not authorized to view, much less copy. That’s way over the line from whistleblower to spy.

      • Democats and Demodog

        Would you also call him an ‘attention whore’?

  • nicole

    Add another hashmark to the ratfucker column.

    It’s long been clear that Greenwald is no Liberal. Certainly it’s been clear since he came out in favor of the CU decision in 2010. How long will it take his supposedly liberal acolytes to catch on?!

  • missliberties

    Fuck You Glenn Greenwald. That is all.

  • WiscoJoe

    “A coalition of current and former military, police, and other public officials” = Oath Keepers

    Is Greenwald deliberately trying to mislead his twitter followers, knowing most of them won’t actually click through to read the article? Why go out of your way to try to whitewash this group as “a coalition” when you could just say “Oath Keepers”?

    It’d be like saying “A coalition of current and former congressmen, business leaders, and other scholars” when referring to ALEC.

    Why the obfuscation?

    • missliberties

      He doesn’t descriminate. He appeals to all groups??? His favorite past time is defending Nazi’s.

      • Democats and Demodog

        Why does it not bother him that Nazi’s don’t approve of gay people?

        • Norbrook

          Because they pay him.

          Mr. Hale, for his role in the shootings, was sued by a number of
          survivors. This included a case filed by two teenage Orthodox Jewish
          boys. And another case filed by a Black minister. These people were
          selected by Benjamin Smith because they looked like the religious/ethnic
          minorities they are.

          And Glenn Greenwald called them ‘odious and repugnant’ for suing his client–

          • missliberties

            In the liberal sense you can say everyone has a right to free speech, including Nazi’s. That how he glosses this over. He wants to preach his message of nihilism to all groups. You see. Very inclusive.

    • Maike Hudson

      … or like, as someone on Little Green Footballs said, “The Mafia is a coalition of business-minded immigrants, pursuing the American Dream and emphasizing family values.”

      • beulahmo

        LOL! Perfect.

      • nathkatun7

        Absolutely delicious humor!

    • D_C_Wilson

      How about “local community members who like campfires and clean linens” when referring to the KKK?

  • Badgerite

    Please don’t tell me that Greenwald is a ‘journalist’. He sucks up to these types because these are the type of people that eat propaganda like he dishes out for breakfast.

  • BernardKingIII

    Yes, the Oath Keepers are afraid of things that are not likely to happen. And some of their members probably believe weird conspiracy theories. But that’s not unusual. (In 2006, 37 percent of Democrats believed George Bush was responsible for 9/11). People are free to be a kooky if they want to. We do live in America after all.

    But I see nothing “nutty” with an organization like Oath Keepers whose mission is to defend the Constitution, and whose members commit themselves to disobeying unconstitutional orders. (Would you prefer they obey an unconstitutional order?) Personally, we should all be relieved that there are good people in law enforcement (Oath Keepers or not) who even bother to care whether the government is ordering them to do something unconstitutional.

    You don’t have to believe the gubmint is coming to put us all in FEMA camps to appreciate law enforcement officers caring about the Constitutionality of their actions.

    • Badgerite

      Here is the thing. Their expertise is law enforcement. Not law and certainly not constitutional law. I don’t go to a dentist to fix my car for a reason. And I don’t go to a car mechanic to fill dental cavities for the same reason. In our system, it is the Supreme Court of the United States that determines the constitutionality of a law, not local law enforcement. And thank God for that.

      • WiscoJoe

        Exactly. The Oath Keepers care so much about obeying the Constitution that they have convinced themselves a military coup would be Constitutional.

        • BernardKingIII

          That is ridiculous. The organization advocates non-violence and civil disobedience of unconstitutional orders.

          • WiscoJoe

            The ACLU advocates non-violence and civil disobedience of unconstitutional orders. The Oath Keepers stockpile weapons and began to worry about unhinged conspiracy theories after a Democrat was elected President. It is indeed ridiculous.

          • WiscoJoe

            “Every dictatorship in the history of mankind, whether it is fascist, communist, or whatever, has always set aside normal procedures of due process under times of emergency…We can’t let that happen here. We need to wake up!” -Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers.

            Totally sounds like a group that wants to ‘wake up’ and fight a ‘dictatorship’ through non-violence and civil disobedience.

          • Jan Civil


          • OsborneInk

            “Advocates non-violence” — which is weird, because members keep turning up involved in acts of violence.

          • Rob26

            Here’s ‘non-violent’ Oathkeeper Mark Kessler? Do you trust him to “defend the constitution”? Maybe it’s just me, but he really does seem a bit “nutty.”


          • Felonious Grammar

            What a terrible actor. He had to read his script. There wasn’t even any real emotion in his delivery. He is trying to make something of himself with this cheap display.

            So sad.

          • Badgerite

            And who determines what is an unconstitutional order? Why they do, of course. So my local cop tells me what the Constitution means. And what if the next town’s local cop disagrees with that? And the next towns? And onward. I’ll tell you what happens then. There is then NO constitutional law. No legal, philosophical or political framework or principles that tie us together as a people. We then become people who live under the control of the local guy with the gun. That is not the Constitution. And if you are engaging in civil disobedience, you do not do it with a gun. The two things are contradictory.

      • BernardKingIII

        The Supreme Court does not decide the Constitutionality of issues in a wide number of cases. For example, Federal Courts won’t rule on whether the President can go to war without Congressional authorization – citing the political question doctrine. Furthermore, other issues are not even allowed to be litigated if the President believes they would threaten national security interests. There are a plethora of ways creative executive officials can avoid having the constitutionality of their actions challenged in court, e.g. when the NSA avoided rulings on their upstream data collection and warrantless wiretapping by citing the plaintiff’s inability to prove standing. Recently appointed FBI Director Comey reportedly resigned from the DOJ rather than follow what he believed to be an unconstitutional order from President Bush. He was doing exactly what the Oath Keepers advocate. I cannot see anything “nutty” about this.

        • nicole

          Knock it off. Defending this group is ridiculous. Did you even read the damn article?

        • WiscoJoe

          Is it nutty for a police officer to determine that the Brady Law was unconstitutional and decide to not enforce the law? Is this Constitutional?

        • formerlywhatithink

          Recently appointed FBI Director Comey reportedly resigned from the DOJ rather than follow what he believed to be an unconstitutional order from President Bush.

          Care to show any evidence of this?

          • ak1287

            That’d be weird, considering he was JUST sworn in a week ago.
            As a matter of fact, the most recent example of an FBI director refusing to carry out an order because he believed it to be unconstitutional (actually, a few orders) was Director Mueller.
            Under Bush.

          • Badgerite

            He can’t because Comey threatened to resign as did then FBI Director Mueller and some other DOJ people over the continuation of the warrantless NSA programs that were in operation until 2005 but ultimately did not. . This was the incident where Fredo ( Alberto Gonzales, then the AG) showed up in John Ashcroft’s hospital room after he had had surgery and tried to get him to reauthorize the program. Ashcroft refused. Due to pressure from these people, Bush , who prior to this had followed the advice of Office of Legal Council John Yoo and ran the program on his own authority as president, agreed to seek the approval of a FISA Court judge to continue it. Which was granted by one judge. But not by his successor. Then cam the 2008 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act.

          • JozefAL

            The key word in that quote is “reportedly.” Considering the fact that Comey announced, in April of 2005, his intent to resign effective that fall, it hardly seems credible to think someone would wait before resigning over following “an unconstitutional order.” Threaten to resign immediately or within a couple of days or within a month? Yeah. That’s sounds about right. But to wait SEVERAL months? Makes NO sense (except to a Greenwaldian apologist).

        • Kitty Smith

          Recently appointed FBI Director Comey reportedly resigned from the DOJ rather than follow what he believed to be an unconstitutional order from President Bush.

          I see what you did there.

        • kfreed

          You don’t see anything nutty about advocating violent insurrection and white supremacy (coincidentally founded in 2009 by former Ron Paul staffer)?

          “Oath Keepers and the Age of Treason – Glenn Beck loves them. Tea Partiers court them. Congressmen listen to them. Meet the fast-growing ‘patriot’ group that’s recruiting soldiers to resist the Obama administration.”

          Montana Human Rights Network (on Oath Keepers: white supremacists and violent insurrectionists):

          Batshit Crazy Roundup:

        • Badgerite

          Buddy, you got a whole lot of things wrong there. The constitutionality of the NSA’s upstream data collection was invalidated by the FISA Court in 2011. The standing issue had to do with NSA collection of phone records and that was ruled on by the Supreme Court. ( I believe or a district or appellate court). FBI Director Comey did not resign from the DOJ. He threatened to, along with then FBI Director Mueller and some other DOJ people, and since it was right before the 2004 election, Bush backed down. The program of wiretapping continued but they did at least get approval from a FISA judge for it. And here is the thing. No where in the Constitution do I see the phrase ‘Oath Keepers’. And certainly not ‘Oath Keepers’ combined with any phrase that is a grant of authority beyond just a private citizen. The Congress has certain prerogatives under the Constitution and so does the Executive. I don’t see any grant of authority to ‘Oath Keepers’. Since the early years of the Republic, the Supreme Court has been the final arbiter in this country of what is and what is not Constitutional. Not my local sheriff. You want to be civilly disobedient, then you get OUT of the sheriffs office to do it. As in resign. A sheriff does not have the authority to disobey the law.

    • ak1287

      As a law enforcement officer, I’ll tell you right now; there are hundreds of organizations that do a much better job than the Oath Breakers of making sure that the laws I enforce are constitutional.

    • sealiagh

      To quote tennis great John McEnroe: “You cannot be serious!!!!!”

    • Rita D. Lipshutz

      you clearly don’t know who the oathkeepers are. do you always defend white supremacists as just being kinda kooky? you do know that in the oath keepers “unconstitutional order” means any order issued by a black president, right? and do you actually think it would be fine if each and every person in law enforcement and the military got to decide individually which orders were “constitutional” and which not and act accordingly?
      and btw, people in the oath keepers generally do believe in FEMA camps as well as lots of other ludicrous conspiracy theories. again, either you are really unfamiliar with them, which i assure you i am not, or you are one of them or some similar extremist group and being as duplicitous about what you are really about as they tend to be. and if you think “oath keepers” and “good people in law enforcement” are the same people your head is lodged firmly up your ass.

    • OsborneInk

      “Disobeying unconstitutional orders” — you mean Terry Lakin refusing his deployment orders because of Obama’s birth certificate? Okay then, run along back to your racist friends now.

    • Christopher Foxx

      In 2006, 37 percent of Democrats believed George Bush was responsible for 9/11

      I still believe George W. Bush bears some responsibility for 9/11.

      Not in the “knew it was going to happen” way, but certainly in the “studiously failed to do his job, ‘covered his ass'” way.

    • Christopher Foxx

      You don’t have to believe the gubmint is coming to put us all in FEMA camps to appreciate law enforcement officers caring about the Constitutionality of their actions

      Yes, law enforcement officers who care about the Constitutionality of their actions are a good thing. But I thought you were talking about the Oath Keepers.

  • Art__VanDalay

    What a fucking dick/idiot he has turned into.

    • WiscoJoe

      I’ve been reading Greenwald since 2005 when he magically started to oppose Bush and reach out for a progressive audience. He’s always been a dick/idiot. Clickbait doesn’t write itself (and rats don’t f@#k themselves).

      • missliberties

        Yes. He has always been a dick/idiot. Starting when he baited liberals that people rejoicing in the election of the first black President belonged to a cult.

        I hate this man Glenn Greenwald. I know it’s wrong to hate, so I guess I will somehow have to live with myself over it.

        Honestly. ON a day like today 9/11, thinking of all the hell we went through to get rid of Bush, only to have Greenwaldians keep trashing Obama, as if he were Bush’s twin, It just completely infuriates me.

        • WiscoJoe

          It’s so transparent that it amazes me that more people haven’t figured it out. Definitely infuriariting. This is a bit reductive, but…

          Greenwald supports Bush through two elections, including in the 2004 election when Bush was pushing anti-same sex marriage legislation in various states in order to rile up his base. Greenwald lives in Manhattan and is cashing checks from the Cato Institute, so what does it matter if gay people in the flyover states have to face oppression in order to advance the Bush economic agenda of low taxes, privatization, and deregulation? The moment Bush is no longer politically popular, Greenwald has a quick epiphany and starts blogging from the left on a very narrow spectrum of civil liberty issues. He moves to Brazil to be with his boyfriend citing anti-gay discrimination in the United States as the reason his boyfriend cannot immigrate to the United States. He regularly uses this to criticize President Obama for not doing enough on gay rights. After DOMA is overthrown by the Supreme Court and the Obama Administration works to grant green cards and immigration status to same-sex couples, Greenwald no longer has any interest in moving back to the United States, now claiming he feels threatened by American for being a journalist (and conveniently ignoring that whole issue of owing back taxes). Cut to today, when Greenwald apparently shares an affiliation with a ‘coalition’ that is fighting against the sort of immigration reform that would make it easier for Greenwald’s partner to get US citizenship. All along, the people claiming to protect ideological purity on the left, nod along and applaud Greenwald for raising questions, apparently never realizing the questions he raise always seem to distract from actual progressive politics and goals.

          • missliberties

            Isn’t that THE definition of extreme Russian revolutionaires? Nihilism? Finding NOTHING to approve of in the established social order.

            I don’t remember seeing anyone take this nihilistic philsophy to such an obsessive extreme. ( Not that it matters, particularly, but I would guess it is related to extreme self loathing.)

            It is just tragic that so many folks are willing to buy into this garbage.

  • formerlywhatithink

    Either Greenwald isn’t aware of who the Oath Keepers are, or he is and approves of their message.

    Greenwald knows exactly who they are, but he’ll side with anyone who is willing to further his agenda.

    • WiscoJoe

      Aw, c’mon. Greenwald knows exactly who the Oath Keepers are- just “a coalition of current and former military, police, and other public officials.” Totally benign!

  • WiscoJoe

    Greenwald promotes an article from a Koch funded, ALEC affiliated magazine in order to bring positive attention to a far right-wing, pseudo-militia extremist group.

    • IrishGrrrl

      An organization created and run by a Paulite, and having in the past publicly agreed with Ron Paul on many issues (if not outright endorsing him)


      Conservative Pretending to be a Liberal